Parks and Smarter Growth

8/14/2019 Parks and Smarter Growth

1/12

Copyright 2007 by the Funders Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

* The Funders Network works

to inspire, strengthen, andexpand philanthropic leadershipand funders abilities to supportorganizations working toimprove communities throughbetter development decisionsand growth policies. For moreinformation, visitwww.fundersnetwork.org.

Translation Paper

Edition

#3

#2

Parks, Public Greenspace, and Smarter Growth:Opportunities for Linking Land and People

Elected officials, community leaders, andvoters in North Americas cities andtowns increasingly recognize how muchthere is to gain from rehabilitating existingparks and creating new parks and newpublic greenspace. Between 1988 and 2006,voters in cities andcounties across theUnited Statesapproved nearly $40billion in new fundingfor parks and publicgreenspace. These

measures demonstratethe publics stronginterest in protectingopen space, providingrecreationalopportunities,improving the vitalityof cities, and makinggood decisions aboutgrowth and land use.

Yet too often, the provision of parks andgreenspace remains reactive and piecemeal,resulting in separate development of parks,housing, and retail with little strategicoverlap. Instead, when local governmentsuse park assets as part of a comprehensive

approach to growth and development, theybring life back into cities, leverage neweconomic development, and lead toimportant measures of improved health,youth development, water quality andhabitat protection, and neighborhood

revitalization.

New strategies thatintentionally link parksand greenspace withcommunitydevelopment, publichealth, social justice,and access andopportunity, areleading to betterdecisions about howand wherecommunities grow andchange. Parkdevelopment andplanning represent

exceptional opportunities for public agenciesand private foundations to provide leadershipto improve communities. Park and publicgreenspace development is properly

understood as a land use planning tool that isnon-prescriptive, market-based, andenthusiastically-supported by the public.

This second edition Translation Paper was commissioned by the Funders Network forSmart Growth and Livable Communities.* It was first written in 2000 and updated in2007 by the collaborating author, Kathleen Blaha, formerly of The Trust for PublicLand. It is the third updated second edition in a series of Translation Papers sponsored bythe Funders Network to illustrate the ways that making better decisions about growthand development can improve individual lives, the civic life of communities, and ourbuilt and natural environments. The full series is available at www.fundersnetwork.org.

Abstract

36514 FUNDERS TRANSLATION 4/16/07 10:35 AM Page 1


2/12

Funders Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities2

Public enthusiasm and support for parksand public greenspace is evident inhundreds of localities and expresses itself inmany ways. Over the last ten years, manycity and metropolitan area public park bondauthorizations have linked city and countypark funding programs with investments ofhundreds of million dollars. Examplesinclude Los Angeles County, Seattle/KingCounty, Portland/Portland Metro,Miami/Dade County, and Phoenix.Significantly, in all these measures votersprovided funding for both central city andsuburban public land acquisition and parkredevelopment. Since 1988, voters around

the country have approved 76 percent of1,990 conservation finance measures,creating some $40 billion for preservingimportant lands and creating park space,according to The Trust for Public LandsLand Vote database, which tracks state andlocal conservation finance measures.

Individually, tens of thousands ofAmericans have joined local parksconservancies and friends groups, giving

millions of dollars and donatinghundreds of thousands of hours

of time and work. Hundreds ofpark advocacy organizations nowexist around the country at thecity and neighborhood level.Beyond the funds generated,these public-private partnershipshonor and make use of thepublics enthusiasm for thesespecial places and are bringingstrength and creativity to thedesign, development, andmanagement of public parks. In

several instances, management of specific

parks has been all but turned over toentrepreneurial citizen groups.

Many of these citizen groups and publicagencies extend their efforts far beyond theaesthetics and physical maintenance of

parks. They are engaged in real communityoutreach, with the parks a component ofcommunity development. The more acommunity combines a park with otheruses (housing, public streets and sidewalks,transit, schools), the more the park enlivensthe neighborhood. Parks stimulate realestate stability and are deeply valued by thepeople who use them, based on their link toreal community development needs.

In East Boston, after active citizenssucceeded in acquiring an abandonedConrail track for the East Boston Greenway,developers immediately began expressing

interest in building housing near andalongside the new amenity. Across thecountry in Seattle, community leadersseeking to raise millions of dollars to buy anold Unocal oil storage tank farm forconversion into a sculpture garden foundreceptivity not only from a group ofphilanthropists, but also from futureresidents of several high-rise buildingsunder construction near the site who werethrilled to exchange a neighboringbrownfield for a gardenand to invest tomake it happen. In Cleveland, a major park

investment by Metroparks spurred a privatedeveloper to start a new housing project ona brownfield along long-ignored MillCreek. As the experience of these and othercommunities shows, the partnering of parksand neighborhoods enhances and stabilizesa community.

