Cruising Place

Home , Cruising for sex, Cunningham Park, Forest Park (Queens), Her (dating app), Strack Pond

CRUISING PLACE

The Placemaking Practices of Men Who Have Sex with Men

John T. Bezemes

A demonstration of professional competence submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Urban Placemaking and Management School of Architecture Pratt Institute

May 2018

Received and approved:

______Date______Thesis Advisor Signature

______Thesis Advisor Name

______Date______Thesis Advisor Signature

______Thesis Advisor Name

______Date______Chairperson Signature

______Chairperson Name

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………….…….....………………………………………….1 1.1 Statement of the Issue………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 1.1.1 The Lawn on D & Times Square Pedestrian Plaza 1.2 Objective………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 1.3 Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5 1.3.1 Case Studies 1.3.2 Interviews 1.3.3 Spatial Typology 1.4 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 8 1.4.1 Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM 1.4.2 Cruising 1.4.3 Homosocialization Through Contact 1.4.4 Queer Heterotopia Chapter 2: CASE STUDIES…………………………………………………………………..………………………………………..16 2.1 A Sex Stop on the Way Home………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17 2.1.1 Cunningham Park, Queens, NY 2.1.2 Study Area Overview 2.1.3 The Woods 2.1.4 The Parking Lot 2.1.5 Interviews 2.2 A Gay Sex Playground………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….26 2.2.1 Belle Isle Reservation, East Boston, MA 2.2.2 Study Area Overview 2.2.3 The Parking Lot 2.2.4 The Promenade 2.2.5 The Tower 2.2.6 Interviews 2.3 A Gay Backyard…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..35 2.3.1 Forest Park, Queens, NY 2.3.2 Study Area Overview 2.3.3 The Red Trail 2.3.4 The Yellow Trail 2.3.5 Interviews 2.4 The Outdoor Bathhouse……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..45 2.4.1 The Back Bay Fens, Boston, MA 2.4.2 Study Area Overview 2.4.3 The Reeds 2.4.4 The Victory Gardens 2.4.5 Interviews 2.5 Cumulative Observations……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………53 Chapter 3: SPATIAL TYPOLOGY……………………………………………………………………………………………………..54 3.1 Types of Contact 3.2 Runway 3.3 Ramble 3.4 Maze 3.5 Cul-de-Sac 3.6 Shelter 3.7 Field Chapter 4: INFORMAL WAYFINDING……………………………………………………...... 70 Chapter 5: CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………….………………………………………..72 Chapter 6: RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………….….…………………………………………78 6.1 Unplanned Contact 6.2 Recognize the Value of Marginal Spaces 6.3 Without Fear of Persecution 6.4 Provide Discreet Wayfinding 6.5 Encourage & Support BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………….82 APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...86 A.1 Formal Interviews A.2 Demographic Maps A.3 Site Visit Notes A.4 Yelp Reviews

Figure 1: Miguel Angel Rojas, "Paquita" ...... 1 Figure 2: Excerpt from "Rules of The Lawn", The Lawn on D ...... 4 Figure 3: Thomas Roma’s ‘The Vale of Cashmere’ series...... 10 Figure 4: Cunningham Park, regional context ...... 17 Figure 5: Cunningham Park, neighborhood context ...... 18 Figure 6: Cunningham Park, study area ...... 19 Figure 7: Cunningham Park, parking lot ...... 21 Figure 8: Cunningham Park, woods ...... 20 Figure 9: Belle Isle Reservation, regional context ...... 26 Figure 10: Belle Isle Reservation, neighborhood context ...... 27 Figure 11: 2009 Google Street View of cruising in Belle Isle parking lot ...... 29 Figure 12: Belle Isle Reservation, parking lot ...... 29 Figure 13: Belle Isle Reservation, promenade and connected passageways ...... 30 Figure 14: Belle Isle Park ...... 31 Figure 15: Suffolk Downs drive-in theater ...... 31 Figure 16: Belle Isle Reservation, tower and bridge ...... 32 Figure 17: Forest Park, regional context ...... 36 Figure 18: Forest Park, neighborhood context ...... 37 Figure 19: Forest Park, study area ...... 38 Figure 20: Forest Park map, New York City Parks ...... 39 Figure 21: Forest park, the Red Trail ...... 39 Figure 22: Forest Park, the Yellow Trail ...... 40 Figure 23: Forest Park, men cruising the Yellow Trail ...... 41 Figure 24: The Back Bay Fens, regional context...... 47 Figure 25: The Back Bay Fens, neighborhood context ...... 48 Figure 26: The Back Bay Fens, study area overview ...... 49 Figure 27: The Back Bay Fens, reeds and passageways ...... 50 Figure 28: The Back Bay Fens, the Victory Gardens ...... 51 Figure 29: Forest Park Drive Runway ...... 59 Figure 30: Belle Isle Runway ...... 60 Figure 31: The Back Bay Fens Runway ...... 60 Figure 32: Forest Park Ramble ...... 62 Figure 33: Part of Ramble in Forest Park ...... 63 Figure 34: Back Bay Fens Maze ...... 65 Figure 35: Aerial of Back Bay Fens Maze, Google Earth ...... 65 Figure 36: A Cul-de-Sac in the Back Bay Fens ...... 67 Figure 37: Belle Isle Shelter ...... 69 Figure 38: Sex-related litter in Forest Park, Queens, NY...... 73 Figure 39: Cruising in Dongdan Park in Beijing, China ...... 74 Figure 40: No cruising sign, Los Angeles, CA ...... 76 Figure 41: Frank Hallam, En Masse Sunners seen from Pier 45, 1985...... 77

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I’d first like to thank my husband Hugo for being so supportive throughout this study, always pointing me in the right direction and never letting me give up. Next, I’d like to thank my friend and mentor Aurelie for giving me the courage to pursue the taboo and to not fear my own curiosity. Third is Nick, who through many happy hour drinks gave me some of the best advice about queer placemaking and the literature to back it all up. Additionally, I want to thank Michael, my advisor, for always pushing and challenging me to think two steps ahead. And finally, I’d like to thank David Burney for creating the Placemaking program at Pratt where I was given the resources and support to pursue my passions.

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1: Miguel Angel Rojas, "Paquita"

Now all systems tend to close off reflection, to block off horizon. This work wants to break up systems, not substitute another system, but to open up through thought and action towards possibilities by showing the horizon and the road. Against a form of reflection which tends towards formalism, a thought which tends towards an opening leads the struggle. – Henri Lefebvre

1.1 Statement of the Issue

There is a fundamental belief in placemaking practice that place is a reflection of people - their memories, values, culture, and socio-spatial traditions – and that successful placemaking is the manifestation of these traditions in public policy, public space, and ultimately public life. As placemaking professionals, we work to advocate for, facilitate, and operationalize placemaking practices of the people and communities we work with. An essential part of this effort is a recognition that effective placemaking involves collaboration between specialists and community stakeholders and this sentiment is expressed by institutions on the forefront of our professional and academic discourse. Let us look at one example from Project for Public Spaces (PPS). On their website, PPS’s definition of placemaking appears inclusive and altruistic - a rejection of the myopic elitism of top down urban planning, “when people of all ages, abilities, and socio-economic backgrounds can not only access and enjoy a place, but also play a key role in its identity, creation, and maintenance that is when we see genuine Placemaking in action.” (PPS, Project For Public Spaces, 2009) However, beneath a veneer of magnanimity in this discourse lies an implicit indifference to placemaking practices that subvert traditional norms.

What is emerging in current placemaking practice are methods and approaches that re- inforce existing power structures and that operate under the guise of public safety, cleanliness, and economic development with definitions of community that are abstract and idealistic. (Delany, 1999) Additionally, the language used in professional discourse to evaluate placemaking efficacy has the potential to undermine marginal social practices. PPS defines a “great place” through the lens of four categories: sociability, access & linkages, comfort & image, and usage & activities. These categories are subsequently broken down into “intangibles.” These intangibles, “safe”, “green”, “active”, “useful,” “welcoming”, “real”, etc. have embedded in them a critical morality. Words that are vague and relative like “real,” “safe,” “clean,” and “welcoming” become qualifiers for desirable activities in public space. This language prioritizes activities that fit into narrow, moral, and normative interpretations of place while ignoring more subversive and marginal placemaking practices, working against the creation of places that are equitable, inclusive, and just.

Placemaking professionals also emphasize activating space through programmatic inter- vention as a way to “improve” a place, guided by the belief that the most effective way to generate value in public space is to create a reason or excuse for people to be there by encouraging

activity, particularly economic, but also communal, political, and cultural activity. (PPS, 2005) In Place, an Introduction, Tim Creswell uses Yi-Fu Tuan’s analysis of a Wallace Stevens poem to illus- trate this same idea, “…the mere act of putting a jar on a hill produces a place which constructs the space around it. Wilderness becomes place.” (Creswell, 2014) In Life Between Buildings, as part of a critique of the desolate and inactive public spaces created by modernist architects and planners, Jan Gehl writes that activity in public space has the effect of perpetuating itself, “Some- thing happens, because something happens, because something happens.” (Gehl, 1971) PPS calls this the power of ten, “places thrive when users have a range of reasons (10+) to be there. These might include a place to sit, playgrounds to enjoy, art to touch, music to hear, food to eat, history to experience, and people to meet.” (PPS, n.d.) The assumption made in these three examples is that activity is a catalyst for even more activity and that an increase in activity results in a more robust public space. Much like Wallace’s jar, placemaking professionals use food trucks, movie nights, pop-up libraries, and markets to create a sense of place. However, these programmatic interventions are a symptom of a colonialist mentality within the placemaking profession that treats presumably dysfunctional, underutilized, or awkward public space as a clean slate, ready to be activated by a sublime collaboration between engaged communities and selfless professionals. What these interventions do indeed create is a reason for people to enter and stay in a place by encouraging a type of conspicuous consumption that leads to the commodification of place and trades genuine, organic placemaking for cheap marketing gimmicks.

1.1.1 The Lawn on D & Times Square Pedestrian Plaza

The Lawn on D, a gravel pit on the South Boston waterfront that was converted into, “an experimental event landscape that brings together different communities, audiences and area residents for innovative programming and events” (Signature Boston, 2018) opened to the public for the first time in 2014. The land is owned and managed by the Massachusetts Convention Cen- ter Authority. Their stated mission is, “to generate significant regional economic activity by attracting conventions, tradeshows, and other events to its world-class facilities while maximizing the investment return for the residents and businesses in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” (MCCA, 2016) The Lawn on D is marketed as a public amenity and is filled with activities to draw people in, including concessions, oversized games, a giant swing set that glows at night, and peri- odic events like concerts and private parties. It is also “powered” by Citizens United Bank who

pays $250,000 annually for the rights to have its name and logo incorporated into all promotional material, including the park’s moniker: The Lawn on D Powered by Citizens Bank. (Conti, 2016)The Lawn on D is open to the public between May 1st and October 31st and has become a fixture of the South Boston waterfront, drawing about 200,000 visitors annually. It also has a strict set of rules to obey while in the space. Some of these rules forbid certain activities, but two rules in particular stand out:

Figure 2: Excerpt from "Rules of The Lawn", The Lawn on D

Advertised as a public space, The Lawn on D operates more like a private adult playground. (Flint, 2014) In order to “play,” one must be there legitimately and idling is only allowed if a person has useful business. The implication here is that if a user is not actively engaged with the specified activities imposed on the space in a “useful” or “legitimate” manner, then The Lawn on D is not for them and is not actually public.

Beginning in 2007, a section of Broadway that runs through Times Square was closed to help relieve crowded sidewalks and create a generous public space that mimics a European piazza. (Times Square Alliance, 2018)In the decade since, the emergent Times Square plaza is saturated with activity. As of 2013, Times Square had a greater attendance than Disney World (TEA/AECOM, 2016), with 128,794,000 visitors between March 2012 and February 2013 – larger than the population of Mexico. (CIA, 2018)The pedestrian spaces created by the merger of several interstitial traffic islands are now occupied by vendors in shipping containers selling $8 beers and snacks that can only be enjoyed in designated areas. Only food and beverages from the vendors are allowed inside these spaces and anything from a nearby Walgreens or bodega is forbidden. The feeling of being in the plaza mimics the circulation spaces at an amusement park rather than a European piazza. Times Square’s infamous identity as a sexualized public space with pornography theaters and pay-by-the hour hotels has dissolved into mythology, forever tied to “the bad old days.”

(Macek, 2006) (Rofes, 2001) The incessant urge to subdivide the space has resulted in one of the most absurd conditions in public space management – the “activity zone.” Ironically, these zones were necessitated by the very same illicit sexual forces that defined Times Square’s place identity for decades. (Fitzsimmons, 2016) In a deliberate act by the city of New York, in conjunction with the Times Square Alliance and overshadowed by a drop in vehicular and pedestrian injuries and controversies over half-naked hucksters and aggressive Disney characters, Times Square was converted into a consumption-driven, micromanaged carnival for the benefit of powerful economic interests. (Times Square Alliance, n.d.)

Both The Lawn on D and Times Square are success stories when judged solely through the lens of current placemaking metrics. Undeniably, if you have the money and time, both places are far more engaging than the gravel pits and traffic-clogged streets they replaced. However, the continued operationalization, sanitization, and commoditization of place inevitably results in some activities being undermined or marginalized if they subvert our definition of a “good place.”

1.2 Objective

Placemaking professionals have the ability – the obligation - to cultivate a broader, more inclusive concept of place. By opening our own discourse to incorporate other, more obscure, subversive, and marginal placemaking practices - practices that push, challenge, and negotiate the boundaries of our socio-spatial norms - we can begin to develop a more comprehensive understanding of what it means to make place. This thesis will analyze the social, spatial, and historical forces that have given rise to one particular form of marginalized placemaking - the activity of “cruising for sex” in public parks by men who have sex with men (MSM). Through this analysis, I will identify, analyze and catalogue the placemaking practices of MSM to broaden our discourse by introducing this example of marginalized placemaking practice to our academic and professional consciousness.

1.3 Methodology

This thesis will focus on cruising for sex in public space by men who have sex (MSM) in order to understand how some MSM make and maintain place, and in a broader sense, to challenge our current conceptions of how place is made. This work is grounded in my own experience cruising for sex as a MSM in four public parks in New York City and Boston. Because cruising for sex is in a grey area legally (Queally, 2016), the realities of studying it as a placemaking practice require a different set of research tools than those typically used by placemaking professionals. Tracking and counts, for instance, provide useful quantitative data, but in the context of cruising, provide little practical information. The very nature of cruising requires one to be invisible to the uninitiated, making it nearly impossible to distinguish MSM cruising for sex from everybody else. To find a way to objectively differentiate cruisers from non-cruisers, I analyzed cruising places through five lenses – historical, sociological, anthropological, and theoretical. Historical and sociological research of the behavioral patterns exhibited by MSM was crucial at the beginning stage of analysis. Laud Humphries’ work on “tea rooms” (public bathrooms used for cruising) from the 1960’s was helpful in identifying patterns from an empirical perspective. Hal Fischer’s “Gay Semi- otics” and Michel Foucault’s essay on heterotopias provided additional anthropological and theoretical backing.

1.3.1 Case Studies

Cruising places exist all over the world, however the research presented in this paper will focus on just four cruising places in Boston, Massachusetts and Queens, New York. The sites were chosen in two different cities to identify similarities, both spatial and performative, between vastly different contexts. These sites were analyzed using photo documentation, diagrammatic visualization, interaction with MSM at each site (both formal and informal), and historical and demographic research. The specific sites that were used in this study are Cunningham Park and Forest Park in Queens and Belle Isle Reservation and the Back Bay Fens in Boston. Each site has their own unique spatial qualities and are utilized by a diverse cross section of MSM. The cata- loguing of placemaking practices that occur at each study site was crucial for shaping a site-specific understanding of the placemaking implications of cruising for sex by MSM.

1.3.2 Interviews

To gain a comprehensive understanding from the point of view of the user, interviews were conducted, both formal and informal, with men at each of the four study sites. Most men were hesitant to respond to formal surveys and questionnaires, so the data gathered in this phase of research was a mix of both informal storytelling and formal survey. The surveys were broken into two parts. In the first part of the survey, questions were asked about place perception. For example, “Do you come [here] because it makes cruising more enjoyable? If yes, why?” Other questions were more direct such as, “Do you feel safe [here]?” While others were more open- ended, “If [the cruising place] wasn't here, how would you feel?” All of these questions were designed to elicit responses that related to the user’s connection to and perception of place. In- formal interviews were conducted spontaneously, which is the nature of most conversations in cruising places. These interviews were generally brief (less than ten minutes), however some informal interviews continued over a period of several months with certain regulars. A handful of interviews were conducted off site with MSM who cruise or who have cruised at one of the study sites. Ultimately, these narratives added a rich layer of nuance to the research.

1.3.3 Spatial Typology

Through spatial analysis of the four case study sites, a typology was developed to identify relationships between spatial configurations and behavioral patterns of MSM who cruise. It’s clear from historical analysis that in order for cruising to function, it requires a place that camou- flages and filters, either with foliage or built structures. Developing a spatial typology made it possible to establish if this was true and determine if these configurations were predictable and replicable. This analysis was grounded in direct observation, but lead to other areas of practical and theoretical inquiry. For instance, studying litter and other material refuse left by MSM developed as an offshoot to the spatial typology. The sex-specific litter left behind, such as condom wrappers and lubricant packets, exhibited a consistent pattern throughout the four case study sites. Some spatial types collected more of this refuse than others and it became apparent that litter left behind by MSM could be used as a type of informal wayfinding. To support this assumption, photographic documentation of similar refuse from each study site was gathered and a ques-

tion about sex-specific litter was asked during formal interviews. The conclusions made by ana- lyzing the connections between research, spatial analysis, material study, photo and video documentation, and formal and informal interviews lead to several recommendations.

1.4 Literature Review

Marginalized through practices of heterosexism and homophobia, gay men, lesbians and other sexual minorities have a heightened awareness of where they belong – of where they can perform sexual difference… When belonging is conceptualized through place this permits new interpretations of feelings of being relaxed, comfortable and being oneself. Places can be simultaneously alienating and liberating. Amidst ongoing concealment and homophobia, places of belonging can be carved out and sustained through every day, ongoing place-making practices. (Waitt, 2006)

Queer history and mythology have their roots in place in much the same way that immigrant histories and mythologies do. (Fischer, 1977) From street corners to business establishments to public parks, LGBT+ people have created places that are deeply connected to their community and identity. Some of these places are well known throughout mainstream culture and recognized for their connection to queer identity - the Castro in San Francisco, The West Village in New York City, Le Marais in Paris, and the South End in Boston to name a few. They have been established as nodes of queer conglomeration through an ongoing relational process where queer people actively create places of attachment. (Waitt, 2006) However, together with these more conventional examples, there exists other obscure queer places that subvert and challenge traditional notions of place and placemaking. These places are a product of illicit and taboo sexual practices that transpire while hidden in plain sight. The following research will elaborate on and give context to these hidden places and the people who make them.

1.4.1 Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)

The term Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) originated in in the early 1990’s during a time when epidemiologists were studying the spread of sexually transmitted diseases between men, specifically HIV. (UNAIDS, 2006) Determining the exact number of MSM worldwide is difficult. According to a 2005 report from the CDC at least 3% (81,753,461) of men, and perhaps as

high as 16% (436,018,458) of men worldwide, have had at least one sexual encounter with another man.

The term was necessitated by a realization among doctors and researchers that not all men who engage in sexual contact with each other identify as gay or bisexual. The terms gay, bisexual, or homosexual can include sexual activity between men, but are more broadly seen as cultural and social identities, rather than indicators of specific behaviors. (Dowsett, 2006) It is important to make a distinction between the LGBT+ community and MSM because it is crucial for the study of cruising places to separate the placemaking practices of MSM, from the broader context of queer identity. While there are undeniable overlaps between queer culture and cruising as a placemaking practice, cruising places are not necessarily made or used by everyone in the LGBT+ community. Also, many men who use cruising places as a sexual outlet, do so because they do not identify as LGBT+ and it would be false to assume that all people who cruise identify with other members of the LGBT+ community.

1.4.2 Cruising

Cruising is the act of walking or driving in a public or semi-public place with the expecta- tion of a casual sexual encounter with another person or people. The term refers to the public sexual practices of MSM and generally occurs in bars, bathhouses, backrooms, clubs, discos, gyms, beaches, parks, public restrooms (tearooms in the United States or cottage houses in the United Kingdom), highway rest stops, piers, churches, and on the Internet. (Encyclopedia.com, 2018) The word “cruising” emerged, most likely in the 17th century, as a protective sociolinguistic mechanism for MSM to convey sexual intent while avoiding negative or homophobic responses from a pre- dominantly heterosexist culture.

Figure 3: Thomas Roma’s ‘The Vale of Cashmere’ series.

Before the current period of relative cultural tolerance of LGBT+ people in the West, homosexual contact was regarded as perverse, unnatural, dangerous, and in most jurisdictions crim- inal. Until 1973, homosexuality was designated as a mental disorder by The American Psychiatric Association and until 2003 – less than 20 years ago - homosexual sex was outlawed in fourteen states in the United States. (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003) As a result, MSM were forced to develop a cunning array of signals and social ques in order to find one another and to resist further subju- gation. The most infamous and colorful example of these cues is the hanky code. Depending on the color and position (left or right back pocket) of a handkerchief, an entire taxonomy of sexual preferences is conveyed in an instant. Keys are used to similar effect when attached to a belt loop. (Fischer, 1977) In London, the Picadilly Palare developed into an established subset of Lon- don street slang, articulated cheekily in the single “Picadillly Palare” by the musician Morrissey in 1990. When these signifiers were used around those who were not “in the know” they appeared innocuous or at worst out of place. However, if one was aware of the sociosexual cues embedded in the language, then the hidden intent became clear. Cruising places were carved out by these social practices and queer semiotics spurred the creation of archetypal images and places that represented cultural identity for later generations of queer people. (Encyclopedia.com, 2018) (Fischer, 1977)

For most of the nineteenth and early twenti- As silence is one of the rules eth centuries, the rules governing the geography of of these encounters, the strat- cruising were determined by multiple factors such as egies of the players require some sort of physical move- the concentration of businesses that employed or ca- ment: a gesture with the tered to gay men, areas that provided privacy or hands, motions of the eyes, manipulation and erection of cover for sexual activity, and places that were consid- the penis, a movement of the ered less socially desirable, such as under dark ele- head, a change in stance, or vated trains and highways or vacant lots and aban- a transfer from one place to another. – Laud Humphries doned buildings. These places provided the seclusion and concealment necessary to escape the possibility of arrest, which usually meant a life de- stroyed and reputation ruined. Because such undesirable places had little to no value to the public at large, there was a tacit understanding by law enforcement that certain public spaces were sanctioned for cruising and other sex-related illegal activities like prostitution. (Chauncey, 1995) However, this created a power relationship between law enforcement and sexual minorities where there was always a looming threat of exposure and prosecution. For economic and bureau- cratic reasons (i.e. arrest quotas, negative effects on adjacent businesses, etc.) these places were tenuous. Indeed, the precariousness of queer place was a fact of life for generations of LGBT+ people. The Stonewall Riots, a series of clashes with police in New York City that sparked the gay liberation movement in the United States, occurred as a direct result of this tenuous sanctioning of queer places by law enforcement. In the decades leading up to the Stonewall Riots, queer places were in a constant state of flux. Raids of the Stonewall Inn and other LGBTQ+ establishments across the United States were frequent and part of a broader system of oppression and marginalization of LGBT+ people. Alternatively, the covert nature of cruising allowed for flexible and emergent queer places, provided that the spatial conditions were favorable.

When cruising was more prevalent on the streets, consumption, or the illusion of consumption, legitimized loitering - a crucial component of cruising. (Chauncey, 1995) Likewise, commercial street signage played an unlikely and decisive role in the tacit sanctioning of street cruising along with other subversive activity. Signage sent messages about the type of consumers that businesses were interested in attracting and either encouraged or discouraged related street activities. In the case of sex-related signage, the implication was that single men were the target consumer. These men spent less money than partnered men and were usually the type of men

who cruised. As business districts began to gentrify in the 1980’s, these signs were gradually removed and replaced by “family friendly” signage, indicating that these establishments had shifted their focus to a partnered, monogamous crowd who typically spent more money. This was and still is a way for businesses to profit from passively excluding more marginal, less affluent people from public space. (Delany, 1999)

Over the past 25 years, cruising has made a dramatic shift from public space to digital space through online websites in the 1990’s and 2000’s and phone apps from the 2010’s to today. (Christian Grov, 2014) The shift of cruising from the physical to the digital world did not necessarily spell the end of cruising for sex in public spaces. In fact, in the mid 1990’s the website cruisinggays.com was founded by Keith "Cruisemaster" Griffith in an effort to catalogue cruising places in the physical world and to provide an online space for MSM who were looking to cruise in public to share their experiences. Since its inception, Cruisinggays.com has catalogued over 43,000 cruising places worldwide. Most of the cruising places listed are in North America and Europe, however, presumably because the website is based in the U.S. and is in English. It is safe to assume that there are many more cruising places outside of the US and Europe that aren’t listed on the website. By 1997 the site was receiving over 130,000 hits per day and had established itself as a bridge between online and real-world cruising. (Blum, 2016)

1.4.3 Homosocialization through Contact

Homosocialization is the process by which LGBT+ people meet and develop social bonds with others in the LGBT+ community. Integration into the community helps queer people develop their own sexual and gender identities apart from those imposed on them from the predominant heteronormative culture. (Isay, 1989) MSM who do not have access to a private space, due to homelessness, lack of support at home, or a professed heterosexual identity, must negotiate privacy within public space to fulfill a sexual need and cruising creates places where this can happen. (Delany, 1999) Cruising typically occurs in places that are accessible to the public which allows MSM to not only satisfy a sexual need, but to meet and develop social bonds with other LGBT+ people. A casual reading of cruising paints a picture of a strictly transactional sexual indulgence, one devoid of identity, place significance, or even dignity. However, for MSM, cruising is far more

than just a series of anonymous, transactional relationships. To better understand the place significance of cruising among MSM it is important to first recognize cruising as a means of creating social space through sex. Particularly for men who identify as gay and bisexual, cruising places provide a relatively safe, free, and consistent space for homosocialization and are places where MSM can express their sexuality outside of the repressive confinements of a heteronormative society. Without these places, many MSM would have to resort to even more precarious means to fulfill this basic socio-sexual need. (Delany, 1999) (Chauncey, 1995)

Homosocialization operates best in an environment with a high degree of contact between strangers. Samuel Delaney, best known as an author of science fiction novels, spent decades of his life cruising the pornographic theaters of Times Square. In his book, Times Square Red, Times Square Blue, Delany explains through his interpretation of Jane Jacob’s seminal work, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, the relationship between contact and cruising. He suggests that there are differences between networking and contact as forms of social interaction. Delany posits that networking is a more formal way of getting people together to interact and cultivate connections. Those involved in networking tend to be of the same social class and are already like-minded. The connections made through networking are professional and transactional and usually impersonal. Networking is also imbalanced. In a networking situation, there are less individuals in a position to equitably distribute their resources and connections to those in search of them. On the contrary, contact is informal and can involve inter-class connections between disparate people that are more genuine and longer lasting. According to Delany, contact is more equitable because it is informal and inclusive of a larger set of dissimilar individuals.

Contact is the conversation that starts in the line at the grocery counter with the person behind you while the clerk is changing the paper roll in the cash register. It is the pleas- antries exchanged with a neighbor who has brought her chair out to take some air on the stoop. It is the discussion that begins with the person next to you at a bar. It can be the conversation that starts with any number of semi-officials or service persons—mail- man, policeman, librarian, store clerk or counter person. As well, it can be two men watching each other masturbating together in adjacent urinals of a public john—an encounter that, later, may or may not become a conversation. Very importantly, contact is also the intercourse—physical and conversational—that blooms in and as ‘casual sex’ in public rest rooms, sex movies, public parks, singles bars, and sex clubs, on street corners with heavy hustling traffic, and in the adjoining motels or the apartments of one or another participant, from which nonsexual friendships and/or acquaintances lasting for decades or a lifetime may spring… – Samuel Delany

In Delany’s example, contact between strangers is unplanned, but the systems through which contact occurs are effected by the location of infrastructure and the configuration and design of public space. (Delany, 1999) Similarly, in the sociologist Laud Humphreys’ study of cruising in public park bathrooms from the late 1960’s, he observed a direct correlation between a public park’s proximity to highway infrastructure and the frequency of cruising in that park’s public bathrooms. Humphreys also noticed that the spatial configuration of the public bathrooms facilitated and supported cruising. (Humphreys, 1970) In both cases, when public infrastructure encourages proximity and contact alongside spatial configurations that offer increased levels of privacy, cruising flourishes. Furthermore, because cruising places are not always near the homes of MSM, rather in a detached second space, the nature of contact and proximity along with a common goal (sex) creates an opportunity for MSM to develop social ties and friendships with others from different ethnic, racial, religious, and economic backgrounds. (Humphreys, 1970) (Forsyth, 2009) Cruising places must have both the spatial qualities and the accessibility required to facilitate contact between all kinds of MSM. (Delany, 1999) As a result, social interactions in cruising places tend to be more democratic and equitable.

As cruising moves further away from public space and more exclusively into digital space with cruising aps like Grindr, Scruff, Hornet, and Growlr, the point of physical contact shifts from a more equitable, democratic space to a more exclusive, private one. (Rogers, 2012) (Blum, 2016) MSM now have the choice to cruise in virtual space, from the comfort of their living room or bedroom. They can meet other MSM without setting foot in public space. While it is true that these apps have connected millions of MSM to each other, due to the apprehension involved in allowing a stranger into one’s private home, these encounters tend to involve more anxiety and selectivity compared to public cruising. (Delany, 1999) Additionally, cruising apps like Grindr and Scruff have features that allow users to filter out undesired body types, races, and ages resulting in less democratic, more noncommittal, and unreliable social interactions between MSM. Be- cause of this change in social dynamic, online cruising is an inadequate substitute for the more democratic, homosocializing spaces that public, physical cruising places foster.

1.4.4 Queer Heterotopia

Introduced by the French philosopher Michel Foucault in 1967 during a conference lec- ture, Des Espaces Autres (Of Other Spaces), the concept of heterotopias provides an insightful theoretical perspective for understanding cruising places as both temporal and physical spaces. According to Foucault, a heterotopia is capable of juxtaposing in a single real place several spaces, several sites that are in themselves incompatible. Parks designed for recreation overlap with cruising places which overlap with places where adolescents drink and use drugs, which overlap with homeless encampment, etc. Each of these unintended programmatic manifestations imbue the park with different place perspectives depending on the user. Furthermore, according to Foucault, space is about relations between sites, because of the ordering of human elements that constitute site. (Foucault, 1967 ) Cruising tends to occur in places with adequate spatial arrangements caused by the placement of elements in a site that encourage propinquity. As a result, cruising happens in areas of increased closeness and contact potential, like public parks and restrooms, and challenges the inviolable opposition of public and private space by inverting our understanding of the distinctions between private and public behaviors.

There are also, probably in every culture, in every civilization, real places— places that do exist and that are formed in the very founding of society—which are something like counter-sites, a kind of effectively enacted utopia in which the real sites, all the other real sites that can be found within the culture, are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted. – Michel Foucault

Additionally, Foucault suggests that place is an intricate set of relations that are specific to a site and elements of one place cannot be superimposed on another site - an exact sense of place is impossible to replicate. On the contrary, heterotopias are a universal phenomenon that transcend cultures, customs, and time that simultaneously represent, challenge, and invert real places created by these cultures. (Foucault, 1967 ) Similarly, cruising places occur when a set of relations favorable for cruising exist, regardless of place specificity. This is why cruising can happen in multiple geographies and cultures, regardless of the myriad of differences amongst them.

Chapter 2 CASE STUDIES

2.1 A Sex Stop on the Way Home

“I can't tell you how many guys I've had here who were wearing wedding bands, with baby seats in the car and all kinds of kids’ toys on the floor. It’s on their way home and they don't have to get involved in a relationship or any gay lifestyle or social circles. They don’t even have to buy anyone a drink or be seen in a gay bar.” - – New York Times, A Sex Stop on the Way Home, 2005

2.1.1 Cunningham Park, Queens, NY

Cunningham Park is an assemblage of several wooded parcels of land in eastern Queens cobbled together by the city of New York over a period of nearly two decades starting in 1928 and ending in 1944. Mayor Fiorello La Guardia named the park in memory of W. Arthur Cunningham who served under him as City Comptroller and died in a horse-riding accident in 1934. Cunningham was the first Queens resident to enlist in WWI and had a long history of public service. Figure 4: Cunningham Park, regional context

The Vanderbilt Motor Parkway, built in 1908 as the first automobile highway and one of the first concrete roads in the United States, ran through Cunningham Park until 1938 when Rob- ert Moses, then New York City’s Parks Commissioner, converted the Queens section of the road- way into a recreational bikeway. Decades later in 1957, Moses placed the Clearview Expressway (I295) directly through the center of Cunningham Park to connect the newly built Throgs Neck Bridge to both the Long Island Expressway and the Grand Central Parkway. Indeed, the history of Cunningham Park’s peculiar, disjointed shape is a direct result of the imposition of these major thoroughfares and the park’s relationship to them is evident in the appearance of several highway-related municipal structures throughout the park. For instance, one of the New York City Police Department’s highway patrol units (Unit 3) is in the southwest section of the park with on

and off ramps that connect directly to the Grand Central Parkway. For over thirty years, the De- partments of Sanitation and Transportation used a large section of the northeast corner of the park for sanitation truck storage. However, after years of protest from area residents, the sanitation trucks were removed and the lot they occupied was replaced by baseball fields.

During the 1970’s, vandalism, teen drug use, and drag racing were regular occurrences in Cunningham Park resulting in an increase in police surveillance. (Kilgannon, 2005) In 1984, the park underwent an overhaul and with the help of the then councilman Sheldon S. Leffler commit- ment of $6.8 million to the project, Cunningham Park was reorganized into its current form. To- day, Cunningham Park is one of the largest parks in New York City at three hundred and fifty eight acres and offers a diverse selection of recreational facilities including tennis courts, a bridle path, stables, playing fields, picnic groves, hiking paths, connections to the Brooklyn-Queens greenway, 6.5 miles of mountain biking trails (the largest in NYC) and three public parking lots that are accessible from the Grand Central Parkway and the Long Island and Clearview Expressways. Parking is free in Cunningham Park and because of its proximity to so many highways; the park serves as an unlikely rest stop on the way home for commuters who live in Long Island.

Cunningham Park is one of the largest parks in the four-and-a-half mile Kissena Corridor, which connects Cunning- ham Park to Corona and Kissena Parks to the west and Alley Pond Park to the east. The Corridor runs parallel to the Long Is- land Expressway (I495) along the original route of the Vanderbilt Motor Parkway and is only accessible by bike, bus, and car. Cunningham Park is isolated from the subway with the closest subway station at

th Figure 5: Cunningham Park, neighborhood context 179 Street in Jamaica Queens, the termi- nus of the F line. To walk from 179th Street station to Cunningham Park takes a little over twenty minutes, however it is an additional hour to the park’s center. Cunningham Park is also serviced by four local buses and five express buses with three of the four local (Q 88, 46, & 30) and all five express buses (QM 36, 35, 8, 6, 5) running

east and west and one local bus (Q 76) running north to south. The Brooklyn/Queens greenway cuts through the center of Cunningham park, as well.

The neighborhoods surrounding Cunningham Park are mostly residential with small, sparse commercial districts at the convergence of major thoroughfares. To the north are the neighborhoods of Auburndale and Bayside, to the south are Jamaica Estates and Holliswood, to the West is Fresh Meadows, and to the East are Oakland Gardens and Hollis Hills. These neighborhoods are ethnically diverse and residents are solidly middle to upper middle class – typical Queens suburbia.

2.1.2 Study Area Overview

The locus of cruising in Cunningham Park sits where the Brooklyn/Queens Green- way bike path tunnels under the Clearview Ex- pressway. This tunnel is the point of articula- tion between the two main spaces where MSM cruise. It is poorly lit by a small opening to the sky created by the gap between the north and southbound lanes of the expressway and is cov- ered in decades of pigeon droppings. The space is usually damp and unwelcoming but

provides the only shelter in this section of Cun- Figure 6: Cunningham Park, study area ningham Park. On one side of the tunnel is a small, elongated parking lot that connects to Hollis Hills Terrace - a feeder road that leads to the Clearview Expressway. On the other side of the tunnel is a collection of baseball fields and a vast, overgrown wooded area. The wooded area is crisscrossed by small hiking paths that meander into the woods for about one hundred yards.

2.1.3 The Woods

Of the roughly one thousand acres of forest in Queens, Cunningham Park is home to about a third. (NYC Parks, 2018) Most of these wooded areas are successional forests, which means that they’ve been cleared in the past and lack the high, leafy canopy layer usually seen in undisturbed, old growth forests. Be- cause of this lack of canopy, the undergrowth receives more light than normal, resulting in taller and thicker bushes and shrubs along the forest floor. This taller and thicker under- Figure 7: Cunningham Park, woods growth provides the perfect cover for cruising. Beaten into the forest floor are informal paths created over several decades by MSM cruising. These paths are easily accessible from the Brooklyn/Queens Greenway bike path and originate at the western entrance to the tunnel under the Clearview Expressway. Cunningham Park’s paths provide a chance for bicyclists and joggers to mingle with motorists parked nearby who’ve decided to leave their vehicles.

When entering the woods from the bike path, the environment shifts abruptly from vast, open, and sunny fields to a thick, shaded forest. There are three entrances to the wood’s interior paths that all lead to the same place. These entrances open onto paths that meander around large bushes and fallen trees and converge near a small informal shelter about two hundred feet from the entrances. This shelter marks the nexus from which all the other paths converge. During warmer months, the paths are well used, and the shelter provides camouflage for men cruising nude or masturbating openly. As the paths stretch further from the informal shelter, they become less defined and are crisscrossed by fallen trees and other obstacles. Some paths dead end, but most loop back around to the informal shelter or lead deeper into the woods where other informal interventions like makeshift seating have been placed. Littered throughout the paths, especially at dead ends or in places with informal structures and seating, are used condom and personal lubricant wrappers, sanitary wipes, and other sex-related refuse. In some areas of the woods there is litter unrelated to sex, that indicate homeless encampment. While these paths can

be and presumably are used by more than just MSM cruising, most activity observed, cruising or not, was illicit or unsanctioned. The three main groups seen using the paths over a period between June 2017 and February 2018 were MSM, homeless men, and teenagers smoking cannabis. Teens who aren’t cruising usually go less than one hundred feet into the woods and tend to enter from an entrance which is further down the bike path from the parking lot. The few homeless squatters that use the woods to camp tend to stay deep in the woods, far away from the entrances.

2.1.4 The Parking Lot

Adjacent to ball fields and nestled beside the Clearview Expressway is a small, discrete parking lot. The entrance to the parking lot is on Hollis Hills Terrace, which is easily accessible by car to both the Long Island Expressway and Grand Central Park- way, and by bike or on foot to the Brook- lyn/Queens Greenway. With one hundred and fifty four parking spaces, the parking lot is relatively small and inconspicuous. Hollis Hills Terrace is a small two-lane feeder road that connects to an onramp Figure 8: Cunningham Park, parking lot which leads to the northbound lane of the Clearview Expressway. The street has little traffic and serves the Hollis Hills neighborhood to the southeast of Cunningham Park. There are two entrances to Hollis Hills Terrace on the North and South corners of the parking lot. The Clearview Expressway runs along an elevated berm at the lot’s western edge. The berm is overgrown with trees and shrubs, masking the parking lot from the expressway and from the baseball fields beyond. Besides MSM cruising, the parking lot pri- marily serves the users of the ball fields, however the Department of Motor Vehicles also uses the parking lot for driving tests during the week.

Since at least the 1960’s, the Cunningham Park parking lot has emerged as one of the more prominent cruising places in Queens, catering to MSM on their commute home from work. (Kilgannon, 2005) In fact, this parking lot is somewhat infamous in NYC cruising circles because of a tawdry expose, written by the New York Times reporter, Corey Kilgannon, in 2005, entitled, A Sex Stop on the Way Home. Kilgannon describes the parking lot as, “a fishbowl,” where, “the action unfolds like a soap opera each day.” To the untrained eye this dramatic display is invisible. Only when one is conscious of the semiotics of parking lot cruising, are they able to notice the patterns of movement, peculiar behavior, and intentional positioning amongst parked cars. Ac- cording to Kilgannon, “Almost any time from noon till 9 p.m., when the lot is officially closed, the scene is the same. The narrow section has two long rows of parking spaces into which the men back their cars, forming two rows of cars facing each other with a thoroughfare between them. Each newcomer trolls this thoroughfare with all eyes upon him and surveys the other men in cars, who may either perk up and look interested or shut the window and look away. Then with a dramatic swoop, the driver will back his car next to the car of the man he is pursuing. It all has the deliberate positioning, shifting and movement of a chess game.” (Kilgannon, 2005) Additionally, men who are cruising in the parking lot sometimes leave their cars, walk under the Clearview Expressway and into the adjacent woods where other MSM, particularly those who had biked or walked to Cunningham Park, go to cruise. In the summer months when there is an abundance of thick foliage, the woods provide camouflage and seclusion that allows people in cars, on bikes, or on foot to cruise in plain sight as they negotiate the discreet boundaries between private and public space. Even when contacted by Kilgannon about the parking lot, the president of the Friends of Cunningham Park, Marc A. Haken, said he was "totally unaware" that there was sexual activity there.

Beyond sexual gratification, Kilgannon found through user interviews that the Cunning- ham Park parking lot and adjacent woods were vital social spaces for MSM. According to one of the regulars interviewed, the lot serves the lonely, helping men seeking friendship and a place to socialize and bond. The regular observed that, “There's so much loneliness among gay men. A lot of guys just want someone to talk to. Society doesn't accept us and it's hard to meet people, sexually or socially. You know, not everyone who's gay lives in Manhattan and runs in packs like 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.’” According to others interviewed, they prefer the parking lot to gay bars since there is little in the way of drugs and alcohol and there is more honesty about sexually transmitted diseases. It’s clear from Kilgannon’s article that Cunningham Park’s cruising

area is a sexual and social space that brings together men from many different backgrounds and communities. While queer spaces can take many forms, they usually require users to identify with and embrace the LGBT+ community. Cruising places like Cunningham Park’s parking lot and woods provide a neutral space to engage with the LGBT+ community without necessitating a full embrace of queer culture. For those on the margins of sexuality, especially in working-class suburban Queens and Long Island where strong taboos against homosexuality are still common, Cunning- ham Park is a vital social space.

2.1.5 Interviews

Interviewing users was challenging because of the nature of cruising in Cunningham Park. Most of the time men are in their cars and approaching a car on foot is both intimidating and a strong signal that you’re interested in engaging in sexual contact. As a result, all respondents were from the wooded area, although it is important to keep in mind that all but one interviewee parked in the parking lot before entering the woods. Before finding willing participants, there were many awkward failures, more so than any of the four case study sites. In order to respect the privacy of the men interviewed, pseudonyms will be used.

Joe

The first attempt at an interview in Cunningham Park was with Joe. Joe was a man around fifty years old, dressed in casual business attire. Joe was at first receptive to an interview until the subject of cruising was mentioned. He initially feigned ignorance and started mumbling about cruise ships. After further clarification, he became extremely defensive and upset. He scolded that, “you should not assume that people are having sex with other men and that it makes an ‘ASS out of U and ME’.” However, he was observed with another man engaging in a sexual act moments before. At that point there was an attempt to disengage politely, but he wasn’t finished. Joe sinisterly mentioned to be careful because of an article written some years back about men having sex in the park and

because of that, undercover cops sometimes patrol the area. When asked if he was a cop, he laughed and walked away.

Dave

Dave was the first person receptive to answering questions about cruising in Cunningham Park. He was a middle-aged man in his fifties who was standing inside the tunnel between the parking lot and the woods. Dave was on his way to meet a friend and was initially hesitant to talk, but after some discussion of my own experiences with cruising, he became very open, almost eager to answer questions. Dave said he had been coming to Cunningham Park for a while and not just for sex. In fact, on this particular day he was waiting for a friend he had met in the park some years back while they were both cruising for sex. He mentioned that he lunches with him regularly and that over the years they had developed a close friendship. Even though they have the option to meet wherever they’d like to, they prefer to meet in Cunningham Park. Dave made it clear that cruising in Cunningham Park is only half of what happens there, the other half is socializing between other MSM, a lot of them closeted and with a family. He also made sure to convey that he really enjoys the natural setting of the woods and the opportunity to see fit, young men playing baseball in the baseball fields. For Dave, being in the park involved a sort of fluid oscillation between being a normative, casual nature enthusiast and park-goer and a cruiser. When asked what he would miss if Cunningham Park’s cruising place didn’t exist, Dave said that he’d be disappointed, but that he could still go to other places or cruise online. When asked if there were any improvements he would make to the park to create a better environment for cruising, Dave resisted, saying that improvements made specifically for cruising might make it obvious to straight people and could cause conflict or tensions between MSM and the surrounding neighborhood. This was a sentiment expressed by other users who refused to answer interview questions, but were happy to engage in casual conversation. It appears that ever since the New York Times article was published in 2005, the men who cruise in Cunningham Park have become increasingly weary of any attention drawn to it.

Dan

A second respondent, Dan, was a man in his thirties and had only been cruising in Cunningham Park for the past year. Dan bikes along the Kissena Corridor from Astoria, Queens to Alley Pond Park regularly and stops to cruise in the woods along the way. He had a few interesting stories to tell, but two stand out. The first story was about the first time he had a sexual encounter in Cunningham Park. He would normally go into the woods to smoke cannabis, but one day he noticed a handful of men walking into the woods and was curious about what they were doing, so he followed them. As he got deeper into the woods he noticed condom wrappers and used condoms on the ground and realized that there more than likely were men cruising in the woods. Because of Dan’s experience cruising in the past, he recognized these condom wrappers as signs of sexual activity between MSM. After some exploration, he noticed one younger man deeper in the woods and struck up a conversation. Dan found out that the younger man occasionally cruised in Cunningham Park and that he works nearby and lives in Brooklyn. The second encounter Dan recalled was when he found a young man on the cruising app Grindr who then came to the parking lot to meet him and engage in sexual activity in his car. Dan also shared a story that didn’t involve a sexual encounter with another man, but it was equally fascinating and intimate. When he came back to cruise in the woods one day during the summer of 2017, he found a man only twenty to thirty feet into the woods on a fallen tree, completely naked and masturbating in broad daylight. Apparently, this man felt he had enough privacy in the woods to do that.

2.2 A Gay Sex Playground

“But about half an hour into my visit, I realized...it's a gay hook up spot. I first spotted a condom when I first got there and didn't think much about it. Then I realized, the single men sitting on benches alone...and walking past the same spot numerous times, then following each other, but then speaking to each other...oh. This is an issue since families come here to play and hang out and shouldn't have to risk running into anyone having sex. I'd love to see some security here during the day to prevent this from happening.” - “Leah K.”, Yelp

2.2.1 Belle Isle Reservation, East Boston, MA

Amidst salty harbor breezes, under the roar of commercial jets, sits the pristine Belle Isle Reservation. A result of a decades-old tug of war between the City of Boston, conservationists, local developers, and environmentalists, Belle Isle remains the last intact tidal salt marsh in Boston. The park is a snapshot of pre-colonial Bos- ton Harbor waterfront with salt pans, hilly upland, salt marsh, and tidal creek. The wetland was formed at the end of the last

Figure 9: Belle Isle Reservation, regional context ice age when a mile-thick glacier retreated from the east coast of North America and carved out deep harbor channels surrounded by drumlins or small, elliptical hills. When the area was first discovered by Europeans in the early seventeenth century, they used these harbor channels as their primary means of transportation. The few families who lived on the highlands that are now the neighborhoods of Orient Heights and Beachmont, would sail down the channels and into the harbor to go to church in central Boston. (Marsh, Friends of Belle Isle, 1985) During the nineteenth century, bridges were built connecting these growing, hilly enclaves. During the same

period, most of the channels and wetlands were filled in for development, connecting Belle Isle to the mainland.

Used by a sport-fishing club and then a drive-in movie theater for the first half of the 20th century, the three hundred acre Belle Isle marshland was officially acquired by the Massachusetts Port Authority after a tax foreclosure on the land in the 1960’s. According to the city, chronic dumping and nearby industrial operations had seriously degraded the site’s ecological integrity, recreational value, and aesthetics. (City of Boston, 2015) In the early 1950’s a Blue Line above- ground subway station was built next to the Belle Isle marshland to connect the adjacent Suffolk Downs racetrack to the MBTA subway system. Since then, Belle Isle has been accessible by both public transportation and car. In 1978 the Suffolk Downs drive-in theater that occupied the marshland was demolished, and landscape architect Jim Falk was commissioned to design a park in its place after strong objections from the surrounding community over an initial proposal to use the land to expand Logan Airport. (Dumanoski, 2001) He designed two hilly mounds and a small island within the fan-shaped footprint of the drive-in movie theater. During this time, the Friends of Belle Isle Marsh was formed to advocate for the conservation of the park and wetland. Belle Isle Park was completed in 1985 with the addition of an observation tower and a bridge over the channel between the two hills and the island designed by Jim Falk. (Marsh, Friends of Belle Isle, 1985) For the past 25 years the Friends of Belle Island Reservation have been, “dedicated to pre- serving and protecting Belle Isle Marsh as a habitat for many species of birds, fish, mammals, plants and insects and as a place for passive recreation for people to enjoy throughout the year.” (Friends of Belle Isle Marsh, n.d.) They offer field trips to the site, bird watching, and other community events centered on the park and advocate for the cleanup and remediation of pollution in the marsh. Because of their efforts, the city of Boston completed a state-mandated soil remediation program in 2005 and is in the process of connecting the park to a larger recreational biking network. (City Of Boston, Figure 10: Belle Isle Reservation, neighborhood context 2016) The park is currently owned by the

state of Massachusetts and is under the management of the Massachusetts Department of Con- servation and Recreation (DCR). Recently, the adjacent one hundred and sixty one acre Suffolk Downs racetrack was purchased by real estate firm HYM Investment Group for $155 million, (Carlock, 2017) promising the development of a new residential and commercial district across the street from the relatively isolated Belle Isle Park. (HYM, n.d.)

The neighborhoods in East Boston that surround Belle Isle are working-class immigrant communities with populations from Italy, Central and South America, and Southeast Asia. (City of Boston, 2017) Over half of the population of East Boston is foreign born with the two largest groups being Latino (53%) and Caucasian (37%). Median income in the area is slightly below the Boston region at around $40,000-50,000 annually. Most of the area surrounding Belle Isle is residential with small pockets of retail where major streets intersect. One of the largest senior facilities in East Boston, Don Orione Home, is just a fifteen minute walk from the entrance to Belle Ilse Park on the top of Orient Heights. Logan International Airport, New England’s primary airport hub, is a stone’s throw over the channel and the park provides a unique opportunity to watch planes coming in for landing, getting close enough to the ground to clearly see logos emblazoned on the airplane tails. Besides the occasional roar of a jet engine, Belle Isle is quiet, peaceful, and isolated.

2.2.2 Study Area Overview

Out of the four study sites, Belle Isle has the lowest profile as a cruising destination and it is certainly the most isolated. Bennington Street, a four-lane thoroughfare that connects Boston to Revere Beach, provides the only public access to Belle Isle Park. There are just two pedestrian crossings a half mile apart from each other and the entrance to the park is in the middle of these two crossings. Cars tend to speed down this stretch of Bennington in excess of 50 mph. Pedestrian traffic on the street is sparse and the sidewalks are partially paved. The Suffolk Downs subway station is close to Belle Isle Park, but there is no direct crosswalk from the station to the park’s entrance. The park’s general isolation and limited pedestrian access results in most park goers arriving by car and parking in a small parking lot near the entrance. Users of the park fall into three basic categories; dog walker, teenager, and MSM. Dog walkers tend to stay on the more open, treeless side of the park. The teenagers usually arrive and go directly to an observation tower at

the edge of the park, stay for enough time to smoke a joint or finish a drink, and then hang out elsewhere in the park or leave. MSM tend to stay around the secluded back area, parking lot, and the observation tower, but cruising can happen anywhere depending on how busy the park is. There is also an occasional overlap between some of the user groups.

2.2.3 The Parking Lot

Cruising in Belle Isle Park begins in an inconspicuous parking lot. The lot is a small two hundred foot strip with forty spaces. Here both motorist and pedestrian MSM have a chance to gaze at each other before making their way into the park. Men will initiate cruising here by positioning their vehicles so that they face toward the center of the parking lot and wait for other men to pass. Through eye contact and other subtle gestures, one of the men will

walk over to the driver’s window of the Figure 12: Belle Isle Reservation, parking lot other man’s vehicle and strike up a casual conversation (see Figure 11). These conversations can last for several minutes before the man on foot enters the passenger seat. Additionally, at the southern end of the parking lot is a small path that leads to an elevated wooden deck. The deck stretches into the wetland and provides a peaceful place to sit amongst the tall wetland reeds and Weeping Willow trees. Sometimes men will

Figure 11: 2009 Google Street View of cruising in Belle Isle parking lot

walk down to this secluded area and engage in sexual activity. These choices are all situational and depend on the time of day and how crowded the park is.

Belle isle doesn’t have newspaper articles written about its parking lot or a reputation as a prominent cruising place. The only instance when cruising in Belle Isle is mentioned publicly is in online reviews on websites like Yelp. These reviews corroborate direct observations of the parking lot from this study, some with incredible detail:

“… as you enter the parking lot there tend to be a lot of idling vehicles with middle aged men peering at your every move especially if you are guy which is a little creepy. As I walked into the paved foot path to the bridge and lookout tower I noticed a lot of dirt foot paths leading into the brush. My dog went nuts barking and got off his leash. I chased him in there and caught him pretty quickly. As I put his leash back there were sounds of moaning. Not more than 20 feet away from me down through the brush were two naked men obviously engaging in a sexual activity. You can figure out that this is obviously a gay sex playground.” – “Ron W.”, Yelp

2.2.4 The Promenade

Shrouded in foliage and flanked by patches of tall wetland reed and thorny brush, a wide promenade leads from Belle Isle’s parking lot to its outer marshlands. This broad path is a byproduct of Belle Isle’s theatrical past, once used as an access road for the now demolished Suffolk Downs drive-in theater. The creation of a small, artificial island during Belle Isle Park’s con- struction in the early 1980’s separated this area from the rest of the park. Two

Figure 13: Belle Isle Reservation, promenade and con- benches, equally spaced, are the only seat- nected passageways ing along the promenade. Before the pave- ment ends, the path takes an abrupt right turn towards an observation tower. By ignoring this turn, MSM and other perk-goers can make their way down an unpaved stretch that slowly nar- rows as it meanders into tall grasses and then onto open salt pans. Along either side of the path is thick overgrowth with entrances to several informal passageways. These passageways ramble

through reeds and brush and eventually end at small clearings filled with condom rappers and other refuse. Men cruising for sex usually make their way here from the parking lot to take ad- vantage of the more private surroundings.

The small dead-ends offer varying levels of privacy depending on the season and time of day. Wetland reeds keep their physical integrity throughout the year, so the amount of screening and camouflage they provide is consistent. On the other hand, smaller trees and bushes offer more privacy in the summer months when they have full and robust foliage. Time of day matters only when the sun’s angle manages to pierce the brush, illuminating the small clearings within.

Figure 15: Suffolk Downs drive-in theater Figure 14: Belle Isle Park

The behavior of MSM in this section of Belle Isle Reservation tends to follow the same pattern. Beginning with entering the parking lot by car or on foot, they make their way down to the promenade and walk its length to survey others as they pass back and forth. Some men choose to sit on one of the two benches along the promenade to view other men. The promenade leads to a wide, unpaved path that opens onto a clearing in the marshland, nearer to the water. This unpaved path and adjacent informal passageways are where most of the sexual activity occurs. Men will signal to others that they’re interested in sex by entering the openings along the path’s edges that lead into the brush while staring back at them. Interested men will follow them further down into the small clearings deep inside. This pattern of behavior is once again reflected in the park’s online reviews:

“It's a nice park and beats the cell phone lot to spot the planes and wait for an arrival, but there were lots of guys going in and out of the reeds/woods, which was sketchy and put me on edge (I was also with my three year old son), especially learning after- wards that an elderly man was attacked here last year.” – Stephen Watson, Google review

2.2.5 The Tower

One of the most striking elements of Belle Isle Park is a thirty foot tall observation tower that sits prominently towards the Eastern edge of the park on a small, man-made island. As the only vertical structure in Belle Isle Reservation, it affords a 360-degree view of the entire park, is the focal point of the space, and draws every park-goer to its small viewing platform. The observation tower is a favorite hangout for local teenagers looking to smoke cannabis

Figure 16: Belle Isle Reservation, tower and bridge or drink alcohol.

The boundaries between user groups are the most fluid at the observation tower. There is an occasional overlap between men cruising, teens drinking/smoking, and other users of the park. The shifting looks, the inquisitive stares, and the sketchy behavior mixes and confuses many of the signals used to convey sexual intent among MSM. The observation tower becomes a place of palpable tension between users. What was intended to be a peaceful place to sit and enjoy the natural beauty of Belle Isle and the breathtaking views of the Boston skyline, becomes a place of hidden conflict between marginalized users of the park. As a result, MSM only cruise in the Tower when the park is less busy, usually at night or early in the morning.

2.2.6 Interviews

Belle Isle is not particularly busy because of its relative isolation. A lack of men cruising made it difficult to interview many men, on top of the awkwardness inherent in talking about illicit sexual activity in public. While only three men agreed to be interviewed, they were able to provide a wealth of stimulating anecdotes. In order to respect the privacy of the men interviewed, pseudonyms will be used.

George

George was an elderly man in his eighties and conveyed fond memories of his time cruising in Belle Isle Park. He described how in his youth, men of all ages would come to the park in droves to cruise and socialize. During this time it was illegal to be gay and a person’s entire life was threatened by their homosexuality if it became public, nevertheless, George was nostalgic. He said that he enjoys coming to Belle Isle to socialize, especially now that he is older and promiscuous sex, as he admits, is less of an option for him. During our conversation and the formal interview, George revealed that he prefers to cruise in Belle Isle because he meets interesting people there. He also mentioned that he lives in a nearby retirement home, about a 15-minute walk from the park. Friendly conversations are an important secondary driver for George and other elderly MSM who live near Belle Isle Reservation.

When asked about other places where he used to or continues to cruise, he mentioned places that he admits are no longer used for cruising, such as Breakheart Reservation in Saugus, MA and the nearby Revere Beach boardwalk, insinuating that there has been a reduction in outdoor cruising places in the area. When the subject of safety was addressed, George was quick to mention the murder of another elderly man in 2016 whose beaten body was found on the very same bench where he was sitting. While reports of the man’s death did not mention MSM cruising specifically, he was convinced that the incident was spurred by a sexual encounter gone hor- ribly wrong. That did not stop George from coming to the park, but it did give him pause.

Ben

Ben was in his fifties and claimed that he has cruised in Belle Isle Park since he was a teenager in the seventies. His observations echoed George’s observations. One notable anecdote that Ben revealed in the formal interview was that he used to cruise in the old Suffolk Downs drive-in theater that once occupied the site of Belle Isle Park. When he was a teen, before the theater was demolished, Ben frequently cruised along what is now the Promenade or what was once known as “Pickle

Park.” Cruising appears to have embedded itself in the space and has been maintained through the shift from drive-in theater to a public park.

Ben was also eager to talk about his own observations regarding a perceived change in the demographic make-up of MSM who have cruised Belle Isle Park over the past ten years. Ac- cording to him, less young white men come to the park and it is now frequented more by younger men of color. This appears to reflect the changing demographics of East Boston and adjacent towns like Revere and Winthrop. Additionally, Ben went into detail about the history of the park- how it used to be a dumping ground for the town of Winthrop and how it was previously con- trolled and maintained by separate smaller public entities that were consolidated over the past decade and then merged with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). Ben emphasized the difference because he wanted to make clear that the state police and not the Boston police patrol the park.

Another insightful observation by Ben addressed a secondary reason for going to the park. He admitted that he also frequents the park because he enjoys talking to and spending time with the elderly men that go to the park to cruise (like George) because he knows that most of them are lonely. He explained that many older gay men were left without a family because in the past they could not build a family with a man, only with a woman. Ben observed that Belle Isle is a place where a supportive gay community has existed for decades and that the park is a place where MSM come for support even in old age. Ben’s story was particularly heartwarming and demonstrated that Belle Isle Reservation is not just a place for quick sex, but for developing social bonds with other MSM, particularly the elderly.

Tommy

Tommy was the youngest of the men interviewed in Belle Isle and the only man interviewed who used the subway to get to the park, rather than a car or on foot. Tommy was a young man in his early thirties who came to the park to relax, cruise, and watch the planes land at Logan Airport. He said he realized that Belle Isle was a cruising place when he was there with his husband and friends a few years ago to watch the planes land at Logan Airport. When Tommy, his friends and husband were

leaving the park at dusk, they noticed men lingering and staring. He instantly recognized these cues as signs of cruising. Tommy has been coming back ever since. Both he and his husband have cruised since they were teenagers. As a teen Tommy had cruised in downtown Boston along the Esplanade or the Back Bay Fens, assuming these were the only places where MSM in Boston went to cruise, and it struck him as odd that it happened in Belle Isle Park because of its relative isolation. However, Tommy admitted that the park’s isolation along with its scenic beauty are the reasons why he keeps coming back to Belle Isle.

2.3 A Gay Backyard

“As soon as the outside temperature reaches about 50°, there's a proliferation of adult males cruising for sexual partners on the closed stretch of Forest Park Drive which begins at Metropolitan Avenue and ends at Woodhaven Boulevard—and on the myriad hiking/equestrian trails. What's more, the post-coital detritus and debris are usually littered about the otherwise pristine natural surroundings—leaving a hazard for adults, children and pets alike—not to mention the questions which must be raised by natu- rally curious children about encountering these foreign objects...” – Michael Aaron Frandy (area resident)

2.3.1 Forest Park, Queens, NY

Forest Park was formed by the same glacial retreat that carved out much of the greater New York area, giving the park its distinct “knob and Kettle” landscape. At five hundred and thirty six acres, it is home to the largest continuous old-growth oak forest in Queens. The park sits atop one of the highest points on the Harbor Hill glacial moraine that runs down the center of Long Island like a spine. Forest Park was established between 1895 and 1898 when the city of Brooklyn acquired several parcels of private land to create a large public park on the northeast edge of the city. Shortly thereafter, Forest Park became part of greater New York City when Brooklyn was annexed as a borough. It was managed by the Brooklyn Parks Department until 1911, when the Queens Parks Department was established. Forest Park Drive, designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, was built between Figure 17: Forest Park, regional context 1896 and 1904 as the park’s main thoroughfare. Additional roads, paths, and lakes were added to the park in 1912 by the landscape architect Charles Downing Lay under the direction of the newly formed Queens Parks Depart- ment. (The Cultural Landscape Foundation, 2016) After years of vandalism and decay in the 1970’s and 80’s the City of New York earmarked $700,000 in funds in 1981 to undertake restoration of

the park. (Kay Carpenter, 1980) In 1995 during the park’s centennial celebration, 100 trees were planted as a part of Operation Pine Grove, funded by American Forests and the Texaco Global Re- leaf Program. Forest Park is currently managed by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. (NYC Parks, n.d.)

Forest Park is divided into numerous sections by both rail and road infrastructure. The Montauk LIRR line, Woodhaven Boulevard, Metropolitan Avenue, Myrtle Avenue, and the Inter- borough State Parkway separate the park into five distinct areas. The section furthest to the west is almost entirely occupied by a one hundred and ten acre golf course that was modeled after Scottish links. The course was constructed in 1901 along with an adjacent, Dutch Colonial style clubhouse designed by Helmle, Huberty and Hudswell of Brooklyn in 1906. East of the golf course is the George Seuffert, Sr. Bandshell, that can accommodate 2,800 people and hosts free seasonal concerts, a large parking lot, picnic area, historic carousel, the recently refurbished Strack Pond, and a greenhouse that grows trees and plants for many other New York City parks. Moving further east across Woodhaven Boulevard is an athletic area with handball and basketball courts, a four hundred and forty yard cinder track, soccer field, enclosed baseball diamond and stands, two reg- ulation asphalt softball fields, clay and asphalt tennis courts, children's outdoor shower and ice skating rink. Even further east is an area of Forest Park from which its name was derived; a vast, old-growth forest with bridal paths, and hiking trails. At the very eastern tip of the park, across Metropolitan Avenue, is the last section known as the Overlook. The Overlook has playgrounds, a dog run, and the administrative building for all of the public parks in Queens. (NYC Parks, n.d.)

Forest Park straddles the border between Brooklyn and Queens and is surrounded by a collection of ethnically diverse neighborhoods. North of the park are the more affluent (median income between $65,000 and over $105,000), majority white and Asian neighborhoods of For- est Hills, Rego Park, Glendale and Middle

Village. To the south and east of Forest park Figure 18: Forest Park, neighborhood context

are the less affluent (median income between $25,000 and $65,000), majority Latino, Caribbean (Haller, 2016), and Southeast Asian neighborhoods of Richmond Hill, Woodhaven, and Kew Gar- dens. The Park is easily accessible by subway, bus, bicycle, and car with direct connections to the E,F, and J subway lines, the Q37, 54, 55, QM15, 16, 17, BM5, SBS52, 53 buses, the Brook- lyn/Queens greenway, the Interboro/Jackie Robinson Parkway, Woodhaven Blvd, Myrtle Avenue, and Metropolitan Avenue. Because of these many connections, the park serves not only locals, but also residents from Brooklyn, Queens, and other areas of greater New York City.

2.3.2 Study Area Overview

Cruising occurs almost exclusively in the northeast section of Forest Park where For- est Park Drive opens up onto Metropolitan Av- enue. A few yards from the entrance are two trailheads for the Red and Yellow hiking trails. Both trails lead deep into the forest, with the Yellow Trail meandering around a small swampy catch-basin, where migratory birds congregate, and the paved Red Trail that makes its way along the periphery of the park. Cruising

Figure 19: Forest Park, study area is more frequent during the day on the Yellow Trail because of thick foliage and a wild, overgrown forest floor. By contrast, the paved Red Trail, which parallels busy Forest Park Drive and is frequented by cyclists, joggers, and pedestrians, is used more by MSM during the evening when darkness provides additional privacy. Forest Park Drive is used by many types of people, which makes blending in easier for MSM looking to cruise discreetly. Along this small stretch of Forest Park Drive, men looking for sex can mix seamlessly with casual park-goers, turning Forest Park Drive into a sort of neutral ground where MSM can oscillate with ease between the outside world and the hidden world of cruising.

The natural setting of Forest Park plays a crucial role in creating a sense of place for MSM who choose to cruise there. The abundance of thick folliage provided by the old-growth forest not only offers the amount of coverage necessary for discreet cruising, but the verdant beauty of the forest amidst the relentless suburban sprawl of Eastern Queens adds to the appeal of Forest Park among MSM. Many Figure 20: Forest Park map, New York City Parks MSM spoke of their appreciation for the forest’s natural beauty in both formal and informal interviews. One man interviewed even mentioned that Forest Park is an important stop for migratory birds (a reoccuring theme amongst all four case study sites). While walking along the Yellow Trail, it is common to see groups of cardinals, blue jays, and other migratory fowl playing in and around bird feeders placed along the trail by the Parks Department.

2.3.3 The Red Trail

Randy, one of the regulars interviewed in Forest Park, refers to the Red Trail as the “kitchen” because men usually go there when they’re “hungry” – meaning they’ve exhausted their search for men on the Yellow Trail. Before the long stretch of the trail was paved and adorned with 19th century-styled lamp posts in the in the 1990’s, it was apparently a scene from Ca- ligula’s Rome. A handful of men interviewed who cruised in Forest Park before the 1990’s spoke of orgies that involved Figure 21: Forest park, the Red Trail dozens of men who packed onto the Red

Trail once the sun went down. Allegedly, someone brought an old mattress to the park and placed it behind bushes along the trail which hosted countless, decadent sexual soirees. Nowadays, the Red Trail is more subdued, even at night. The trail’s proximity to houses along Park Lane South and the sunlit and open Forest Park Drive make it a riskier place to engage in illicit sexual activity during the day.

During daylight hours, men almost exclusively cruise along the more secluded Yellow Trail. As the sun sets and the Yellow Trail is shrouded in complete darkness, men move over to the Red Trail because it is lit by streetlamps and fairly deserted. The cruising portion of the Red Trail ends when it meets the LIRR railroad tracks that bisect the eastern portion of Forest Park. Before the Red Trail bridges over the tracks, it passes by an informal entrance to the park that offers access to Park Lane South. This area has active cruising until very late at night and it extends into the bushes and down to the railroad tracks. Unfortunately, as recently as the summer of 2017, homophobic vandalism has occurred there. (Tracy, 2017) In July, a group of teenagers spray-painted slurs like “Kill gay ppl” and “Fuck Faggots” on several trees and rocks, which drew outrage from the local LGBT+ community. While this act of hate didn’t seem to faze the many regulars interviewed, it remains a clear display of the discontent among some members of the surrounding community with MSM cruising in Forest Park.

2.3.4 The Yellow Trail

The Yellow trail is where most of the action between MSM happens. De- scribed as a “gay back yard” by one of the men interviewed for this study, the Yellow Trail certainly feels like an outdoor hangout. Before, after, and in between cruising for sex, men will run into people they know and strike up a conversation, shifting back and forth between cruising and socializing. This is one of the more rec- ognizable aspects of cruising, not just in Figure 22: Forest Park, the Yellow Trail

Forest Park, but in all of the sites studied. The boundary between public social space and private sexualized space is obscured in cruising places. The ebb and flow of both platonic and sexual intimacy between MSM along the Yellow Trail generates a type of place that is, especially for many older and closeted men, a crucial LGBT+ social outlet.

Cruising on the Yellow Trail can last for several hours. Some men will even leave the park to eat and come back. The sensation one feels when cruising there is similar to hunting or fishing, leaving the trail means that you might miss the big catch. This draws people to the trail and keeps them there long enough to encourage social interaction. The Yellow Trail also has a spatial layout much like a small village. There are several nodes where most men go to socialize and take a break from actively cruising. One area is at the convergence of four main pathways and is under an opening in the tree canopy. Paths and secluded areas further from this central node are frequented less and men tend to engage in sexual activity more actively in these areas. The knob- and-kettle landscape creates valleys with more privacy and hilltops with more exposure. The social spaces tend to be on the hilltops, with sexual rendezvous happening in the valleys or on the sides of the hills in more secluded enclaves. There are several entrances to the Yellow Trail, but where the cruising area of the trail begins and ends is ambiguous and constantly shifting. The moment someone leaves the area, they might catch someone's eye and the frontier extends.

Figure 23: Forest Park, men cruising the Yellow Trail

2.3.5 Interviews

Forest Park is still a hotbed of cruising. In its heyday the park after dark was allegedly a literal orgy of men from every possible background. Nowadays, it is much more subdued, but there are usually at least a dozen men at any given time cruising, making it easy to find people to talk to. Many of the men interviewed for this study mentioned that they would still come to the park even if they weren’t cruising, just for the natural beauty. In order to respect the privacy of the men interviewed, pseudonyms will be used.

Randy

It is impossible to talk about cruising in Forest Park without mentioning the self-professed “Queen of Forest Park,” Randy. Randy was a very tall, witty, and friendly man in his forties and he knew every MSM regular in the park. He claims to have cruised in Forest park for decades and has become a fixture along the Yellow and Red Trails. In fact, Randy is so devoted to Forest Park that he regularly takes the bus there from his home on Long Island. He knew everyone, so it was easy to have long, gossipy conversations with him. The first story Randy told was, surprisingly, about an exhibitionist heterosexual/bisexual couple who came to the park late at night to have sex in the open. The woman would occasionally allow other men to join in and according to him, the couple came there so they could have sex with MSM and be watched.

Another one of Randy’s stories took place during what he called the “glory days” of Forest Park in the 1990’s. Men of all ages and backgrounds would fill the Yellow Trail during the day and then move over to the Red Trail, which Randy referred to as “the kitchen,” at night to engage in what he described as a “full-blown orgy.” According to him, someone took a mattress and placed it along the Red Trail and it became a sort of outdoor boudoir that hosted countless, pleasure- filled escapades. He admitted that this kind of open sexual activity just cannot happen any longer without the police breaking it up. The NYPD are on the mind of every MSM in Forest Park. Most men in conversation, including Randy, would mention undercover stings in the park and methods of entrapment practiced by the police. Randy specifically mentioned that plain-clothed police officers would routinely pretend to cruise along the Yellow Trail and arrest anyone who would

reciprocate their fake advances. According to Randy, the NYPD has entrapped many men over the years – including him. In fact, while interviewing two other regulars in the park, a small off- road cop car drove by menacingly and on another occasion, the NYPD was observed going into the park with search dogs.

During a formal interview with Randy, he offered several suggestions for how to make Forest Park a better place to cruise. He suggested condom and personal lubricant dispensers placed strategically around the areas where men cruise along with more trash bins to help curb what he called the “terrible” condom wrapper litter and other detritus issues. He also felt that the police should leave men alone if they are being respectful and discreet. When asked why he likes cruising in Forest Park, Randy acknowledged that it is a fetish and that it is addictive (a very common response among the men interviewed for this study). Also, during the winter when it is too cold and desolate to cruise in the park, Randy mentioned that he goes to a place called the Fair Theater in Astoria, Queens near Laguardia Airport. The Fair Theater is a very old cruising theater, similar to the handful that dotted Times Square before they were removed in the 1990’s. Other places Randy frequents include, Fort Tryon Park and the Central Park Ramble in Manhattan, and Plum Beach in Brooklyn. However, he admitted that Forest Park is his favorite place during warm weather months because he enjoys, “being outside in nature.”

Manny & Paul

Everyone in Forest Park looks out for each other. When a regular notices a suspicious person, they will let everyone else know about them. I became one of those men when I was conducting a behavioral mapping exercise during the summer of 2017. I sat down with Manny and Paul to conduct a formal interview months later and came to find out from Manny that some MSM were concerned about my presence and asking questions. They were worried that I was documenting them for the city government or for the NYPD. Luckily, after sharing with them stories of my own cruising experiences and my academic work, they warmed up to me and offered to sit and talk about their own experiences in Forest Park.

Manny was tall and thin and in his early twenties. He claimed that he had been cruising in Forest Park since he was fourteen years old when he would go to the park with his friends to smoke cannabis and hang out. Manny said that he realized that Forest Park was a cruising place the day he noticed something different about how certain men were behaving along with the condom wrappers littering the ground in secluded places. He had several place-specific insights about Forest Park, but one of them was especially profound. He referred to the cruising area along the Yellow Trail as a “gay backyard,” or more specifically a place that MSM could hang out with each other, removed from the heteronormative world. This analogy of a back yard expressed in surprisingly elegant and simple terms speaks to the place value of Forest Park for the MSM who frequent it. Manny went as far as to suggest that the Yellow Trail should be designated as strictly a cruising place, open only to MSM.

Paul was an elderly man in his eighties who used a cane to walk because of a bad knee. Even with his bad knee, Paul said he comes to Forest park to hang out with other regulars because he enjoys the comradery. According to Paul, he had probably cruised in every cruising place in New York City, even places where cruising no longer takes place regularly. He admitted that over the past fifty years he had frequented Washington Square Park, Astoria Park, Cunningham Park, Ris Beach, Plum Beach, Alley Pond Park, Park-and-ride parking lots off of exit 49 and 52 on the Long Island Expressway, and Eisenhower Park in Long Island. Paul said he prefers Forest Park because of the strong community there and the sense of place. Paul made sure to mention that the community in Forest Park meant a great deal to him and that everyone there looks out for one another.

Zack

Zack was in his thirties and an active cyclist who moved to Queens a little over five years ago from Brooklyn. Zack’s first bike ride to Forest Park was in 2011 with his then boyfriend. At the time he had never explored any of the parks in eastern Queens. As he first entered the trail with his boyfriend, he found himself making ex- tended eye contact with several other men along the trail. These initial gazes were the first clue to him that these men were looking for more than just a pleasant

hike in the woods. Zack’s suspicions were confirmed when he went to urinate in a more secluded area and saw several condom wrappers and personal lubricant packets strewn amongst the bushes. Zack claimed to have cruised in parks since his late teens, making him familiar with the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) cues that MSM use. Years later when he moved to Queens, he started frequenting the Yellow Trail on his bike rides.

Zack had several stories to tell about the plethora of men he had encountered cruising in Forest Park. One story was about an elderly man that Zack met in the park during one of his first excursions. He learned that the man had been cruising in Forest Park since the 1960’s when he was a young teen. The elderly man reminisced about how exciting, crowded, and diverse the cruising scene was in Forest Park before the advent of the internet. He also spoke about how it was the only outlet for his homosexual desires, since he felt forced to marry a woman and was married to one for most of his adult life. Another story from Zack focused on a man he met jogging on Forest Park Drive. Zack usually meets men on one of the trails, so this caught him by surprise. The man was very discreet and wanted to keep it that way. They tried to have sex on the Red Trail, but the man was nervous, so they exchanged numbers and planned to meet later that week. When they were discussing a time to meet, the man kept referring to their meeting as “going for a run.” Zack found this amusing because even though they both knew what was going to happen between them later on in the park, the man still felt the need to conceal his intentions. This anecdote hints at why some men prefer cruising in Forest Park - they can always pretend that they are just there for a jog.

Muhammad

Muhammad was the only interviewee that I did not meet physically in Forest Park. I found Muhammad on the LGBTQ+ cruising app Grindr. He said that he had cruised in Forest park since he was a teen and agreed to participate in a formal interview. According to Mu- hammad, cruising in Forest Park turns him on sexually and what used to be a necessity is now a fetish. When asked if there are other places where he goes to cruise for sex, Muhammad mentioned that there really weren’t many other places because he has Grindr and other apps now that allow him to meet men online. However,

“[I] like the thrill of it. The idea of cruis- he did admit to cruising in the Ramble in Cen- ing turns me on. I used to mess tral Park and in photo booths in sex shops. To around there when I was in high school with guys my age since we make cruising more enjoyable in Forest Park, couldn't host at home and it became Muhammad feels that there should be more a thrill.” – Muhammad wooded areas and secluded places to have discreet sexual encounters without fear of being seen by other people. He also doesn’t like that most of the men are older and prefers cruising for younger men. He did not mention anything about a sense of community or friendships with other people in the park. Nevertheless, Muham- mad is still fond of Forest Park and does not expect to stop cruising there anytime soon.

2.4 The Outdoor Bathhouse

Olmsted had always meant for the Fens to be a place of "persons brought closely together, poor and rich, young and old, Jew and Gentile." He got more than his wish in the 70s when the Fens provided some groups a sort of refuge from the social mores of the majority. As a social infrastructure, it offered the city a landscape for those who did not have another place within the city.

– Kathy Poole, landscape architect

2.4.1 The Back Bay Fens, Boston, MA

Solid ground is taken for granted in Boston. The Back Bay and many other neighborhoods exist because of several infill projects implemented over the course of two centuries that radically redefined the borders of the Shawmut Peninsula. Small elliptical islands surrounded by salt marshes and mud flats that laid scattered about a primordial Boston Harbor were gradually stitched together by industrious European settlers beginning in the seventeenth century. Infill of the Back Bay accel- Figure 24: The Back Bay Fens, regional context erated in 1857 as a reaction to the economic failure of the Roxbury Mill Dam that turned the once tidally flushed salt marshes of the Back Bay into a stagnant cesspool of human and animal waste. (William A. Newman, 2006) Start- ing in 1878, Frederick Law Olmsted was commissioned to design what is now known as the Emer- ald Necklace, a series of interconnected greenspaces throughout Boston. The park system was designed not only for recreation, but as a means of transforming the foul-smelling tidal creek known as the Muddy River into a functioning tidal marshland with a modernized sewer drainage system hidden beneath. (Emerald Necklace Conservancy, 2018) The Back Bay Fens is one of the many sections of the Emerald Necklace along the Muddy River.

The Back Bay Fens has been subject to several changes since Olmsted’s initial nineteenth century design. In the 1920’s and 1930’s, landscape architect Arthur Shurcliff introduced a more formal landscape style to the park with the addition of ball fields and the Kelleher Rose Garden. In 1941, a wartime victory garden was established that is still in use today. In 1961, a group of East Fenway residents, concerned with what they saw as declining conditions in their neighborhood formed The Fenway Civic Association. The organization attempted to clean streets, beautify surroundings, and protect residents from crime. Through communications with public officials, they earned the role as civic overseers for the Fenway neighborhood. (Fenway Civic Association, 2018) In 1983, with the help of The Fenway Civic Association, the Back Bay Fens was designated a landmark by the city of Boston. (Boston Landmarks Commission, 1983)

Flanked by three neighborhoods, the Fenway, South End, and Mission Hill, which have some of the lowest median household incomes in the city - between $10,000 and $30,000. Outside of the dense residential stock consists of mostly commercial and in- stitutional buildings with several landmarks, including Fenway Park, The Museum of Fine Arts, and a handful of prestigious universities. The Back Bay Fens is accessible by car, bike, bus, subway, and on foot. The

Figure 25: The Back Bay Fens, neighborhood context Green Line subway services the park along with the 55 bus. One block away from the Back Bay Fens is a gay club, Machine, and bar, Ramrod. These LGBT+ establishments make the Back Bay Fens the only case study site that is in close proximity to LGBT+ businesses.

2.4.2 Study Area Overview

The thicket of tall wetland reeds, or phragmites, that line the Muddy River as it flows through the Back Bay Fens has concealed a hidden sexual world for several decades. According to the landscape architect Kathy Pool who wrote for the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture:

“By the 70s [the reeds were] so visually impermeable that it provided a habitat of sorts for a new displaced group–homosexual men. Since then gay men have cruised the Fens looking for companions. Some men are looking for very short term relationships, which occur in the phragmites, which is 25’ high and 30’ deep along parts of the Fens waterway. The vegetation is so dense that the Fens now has a complex of 'sex rooms.' Many of these men are married or others who do not want to reveal their homosexuality. The landscape provides an opportunity for men to show themselves locally yet cloak themselves from the rest of society-a precarious yet functional balance.” – Kathy Pool (Pool, 2000)

However, over the past five to ten years the atmosphere in the Back Bay Fens has changed considerably. Drug use and homelessness have infiltrated the hidden bou- doirs that decades of men have carved into the reeds. While there are overlaps between MSM and drug use, (CDC, 2016) the overwhelming presence of homeless and drug addicted men and women in the park goes far beyond this demographic fact. Drug use in the Fens has changed the way spaces are used and by whom. More se- Figure 26: The Back Bay Fens, study area overview cluded areas have been filled with encampments, displacing the quick sexual dalliances that used to happen there. Needles have taken the place of men in acts of hurried and awkward penetration. Seemingly, the Back Bay Fens is the perfect place for harboring not just one form of unsanctioned placemaking, but several.

In stark contrast, adjacent to the Muddy River is the oldest continuously used Victory Garden in the United States -a maze of pristine gardens, each ten-foot-by-ten-foot square a min- iature world. These gardens act as a buffer that filters MSM looking to cruise from bustling

Boylston Street and the rowdy crowds spilling out of Fenway Park on game nights. In between these two spaces is a wide, open pathway where MSM line up and wait for someone to walk by. Occasionally, an oblivious jogger or group of college students will wonder down the path and notice some men lurking suspiciously. To their untrained eyes, the gaze of these men appears nefarious, but the worst any unknowing person will face is a catcall.

2.4.3 The Reeds

Towering up to 25 feet tall, the reeds along the Muddy River soar high into the air and shroud the park from all but the tallest buildings. The reeds, known as phragmites, an aggressive dense-growing reed, were introduced to the Back Bay Fens in the 1950s and 1960s to provide a nesting area for ducks. (Pool, 2000) Here in the reeds, MSM flock to find other likeminded men. The easily-trampled vertical reeds allow flexibility in space manipulation and

Figure 27: The Back Bay Fens, reeds and passageways create a hard, strong floor when pressed horizontally over the wet mud along the riverbank. Intermittently and especially during a police crackdown in the late 2000’s, the reeds have been slashed and burned to destroy the hidden pathways and sex dens created by MSM. Fortunately, the reeds grew back quickly, allowing this cruising place to be particularly resilient.

The reeds remain during every season and as a result, cruising happens there at all times of the year. A favorite place for decades among many local college students and teenagers for smoking a joint or drinking, in more recent years, illicit drug users have started to squat in the reeds long-term. Even though young adults smoking cannabis and/or drinking still use the reeds to escape from public view, heroin and methamphetamine use is much more common there today. Even with the clear influx of displaced drug users, both MSM and squatters share the reeds, albeit at times tenuously. Some squatters are familiar with the history of the Fens and respect

the MSM there, appreciating the spaces they carved out that they now occupy. Some MSM are also members of the squatter community and engage in cruising regularly. From interviews with users, there appears to be a peculiar transactional relationship with some MSM and squatters. On occasion, some squatters will use sex to lure in unsuspecting cruisers. Once they are in a vulnerable position, their wallet or phone will be stolen. Some MSM will also exchange money for sexual favors with younger squatters in the reeds.

2.4.4 The Victory Gardens

During periods of heavy flooding, the reeds are inundated by murky water, making the spaces along the Muddy River unusable by MSM. When this happens, MSM make their way further into the interior of the park toward the Victory Gardens. As the oldest continuously operating public victory garden in the United States, the Back Bay Fens Victory Gardens are steeped in history. Established to the Fens in 1942 they were one of over 20 million victory gardens that responsible for nearly half of Figure 28: The Back Bay Fens, the Victory Gardens all the vegetable produce during WWII. The victory gardens contain over five hundred individual square plots spanning 7.5 acres of the Fens. (The Fenway Garden Society, 2018) These plots occupy the space between Boylston Street and the Muddy River. There are over twenty walkways that lead from the main path along Boylston Street to the cruising path that runs between the reeds and the gardens. These narrow pathways through the gardens act as a filter between Boylston Street and the cruising area. At the end of each pathway, where they meet the main drag of the cruising area, men will stand and cruise. Men cruising here can see if someone is coming from the main road, the reeds, and from either direction on the main path. They are also afforded several escape routes if something bad happens, like a police raid or a sexual encounter gone south. The buffer created by the gardens adds

a crucial layer of privacy for MSM cruising in the reeds. Without this buffer, cruising would be visible from Boylston Street, making the Fens a far less desirable place to engage in sexual activity. In some instances, the gardens themselves are used for sexual encounters, especially if the reeds are flooded or overcrowded.

2.4.5 Interviews

The Back Bay Fens has changed noticeably from previous visits both formal and informal since 2003 and there is a clear shift in usage from cruising and leisure to encampment of squatters, many with drug addictions (mostly opioids), especially over the past 5 years. The uneasiness created by squatters amongst MSM and the squatters skepticism of an outside presence made it almost impossible to interview users. In order to respect the privacy of the men interviewed, pseudonyms will be used.

Cory & Ronnie

Cory was the only alleged sex worker interviewed for this study. He said he goes to the Back Bay Fens because it is where he finds clients. When asked why the Fens and not somewhere else, he claimed that in the Fens, “the money was good.” The rest of the conversation devolved into incoherent babble and something about a two-story treehouse. Cory seemed to have been under the influence. Right when the encounter had begun to feel overwhelmingly uncomfortable another more coher- ent young man, who knew Cory, walked by and took an interest in the study and had a lot to say about sense of place and cruising in the Fens. His name was Ronnie and the discussion (punctu- ated by the ramblings of Cory) was infinitely more informative. He mentioned that all of the squatters in the park managed to get along not only with themselves but also with the MSM who still cruised in the Fens. He made sure to point out that he and the other members of his squatter community respect the MSM cruisers because “they were there first,” and that typically no one bothers each other. Ronnie also mentioned that there was a social hierarchy within the reeds. The squatters had a sort of leader and he kept watch over the reeds to make sure the police

weren’t poking around. Initially, some of the squatters thought I was in the park for reasons related to government or law enforcement. Luckily after talking to Ronnie, those fears were put to rest.

Rodrigo

Rodrigo was interviewed in a gay bar near the Back Bay Fens named the Ramrod. He was very engaging and had a lot to say about cruising in the Fens. His initial observations were that cruising has reduced dramatically because of the homeless encampments and dating apps like Grindr and Scruff. He mentioned that physical space is a crucial part of community building and is an important component of cruising as a social act. The sense of place created by MSM in the Fens had fostered a supportive gay community for decades there, something that could not happen on placeless cruising apps like Grindr and Scruff. According to him, the physical space was just as important to the LGBT+ community as cruising itself. Rodrigo offered an insightful anecdote about the Fens and the community that uses it. Rodrigo, who himself was homeless at one point, said that the squatter community there looks out for trouble makers and polices itself. One night while cruising, Rodrigo saw a man (assumed to be a squatter) attempting to steal a wallet from an unsuspecting MSM who was cruising. He recalled that another man (also assumed to be a squatter) confronted the thief and told him to quit what he was doing and leave the man who was cruising alone.

Kyle

Kyle had cruised the Back Bay Fens since he was in his late teens. Back then, he used to cruise for sex in the Esplanade, a park along the Charles River. The first time he had met another man there he was seventeen and, according to him, very naïve. The man he met felt that Kyle was far too young for him, but would have more luck in the Fens. He biked Kyle to the Fens and dropped him off. There Kyle

found a world teaming with an abundance of men from all backgrounds, ages, and sexual inclina- tions. This was the first in almost two decades of sexual escapades for him in the Fens. At the time, Kyle had only heard about the Back Bay Fens online, but had never been there. He was not out to his parents and the men he met over the years in the Fens provided him with countless advice about navigating the subversive, underground world of public sex. He also met men who were older who shared the same interests as him outside of sex. Kyle said that once he finally came out to his parents, he was met with severe rejection, and the Fens was a place he could go to feel accepted and normal.

Nowadays, Kyle finds the changes in the Fens devastating to his public sex life and to his memories of growing up in Boston as a young, queer youth. While he has found other places and online outlets, his connection to the Back Bay Fens is forever diluted by the harsh and violent imposition that the opioid epidemic has thrust upon his hidden queer world. Bitter as Kyle may be, he still comes to the Fens on occasion to relive past glory. He enjoys smoking cannabis in the reeds and stumbling down to the park at night after drinking at the nearby Ramrod gay bar. When he was younger he would go to the park with his friends and play on the sheets of ice that would form along the main path during the winter. His memories and impressions of the Back Bay Fens were so sentimental, that it was easy to forget that his primary reason for being in the Fens was sex.

2.5 Cumulative Observations

These four case study sites demonstrate how public parks have the capacity to accommodate the placemaking practices of MSM and other marginalized groups - practices that have been marginalized by other, more codified and restrictive built landscapes. The architect Kathy Pool calls these places “recycling territories” that house those without property, shelter homeless people displaced by more restrictive politics, provide cover for socially shunned citizens, and accommodate diverse populations not as actively fostered elsewhere and that rarely disallows or dimin- ishes more codified activities and populations that are accepted everywhere. (Pool, 2000) The flexibility of natural landscapes afforded by urban public parks provide space for marginalized

populations to inhabit, manipulate, and make place with minimal interference, unlike more formalized, programmed urban spaces. These places are the frontier of public space and they provide crucial space for subversive, marginal placemaking practices.

Chapter 3 SPATIAL TYPOLOGY

3.1 Types of Contact

The manner through which pathways are carved into vegetation, the distribution of sex- specific litter, how private areas connect to larger public paths, and the way weather and seasonal changes affect usage patterns share spatial parallels at all four case study sites. Distilling and cat- egorizing these similarities through a spatial typology revealed six specific configurations. These spatial configurations transcend every study site and can be observed in several other outdoor cruising places not included in this case study. While each configuration manifests in unique ways at each site, their general spatial qualities are nearly identical. Cruising depends on basic spatial arrangements that facilitate five contact relations– mixing, viewing, colliding, connecting, and concealing. Each of the six spatial types explored in the spatial typology accommodate at least one of these five contact relationships. When separate spatial types are combined to form a larger configuration, cruising will inevitably occur in these places, as long as there are MSM in close proximity to one another and interested in sexual contact.

. Mixing

A diverse set of user groups in a space where the distinctions between each user are ambiguous. This allows men cruising to shift user group and to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Mixing generally happens in more open, formal spaces.

. Viewing

Surveying the landscape and people to determine if there are other men looking for sex and if so, which men are worth pursuing. Areas that accommodate viewing have high visibility and heavy traffic and are almost always primary and secondary circulation routes.

. Colliding

A form of contact where an individual encounters another unexpectedly, necessitating interaction. Colliding is unplanned and a result of specific spatial configurations that mask views along paths of heavy circulation.

. Connecting

When a MSM cruising engages in either a platonic or sexual interaction with another man intentionally. These encounters can occur in any space, but the more intimate interactions require spaces with more privacy.

. Concealing

Camouflaging or hiding oneself from others in order to engage in sexual activity or other intimate contact. MSM cruising can conceal themselves with foliage, automobiles, structures, and at night with darkness.

3.2 Runway

Runways are typically part of a broader network of walking or cycling paths with long and broad dimensions and occasionally places to sit and idle. Largely spaces of mixing and viewing, MSM will line the Runway’s edges leaving enough space between one another for others walking down the path to show interest without confusion. Waiting along the edge of the Runway gives MSM an opportunity to show off to others and to temporarily claim terri- tory. One of the benefits of Runways is that they afford MSM a kind of ambiguity – an ability to pretend to be jogging, biking, or strolling. And it works both ways, also allowing men to avoid other men they may not be interested in. This oscillation between casual park-goer and cruiser

makes the Runway the first point of contact between the outside world and the hidden places created by MSM.

In some instances, there are multiple Runway configurations that work in tandem. For example, Forest park has three Runways that run roughly parallel to one another. First, there is Forest Park Drive, which has less viewing and more mixing between cruisers and other park- goers. Next is the Red Trail, which has more viewing between cruisers, especially at night. Finally, there is an unpaved Runway along the center of the Yellow Trail, which is shrouded in complete darkness at night Figure 29: Forest Park Drive Runway along with second- and secluded during the day. These three ary Runways Runways complement one another and serve different needs depending on the time of day. While Forest Park Drive always remains a neutral ground, frequency of use on the Red and Yellow Trails switch in the evening. The Yellow Trail is concealed by thick tree cover from Forest Park Drive during the day. In the evening, when the Yellow Trail is enveloped in darkness, the street lamps along the Red Trail provide the needed visibility for cruising but aren’t bright enough to reveal the secondary paths that men use to find more secluded places to have sex. These three parallel Run- ways accommodate the viewing and mixing functions of the Runway continuously throughout the day, allowing MSM in Forest Park to cruise in the morning, afternoon, evening, and late into the night.

Figure 30: Belle Isle Runway

More than just providing a space for viewing and mixing, Runways connect to smaller paths that lead to more secluded places. The Back Bay Fens has a Runway between the park’s Victory Gardens and the tall reeds along the Muddy River with narrow pathways that cut through the Victory Gardens and run perpendicular to the Run- way, resulting in a series of openings at regular intervals along the path. These small openings provide places for viewing and are

Figure 31: The Back Bay Fens Runway like an outpost or lookout. If a connection is made between two men there, they have a choice to retreat further into the Victory Gardens or into adjacent paths throughout the reeds. Once this lookout spot is vacant, someone else will claim it and the cycle continues. Keeping watch at an opening not only allows men to retreat into interior private areas with ease, it also allows them to act as a lookout for others.

Public infrastructure is significant for the function of a Runway because it provides three important things: regular maintenance, proximity to transportation, and frequent use by the public. An abundance of pedestrian traffic increases the odds that there will be several MSM looking

to cruise. Proximity to transportation increases the likelihood of a consistent flow and turnover of users and expands the viability of the Runway as a place to meet someone new. Maintenance of the space is important because it makes the space more inviting and signals to the public that it is ok to be there. Public parks limit the type of activity allowed to mostly recreation, which confines the use of the Runway to casual users who tend to idle, wonder, and interact. This type of atmosphere allows MSM to blend in with others while simultaneously looking for each other.

3.3 Ramble

In a Ramble, mixing, colliding, and viewing occur due to meandering pedestrian pathways and trails. The pathways that create the spatial conditions for a Ramble are usually unpaved and secondary to formal, paved paths. These spaces attract users who are exploring, walking pets, jogging, and hiking. MSM will wander along paths multiple times after entering a Ramble to take stock of who is there. As a result of the random order of circulation patterns in a Ramble, contact between people is generally unplanned. As pathways cross over each other and around hills and bushes, colliding happens between MSM cruising. These collisions enable polite conversation, which may eventually lead to a sexual encounter or friendship. For instance, some MSM will find a spot along the winding paths to sit or stand, usually where paths converge, affording them high visibility. They will use a fallen tree or a large boulder as makeshift seating. When another man

walks by, they may initiate polite conversation. Polite interactions allow MSM to check if the other man is also cruising to avoid making a move on an unwitting park-goer. If the other party shows interest, the conversation will continue one of two ways, either the interaction will move in a more platonic direction, or both men will immediately initiate sexual advances and attempt to find an area with more privacy. It is not uncommon for men to pass by each other more than once before starting a conversation. These interactions involve a high degree of apprehension and most men are wary of being too friendly. Generally, seeing the same person walking through a Ramble multiple times signals that they are also cruising and therefore not a threat.

Privacy, or perception of privacy, is fluid in a Ramble. For instance, the Ramble in Cunningham Park has narrow paths and thick foliage. Visibility there is lower along hiking paths obscured by leaves. These paths are almost exclusively used by MSM cruising with the occasional teenager smoking cannabis. As a result, men will sometimes choose to engage in sexual activity in the Ramble without attempting to find a more private spot elsewhere. Naked men

Figure 32: Forest Park Ramble and couples engaged in various sexual activities were observed along Cunningham Park’s Ramble during the day. By contrast, such behavior only occurs in Forest Park’s Ramble when it is very dark. Otherwise, MSM will find more secluded spots to have sex. This fluidity of perceived privacy can lead to conflict when the boundary between public and private space is chal- lenged by MSM cruising. Complaints from area residents mention awkward collisions with men engaged in sexual activity. A resident near Forest park, Jorge Martinez, even started a letter writing campaign in 2009 with the intent of pressuring area residents to call for a crackdown on cruising in the park. According to Jorge, he started his letter writing campaign after his daughter asked him questions about men, “randomly going around the park and doing, you know, this type of activity.” (Boone, 2009)

Rambles have several entry and exit points that connect to larger circulation networks, meaning that MSM can transition back and forth between cruising place and the larger park beyond, much like a Runway configuration. Walking along a Ramble does not immediately indicate the intention of a user, and this vagueness allows MSM who do not identify as LGBT+ to maintain their outward heterosexual identity. Ambiguity also affords all MSM, even LGBT+ identifying, to avoid recognition from non-cruisers and from law enforcement during an undercover sting or raid of a cruising place.

Figure 33: Part of a Ramble in Forest Park

3.4 Maze

A Maze is usually part of a designed or deliberate landscape and is the least prevalent cruising spatial type. Mazes can be places of conflict during the day between MSM and the surrounding community due to a more aggressive sense of ownership by non- MSM users. This sense of ownership is the result of the planned programmatic qualities of a Maze. Collid- ing and connecting are the most common forms of contact in Maze configurations. Mazes are more active at night for connecting and during the day for colliding and viewing. Interactions tend to be platonic during the day and sexual at night when darkness provides necessary privacy. These specific behavioral patterns was observed in the Back Bay Fens Victory Gardens often. During the day, community gardeners tend to their plots, making any type of explicit behavior on the paths or within the gardens risky and nearly impossible. On rare occasions during the day, men will see each other walking through the Victory Gardens and follow each other into the reeds where there is more privacy. As night falls and the gardeners leave, MSM will gradually occupy the Victory Gardens.

The Maze configuration has multiple access points. Because of this, MSM can quickly escape from both police raids and unwanted advances from other MSM. Im- bued in a Maze are the spatial qualities that trick those unfamiliar with the space into getting lost. This confusion further allows MSM who are more familiar with the space to avoid unwanted contact by police or other MSM. On occasion, men cruising will engage in sexual activity in a Maze configu-

Figure 34: Back Bay Fens Maze ration, if it has dead-ends or other hidden spaces. In the Victory Gardens of the Back Bay Fens, some small garden plots provide this type of space for MSM looking to engage in sexual contact. The gardens also act as a filter between the main road and the reeds along the river. As men make their way through the Victory Gardens towards the reeds, they will gradually disappear from site. As men filter in from the street, they will meet and collide in the darkness, eventually connecting in the reeds.

Figure 35: Aerial of Back Bay Fens Maze, Google Earth

3.5 Cul-de-Sac

Cul-de-Sacs are places where formal or informal paths dead end or where public infrastructure has been designed as a dead end, sometimes with formal or informal seating. Connecting and concealing are the common forms of contact in a Cul-de-Sac configuration and MSM will go to them intentionally to have sex. Cul-de-Sacs are a vital spatial component of a cruising place and are essential for its function. They are the only spaces that offer sufficient privacy for discreet sexual conduct.

Cul-de-Sacs that are designed as a public amenity are tenuous during the day, but after dark become the perfect place for MSM to engage in unsanctioned sexual activity. Usually shrouded in foliage, informal Cul-de-Sacs are used during both the day and night. However, if out in the open, as in the case of more formal areas with seating, Cul-de-Sacs are only functional for MSM to connect during the day and conceal at night under cover of darkness. One example of the shift in contact relations between day and night in Cul-de-Sacs are the scenic overlook structures in Belle Isle Reservation. These structures were intentionally placed in the landscape to create a space for park goers to sit, rest, and reflect on the beauty of the surrounding tidal marshes. During the day, MSM will meet in one of the two overlooks to socialize. The daylight exposes these overlooks to other park-goers making sexual contact or any other form of intimacy difficult. However, as night falls and these unlit spaces vanish into the darkness, MSM will connect and engage in sexual activity. Public infrastructure, in this instance, still provides a space for illicit activity.

Occasionally, Cul-de-Sacs are used for other unsanctioned activities such as drug use and homeless encampment. The privacy these spaces afford attracts behaviors that requires concealment from both law enforcement and casual park goers. In the reeds of the Back Bay Fens, many of the Cul-de-Sacs carved out over the years by MSM also attracted homeless squatter encampments. Unlike deciduous Figure 36: A Cul-de-Sac in the Back Bay Fens trees and bushes that lose their foliage during the winter, the Phragmites of the Back Bay Fens provide screening and concealment all year round. Inside these tall reeds, several Cul-de-Sacs take the form of small rooms or dens. Some of these rooms are large enough to accommodate tents. In these encampments, drug use is also prevalent.

Cul-de-Sacs are where almost all sex-related litter is disposed of. Much like an offer at a shrine, wrappers are strewn about around makeshift seating or against the base of a tree. The distinct square shape of condom wrappers, with their bright, iridescent colors, pop out against the dirt and leaves. Sexual activity, specifically intercourse, requires a considerable amount of privacy and a guarantee that it will last for several minutes. Cul-de-Sacs, especially during the day, are the only spatial type that can offer that level of privacy. Disposed condom wrappers indicate that more overt sexual activity occurs almost exclusively in Cul-de-Sac configurations. Acting as a marker for other MSM, this sex-related litter not only signals that cruising happens in the space, but by observing the condition of the refuse, how recently cruising has happened. In this way, Cul-de-Sacs provide a space for a type of informal wayfinding to exist.

3.6 Shelter Shelters can be an intentional structure, built as part of a park’s design, or a section of a broader infra- structural network like tunnels and the undersides of highway overpasses and bridges. Shelters can also be makeshift, informal structures built by users of the park. Viewing, connecting, mixing, and sometimes concealing are all forms of contact observed in Shelter configurations. Shelters are used by a diverse group of park-goers, not just MSM, creating a space that is rarely ever empty enough for illicit activity. MSM appear to go to Shelters to socialize more than to engage in sexual contact, especially during the day, as a result. In Shelters the platonic aspects of cruising are the most apparent and they provide a space for MSM to have neutral interactions before and after a sexual encounter. Not all MSM come to cruising places to socialize, but when they do they tend to go to places like Shelters that have seating and other amenities, which help facilitate more platonic forms of interaction. Mixing between MSM and other park goers happens in Shelters, especially during the day. However, conflicts do arise in Shelters between men cruising and other users if there are clear signs of sexual activity either in the Shelter or nearby. They usually occur during daylight hours or at night if a Shelter is well lit. These are times when many other park- goers besides MSM tend to use the Shelter. When more enclosed and dimly lit, Shelters can be used during the night for sexual activity becoming places of connecting and concealing. On several occasions during this study, sex-related refuse was present in more secluded Shelters, indicating that sexual contact had occurred in them.

Belle Isle Reservation has a very prominent Shelter, the observation tower. During the day, MSM will sit in the tower to get a better view of others while simultaneously enjoying the natural beauty of the park. As the day progresses, the tower is used by children, teenagers, and other casual park-goers alongside MSM cruising. Occasionally, teenagers will meet at the observation tower in groups in the late afternoon to drink alcohol or smoke cannabis and sometimes conflicts will arise if a MSM acts too suspiciously by staring or walking by the same place inordi- nately. It is difficult to distinguish between someone relaxing or actively cruising, but this ambiguity, like in so many other spatial types described in this study, allows MSM to avoid conflict with casual park-goers. Possibly because of the irregular conflicts that arise between MSM and other park-goers, policing of Shelters either by officers or with the use of surveillance cameras is more common than in any other spatial type. Since most shelters are structures designed for public use and put into place by municipal government, surveillance cameras are generally easy to see and expected. However, because of a heightened sense of police aggression and a weariness of entrapment by MSM cruising, any Shelter with a camera will not be used for any form of contact besides socializing and possibly meeting before moving to a more secluded space to engage in sexual activity.

Figure 37: Belle Isle Shelter

3.7 Field Field configurations exist in places like parking lots, open fields, or public plazas. Viewing, connecting, and concealing are the common forms of contact in a Field. However these contact relations depend on the type of programming present within the Field. When a Field takes the form of a parking lot, MSM exclusively cruise in or directly next to their cars. This is the only spatial type observed where cars play a part in the placemaking practices of MSM cruising in public. Dur- ing the day, cars parked in secluded areas of parking lots offer the same or a greater levels of privacy as the Cul-de-Sac configuration. Privacy is variable, especially in parking lots, because Fields usually accommodate other types of outside programming such as tailgating, barbeques, and parking for non-MSM users. In Cunningham Park, for instance, the parking lot accommodates barbeques, a driving school, and parking during sporting events in the adjacent ball fields. When these events occur, men cruising in the parking lot either leave the park entirely or move to the wooded area to avoid unsuspecting tailgaters peering into their windows and noticing illicit sexual activity.

Some areas of a Field are more open than others. MSM cruising will usually stay in more secluded or shrouded areas of a Field. These areas are typically at the back of a parking lot or grassy field and far away from a street or active area. While this practice does allow for more privacy and seclusion, it also can have the opposite effect of drawing attention in a parking lot where a car may look out of place if it isn’t close to other cars. Security patrols, especially of parking lots, make Fields tenuous places for cruising. When a car looks out of place, even if there

is no illicit activity happening inside the vehicle, it can attract attention from security and police. However, cars allow for easy concealment and escape in the event of police patrols, given that the occupants notice before being caught.

Chapter 4 INFORMAL WAYFINDING

“Jorge Martinez says that while taking his six-year-old daughter for a walk through Forest Park it is normal to come across condom wrappers amongst the flowers and trees. He says over the years, this kind of trash has become part of the landscape.” – NY1

Litter in public space is universally regarded as disrespectful and inconsiderate. However, to some, carelessly discarded trash can signify more than just a litter problem. In every cruising place observed in this study, sex-related refuse was left behind in areas of high cruising activity. Private spaces along paths and in small areas behind foliage, condom wrappers, personal lubricant bottles and wrappers, used condoms, sanitary tissues, and other sex-related litter were docu- mented. MSM encountering these leftover items see them as signals that the space is part of a larger cruising place. Previous users, through their carelessness, unintentionally create informal wayfinding for other MSM. In doing so, these men propagate and codify these places as cruising

places. As litter accumulates, so does the imprint of the placemaking practices of MSM cruising in the space.

The presence of informal wayfinding indicates one reason why cruising occurs in some places, rather than in others. Pieces of sex-related litter are like seeds that when planted “grow” into a cruising place. There is no guarantee that one condom wrapper will spawn an intricate and vast cruising place. However, places with sex-related litter, the proper spatial conditions, and propinquity amongst MSM may begin to develop into a cruising place over time. This does present a problem regarding how to approach the negative impact of litter on natural and urban landscapes. One interview respondents in this study proposed trash receptacles in areas where sex-related litter is more common. However, this may have the consequence of concealing signals to MSM, effectively killing the growth of a cruising place or the creation of a new one. One thing that is clear from interviewing MSM in cruising places is that sex-related refuse is a universal indicator of a cruising place and without this type of informal wayfinding cruising places may go unnoticed and eventually disappear due to a lack of new users.

Figure 38: Sex-related litter in Forest Park, Queens, NY

Chapter 5 CONCLUSION

“The greater population and subsequently greater variety of needs and bene- ficial excesses to be found in cities make public contact venues, from the social to the sexual, a particularly important factor for social movement, change, and a generally pleasant life in a positive and pleasant democratic urban atmosphere.” – Samuel Delany, Times Square Red, Times Square Blue

. Cruising places transcend cultures, borders, and government systems. A cruising place can appear anywhere if spatial conditions support it.

As demonstrated through the case study analysis and supported by research of cruising’s prominence historically, along with the aggregation of cruising places by www.cruisinggays.com, the placemaking practices of MSM who cruise appear in every culture, country,

Figure 39: Cruising in Dongdan Park in Beijing, and throughout time. The heterotopic quality of China cruising places al‐ lows them to transcend time and space and to accommodate the needs of MSM from a multitude of backgrounds and cultures. The spatial configurations elaborated in the spatial typology are also found in every part of the world. The need for privacy in public space, necessitated by oppression and marginalization, is the common thread that weaves cruising places together worldwide. The placemaking practices of MSM show a broader placemaking significance, beyond the specificities of local sites. Much like the public square is the living room for the public, cruising places are the bed- rooms. Like a home, for public space to function, it needs both communal and private spaces to accommodate the needs of a truly egalitarian public.

. MSM use cruising as a placemaking practice to carve out places of belonging and liberation that are important for homosocialization.

The marginalization of LGBT+ people forces them to create places where they feel safe, empowered, and accepted. Place significance among LGBT+ people is tied closely to their percep- tions of identity and community, as demonstrated in both Hal Fischer’s analysis of gay semiotic and Gordon Waitt & Andrew Gorman‐Murray’s study of LGBT+ place perception in small Austral- ian towns. Cruising places are an example of how the placemaking practices of queer people, specifically regarding their sexuality, can manifest physically in public space. Through conversations and interviews with MSM who frequent the sites analyzed in this study, MSM expressed multiple times that cruising places are not only for sexual gratification but are also places of homosocialization and the fostering of sexual identity and community. Even for MSM who do not identify as LGBT+, the exposure to other LGBT+ identified people in cruising places can nurture the kind of understanding and empathy discussed in Samuel Delany’s accounts of cruising in theaters in Times Square. This has implications on the placemaking profession and our attempts to create equitable places that respond to the needs of a community while increasing the right to the city for marginalized people.

. Cruising places are contradictory because they both benefit from and are threatened by formalized public infrastructure.

The four sites analyzed in this study are public parks. The importance of public infrastructure for the creation of cruising places can clearly be seen, not only in this study, but in Laud Hum- phries’ work with MSM in the 1960’s in “tea rooms” or public bathrooms. Public infrastructure brings disparate people together and increases contact relations between vast swaths of the public. In doing so, MSM from every background can meet in a shared space. When spatial conditions are favorable, such as in public parks with rambling paths or secluded public bathrooms on highway rest stops, a diverse cross section of MSM can connect and create cruising places. In contrast, public infrastructure can produce tenuous places of insecurity and apprehension for marginalized people engaging in private, unsanctioned activities. Articulated by many of the men interviewed for this study, public infrastructure provides the necessary foundations for cruising to occur, but also tends to be heavily policed and surveilled. These contradictions that are expressed by MSM

in interviews expose a more complicated interpretation of the role public infrastructure plays in the creation and maintenance of subversive, marginalized places.

. Cruising places are threatened by privatization, oppressive “quality of life” law enforcement, and hyper-programming of public space.

According to Samuel Delany, desire and knowledge are integral to social and political life. When we force public space to be asexual or “safe” in the name of family values and conspicuous consumption, we neglect to acknowledge the importance of the connection between bod- ily and intellectual desires and social knowledge. (Delany, 1999) Cruising places allow for contact Figure 40: No cruising sign, Los Angeles, CA situations that are produced by sexual desire and result in social knowledge. This knowledge can take the form of simple friendships and acquaintances or more complex inter‐class and cross‐community connections. However, when public space is privatized and hyper‐programmed (the Times Square pedestrian plaza) or when private space is advertised as a public amenity (The Lawn on D) placemaking practices like cruising by MSM which do not foster consumption‐driven activity are marginalized or outright banned. When sexual desire is excluded from public space by private interests, the social knowledge it generates is also removed from the public square.

. Marginalized places (the leftovers) provide space for subversive placemaking practices.

Without leftover or interstitial spaces – marginal places – in public space, there are less opportunities for marginal placemaking to occur. Historical research of cruising patterns in New York City by George Chauncey show a direct relationship between marginal leftover spaces and the prevalence of cruising. Because these spaces were considered to have less value, they were ignored, which allowed MSM to occupy them with little to no consequence. As placemakers we tend to colonize the leftover, marginal spaces in cities and towns because

we see them as opportunities for improvement. However, in the process we could be remov- ing spaces that harbor the placemaking practices of marginalized people. The West Side Piers in New York’s West Village, for instance, used to be abandoned, marginal spaces of neglect. But they were also a crucial space for MSM to not only cruise, but to socialize and build community. These piers were transformed in the early 21st century into beautifully designed parks. While these parks are indeed an incredible waterfront amenity to a broader public, they are at the expense of a truly rich and complex social space created by MSM. (Kohler, 2012)

Figure 41: Frank Hallam, En Masse Sunners seen from Pier 45, 1985

Chapter 6 RECOMMENDATIONS

“Tolerance - not assimilation - is the democratic litmus test for social equality.” - Samuel Delany, Times Square Red, Times Square Blue

6.1 Unplanned Contact

Marginal places have the capacity to provide space for people to challenge social norms and the boundaries of privacy in public space. Our current placemaking discourse favors networking rather than contact situations in our public spaces. Because of this, certain activities are sanctioned in public space through placemaking practice. Consumption and family‐friendly entertainment saturate the public realm sometimes at the expense of other, marginal activities. Heavily programming public space with networking‐oriented activities can create places that feel lonely, artificial, and oppressive. Some forms of current placemaking practice emphasize these networking‐oriented activities and as practitioners we should be critical of them. Events that require ad- vertising or for users to spend money to participate reduce the amount of inter‐class contact and increase networking‐oriented social interactions. Instead of this, we should encourage more unplanned contact in public space rather than networking‐oriented, hyper‐programmed events to increase social knowledge across a wide array of user groups.

6.2 Recognize the Value of Marginal Places

Often, we perceive marginal places, particularly those that occupy leftover, interstitial spaces as blank canvases, ripe for design and programming interventions. However, it is important to view marginal places as more than just dysfunctional, unused, or in need of occupation by current

placemaking interventions. Marginal, leftover spaces have the capacity to provide space for marginalized people, who have been pushed out of other public spaces. Cruising places exist because for centuries MSM were denied the ability to express their sexuality in public without fear of persecution and arrest. It is possible that there are other groups of people in the same circumstances that rely on marginal places to express themselves. Because of this, we should recognize the placemaking value

6.3 Without Fear of Prosecution

As placemakers we must work to change public policy and design approaches to allow for more private areas in public space. This includes an end to entrapment and policing of people who are engaged in discreet public sex. We can begin to do this by working to change how public lewdness laws are enforced. In Massachusetts, “In order for the conduct to be ‘public,’ it must occur in a place where it is reasonably foreseeable that unsuspecting bystanders will happen upon it. When the participants act in deliberate disregard of that risk, their conduct is considered ‘public’ regardless of whether they are discovered by the police or another person, Stated another way, the laws are ‘not designed to punish persons who desire privacy and take reasonable measures to secure it.’ So long as the sexual activity takes place in a reasonable secluded area, it should be beyond the scope of the law.” (GLAD, 2016) This simple change would reduce entrapment by police and put the law on the side of MSM.

We should also design and support civic spaces that encourage contact relations and analyze and legitimize a broad range of social relationships, including sexual relationships such a public cruising. This will not only facilitate equity in public space but will encourage social mixing and inter-class connection. When we restrict forms of contact in public space, whether they be social or sexual, we inhibit social movement, change, and the equity that comes with a democratic urban public sphere. In Toronto, Canada, for instance, since 2008 public sex has been allowed in Toronto’s Marie Curtis Park if patrons do not litter, do not engage in sexual activities near the playground, and limit public sex to evenings. Additionally, Toronto urban planner, Jen Roberton made a case to CBC radio in 2016 that public parks should be designed to include spaces for MSM to cruise. (Roberton, 2016) We should be advocating for these practices in all our public spaces.

Cruising as a placemaking practice has developed within our society, not outside of it, as a reaction to systemic oppression and heterosexist violence. To ignore or to suppress MSM placemaking practices, reduces the freedom of MSM to fully be who they are. It is not the duty of MSM to conform their public social practice to create a safe space for oppressive and violent heterosexist morality. If placemakers truly want to create and preserve equitable public spaces, then we must make and preserve space for marginal groups to express themselves without fear of prosecution.

6.4 Provide Discreet Wayfinding

Discreet forms of wayfinding for cruising places are not without precedent. In the Netherlands, in both Rotterdam and Amsterdam, there are signs indicating that cruising happens in two public parks that have cruising places. (Simply Amsterdam, 2018) (RTV Rijnmond, 2011) Rather than design a space for cruising, merely putting up signage will not only legitimize cruising places but, will give others the choice to avoid encountering sex in public, rather than stumbling upon it unexpectedly. In conjunction with strategically places trash receptacles, these signs could replace the informal wayfinding used now by MSM to indicate where cruising occurs. Furthermore, providing condoms and personal lubricant in discreet sta- tions through cruising places, like park maps kept in small wooden boxes in national parks, will encourage safer sexual practices in public and will help to indicate to MSM that they are a valued and respected part of the civic realm.

6.5 Encourage & Support

It is crucial that we encourage and support members of marginalized communities to become professional placemakers, planners, and designers to be more effective at addressing the placemaking needs of marginalized people and places. Place is intimate and personal and to truly and genuinely engaging with a community requires trust. Placemaking professionals should represent as many types of communities and people as possible to foster trust between professionals and clients. The Michigan Association of Planning recognized this issue in its 2012 Social Justice and Planning Report. Their recommendations include:

. Fostering meaningful engagement in planning initiatives and educating participants about the planning profession during these initiatives. Meaningful citizen engagement should include the inclusion of marginalized groups, such as low-income people, youth, seniors, Lesbian, Gay, Bisex- ual, and Transgendered (LGBT) individuals, underrepresented religious communities, ethnic and racial minority groups, and people with disabilities. . Targeting underrepresented groups during urban planning recruitment and career development initiatives. . Encouraging the incorporation of urban planning education into K-12 school curriculums. . Encouraging urban planning programs at colleges and universities to recruit and support students from underrepresented groups. . Professionally mentoring members of underrepresented groups, including those already in the profession. . Demonstrating that urban planning can help address the concerns of people living in distressed communities. . Developing a recruitment strategy (Michigan Association of Planning, 2012)

These strategies could significantly diversify the placemaking field over time and help foster a deeper understanding of the placemaking needs of marginalized people. Our efficacy as placemakers is dependent upon broadening our perception of what it means to make place. By encouraging diversity of perspective in our professional practice and academic discourse, we will increase our capability to make public space more open, inclusive, and equitable.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amsterdam.info. (2018). Red Light District. Retrieved from www.amsterdam.info: https://www.amsterdam.info/red-light-district/

Blum, S. (2016, January 14). Cruising Isn't Dead—If You Know Where to Look. Retrieved from broadly.vice.com: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/nz8x37/cruising-isnt-deadif- you-know-where-to-look

Boone, R. (2009, October 23). Residents Upset With Late-Night Trysts In Forest Park. Retrieved from www.ny1.com: https://web.archive.org/web/20131008223503/http://www.ny1.com/content/news/10 7819/residents-upset-with-late-night-trysts-in-forest-park

Boston Landmarks Commission. (1983). Back Bay Fens. Boston: Boston Landmarks Commission.

Carlock, C. (2017, May 26). HYM is buying Suffolk Downs today. Here’s what you need to know about the deal. Boston Business Journal.

CDC. (2016, February 29). Gay and Bisexual Men's Health: Substance Use. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov: https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/substance-abuse.htm

Chauncey, G. (1995). Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World. New York: Basic Books.

Christian Grov, A. S. (2014). Gay and Bisexual men's use of the Internet: Research from the 1990s through 2013. J Sex Res.

CIA. (2018, May 1). The World Factbook. Retrieved from www.cia.gov: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html

City of Boston. (2015). Open Space Plan 2008-2014. Boston: City of Boston.

City Of Boston. (2016, July 14). Urban Wilds: East Boston. Retrieved from www.boston.gov: https://www.boston.gov/departments/parks-and-recreation/urban-wilds-east-boston

City of Boston. (2017, April 3). East Boston. Retrieved from www.boston.gov/: https://www.boston.gov/neighborhood/east-boston

Conti, K. (2016, December 21). Citizens Bank to continue sponsorship of The Lawn on D. Boston Globe.

Creswell, T. (2014). Place: An Introduction. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons LTD.

Delany, S. (1999). Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. New York City: New York University Press.

Dowsett, G. a. (2006). A review of knowledge about the sexual networks and behaviors of men who have sex with men in Asia. Melbourne: La Trobe University.

Dumanoski, D. (2001). Parks, Lost and Found. Land&People.

Emerald Necklace Conservancy. (2018). Back Bay Fens. Retrieved from www.emeraldnecklace.org: https://www.emeraldnecklace.org/park-overview/back- bay-fens/

Encyclopedia.com. (2018, May 7). Cruising. Retrieved from Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender: Culture Society History: https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias- almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/cruising

Fenway Civic Association. (2018). History. Retrieved from fenwaycivic.org: https://fenwaycivic.org/about/history/

Fischer, H. (1977). Gay Semiotics. San Francisco: NFS Press.

Fitzsimmons, E. G. (2016, June 21). In Times Square, New Zone Restrictions That Even the Hulk Can’t Break. New York Times.

Flint, A. (2014, September 17). Wait Your Turn for the Swings at Boston's Adult Playground. City Lab.

Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Foucault, M. (1967 ). Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias. Architecture /Mouvement/ Continuité (translated by Jay Miskoweic in 1984).

Friends of Belle Isle Marsh. (n.d.). Friends of Belle Isle Marsh. Retrieved from friendsofbelleislemarsh.com/: http://friendsofbelleislemarsh.com/

Gehl, J. (1971). Life Between Buildings. Washington, DC: Island Press.

GLAD. (2016). Overview of Legal Issues For Gay Men, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgender People. Boston: GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).

Haller, V. (2016, January 11). Indo-Caribbean Content, Victorian Style. New York Times.

Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: Impersonal sex in public places. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.

HYM. (n.d.). Suffolk Downs Redevelopment. Retrieved from www.suffolkdownsredevelopment.com: http://www.suffolkdownsredevelopment.com/

Isay, R. A. (1989). Being homosexual: gay men and their development. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.

Kay Carpenter, L. C. (1980). Victorian Richmond Hill. New York: The Richmond Hill Chapter of The Queens Historical Society. Retrieved from www.richmondhillhistory.org: http://www.richmondhillhistory.org/forestpark.html

Kilgannon, C. (2005, September 21). A Sex Stop on the Way Home. New York Times.

Kohler, W. (2012). Homo History – Sex: NYC’s Christopher Street, the Trucks, and the West Side Highway Piers A Sexual Wonderland. Retrieved from www.back2stonewall.com: http://www.back2stonewall.com/2018/05/gay-history-christopher-street-sex.html

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (Supreme Court 2003).

Macek, S. (2006). Urban Nightmares: The Media, the Right, And the Moral Panic Over the City. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Marsh, Friends of Belle Isle. (1985, October). Belle Isle News. Belle Isle News.

MCCA. (2016). About Us. Retrieved from www.massconvention.com: https://www.massconvention.com/about-us/about-us

Michigan Association of Planning. (2012). Social Justice and Planning Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Association of Planning.

NYC Parks. (2018). The Forests of New York City - Cunningham Park. Retrieved from www.nycgovparks.org: https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/cunningham- park/highlights/11311

NYC Parks. (n.d.). Forest Park History. Retrieved from www.nycgovparks.org: https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/forest-park/history

Pool, K. (2000). Marginal Landscapes As Critical Infrastructure: Boston's Back Bay Fens. Annual Meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. Los Angeles: Kathy Pool.

PPS. (2005, November 30). 10 PRINCIPLES FOR SUCCESSFUL SQUARES. Retrieved from Project For Public Spaces: https://www.pps.org/article/squaresprinciples

PPS. (2009, January 1). HOW PUBLIC SPACES CAN BOOST BUILDING PERFORMANCE. Retrieved from Project For Public Spaces: https://www.pps.org/article/bldgperformance

PPS. (n.d.). The Power of 10+. Retrieved from Project for Public Spaces: https://www.pps.org/article/the-power-of-10

Roberton, J. (2016, December 4). Cities Need to Plan for Sex in Public Parks. (C. Radio, Interviewer)

Rofes, E. E. (2001). Imperial New York: Destruction and Disneyfication under Emperor Giuliani. Review of Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. Samuel R. Delany. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies.

Rogers, T. (2012, July 21). The Pines’ Summer of Discontent: It’s Grindr’s fault. New York Magazine.

RTV Rijnmond. (2011, January 14). Not homopaaltjes in Kralingse Bos. Retrieved from www.rijnmond.nl: https://www.rijnmond.nl/nieuws/9382/Toch-geen-homopaaltjes-in- Kralingse-Bos

Signature Boston. (2018). About Us. Retrieved from Signature Boston: https://signatureboston.com/lawn-on-d/about-us

Simply Amsterdam. (2018). Oeverlanden Cruising Area. Retrieved from www.simplyamsterdam.nl/: http://www.simplyamsterdam.nl/Oeverlanden_cruising_area.htm

TEA/AECOM. (2016). Global Attractions Attendance Report. Anaheim, CA: Themed Entertainment Association (TEA).

The Cultural Landscape Foundation. (2016). Forest Park NY. Retrieved from https://tclf.org: https://tclf.org/landscapes/forest-park-ny

The Fenway Garden Society. (2018). Our History. Retrieved from http://fenwayvictorygardens.org/: http://fenwayvictorygardens.org/learn/history/

Times Square Alliance. (2018). Times Square Transformation. Retrieved from www.timessquarenyc.org: https://www.timessquarenyc.org/times-square- transformation

Times Square Alliance. (n.d.). A Roadmap for a 21st Century Times Square. Retrieved from http://www.abettertimessquare.org: http://www.abettertimessquare.org/the-plan/

Tracy, T. (2017, July 27). Vandal slaps gay slurs and swastikas on trees and rocks in Queens’ Forest Park. New York Daily News.

UNAIDS. (2006). "UNAIDS: Men who have sex with men" (PDF). UNAIDS.

Waitt, G. R.-M. (2006). Places of reconciliation: gay, lesbian and transgender place-based belongings in a regional Australian centre. Sociology for a Mobile World, 1-10.

William A. Newman, W. E. (2006). Boston's Back Bay: The Story of America's Greatest Nineteenth-century Landfill Project. UPNE.

APPENDIX

A.1 Formal Interviews

Image used for question 9

100

101

102

A.2 Demographic Maps

Key for New York City maps

Land Use Cunningham Park

103

Land Use Forest Park

Median Household Income Cunningham Park

Median Household Income Forest Park

104

Communities of color Cunningham Park

Communities of color Forest Park

105

106

A.3 Site Visit Notes

A.4 Yelp Reviews

107

108