Park rehabilitation alone can bring newpeople and new vitality into urbanneighborhoods. But creation of newgreenspace can do even more. Several ofAmericas oldest, densest cities haveundertaken breathtaking center-city parkcreation and park rejuvenation activitiesthat have pumped new vitality into thecities themselves. This dramatically beliesthe misconception that older cities are allbuilt up and that any new growth can only

Funders Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities

Parks and Community

Development

Since 1988, voters around the

country have approved 76 percent

of 1,990 conservation finance

measures, creating some $40 billion

for preserving important lands and

creating park space.



3/12

Parks, Public Greenspace, and Smarter Growth 3

take place in greenfields on the urbanfringe. Boston, for instance, rejected federalhighway money in favor of transit funding.They put a major rail line underground andconstructed a greenway park trail on thesurface. Today, the skinny, five-mile

Southwest Corridor Parkwhich includesplaying courts, community gardens,walking paths, and a commuter bicycletrailis one of the anchors of SouthBostons revitalization. Based on the successof Southwest Park, and later, thetransformation of a parking garage into thecitys magnificent Post Office Square park,the city of Boston is now placing a majorinterstate highway underground andcovering it with open space and a park-likeboulevard, using the resultant privatedevelopment to ultimately recoup the

increased costs of building underground.

Many cities are moving forward withredevelopment plans that use parks andgreenspace to leverage mixed-usedevelopment. Chicago is converting a mile-square abandoned USX steel plant on thesouth shore into a new community withhousing, shops, jobs, and 123 acres of newparkland (in a city which has one of thelowest park acres-per-capita ratios in thecountry). Baltimore is creating a 14-miletrail along the long-neglected Gwynns Fallsstream as it winds through moderate- andlow-income neighborhoods on its way tothe Harbor.

Surveys consistently show that people wantto live close to greenspace and not in theecological black holes that our cities oftenresemble. And park efforts over the lastcentury have proved this idea, from theconversion of Chicagos tannery district toits magnificent lakefront park, to therevitalizing engine of the cleaned-upTennessee Riverfront in Chattanooga.

Bostons Mayor Tom Menino says parks arean economic development tool. ChicagosMayor Richard Daley is committing millionsto vacant lot recycling, restoration of theChicago River, the new Millennium Park,and rooftop gardens. And in Detroit, more

than $250 million in public and privatemoney is being used for a greenway along theDetroit River. These mayors understand thelink between parks and economicdevelopment. They see that their publicinvestments are attracting millions of new

dollars in private investment for their cities.

Parks and Health

While the aesthetic and recreational role ofthese spaces is a vital part of theirimportance, public health researchers arealso finding that there are correlationsbetween an individuals access to parks andincreased physical activity. The creationand/or enhancement of parks andplaygrounds is proving to be an effectivestrategy for increasing physical activity andimproving health. Studies find that peoplewho live close to parks are more physicallyactive. For example, a Rand Corporationstudy found that adolescent girls who liveclose to parks engage in more physicalactivity than their counterparts who donot.1Another Rand studyshowed that in Los Angeles,people living close to parksexercise more and visit parksmore frequently than thoseliving further away.2

The importance of physicalactivity as a contributor tooverall good health makes parksa vital strategy, along with goodnutrition, in the national effortto combat and reduce epidemic levels ofobesity, diabetes, and heart disease. Livingnear safe and well-equipped parks andpublic open spaces is more than an amenity:it is a vital component in improving thehealth of children and adults alike.

Parks and Social Justice

According to the InternationalCity/County Management Association

Living near safe and well-equipped

parks and public open spaces is

more than an amenity: it is a vitalcomponent in improving the health

of children and adults alike.



4/12

(ICMA), recent research demonstrates asignificant association between race,ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and accessto physical activity settings including parks,bike trails, and public pools, etc.3A 2004study by the Health Research and Policy

Centers at the University of Chicago findsthat communities with lower incomes,higher poverty rates, and higherproportions of racial/ethnic minoritiesstatistically the most at risk to be sedentaryand overweightalso have the fewestopportunities for community-levelphysical activity.4

This unfair and unequal distribution ofsafe, accessible parks has a direct andnegative impact on the health and lifeexpectancy of the most disadvantaged

populations. Communities of color andlow-income individuals, withoutplaces for recreation or safe,walkable neighborhoods, aresignificantly less likely thanwhites and the more affluent toengage in the regular physicalactivity that is crucial topreventing obesity and relatedhealth problems. Among whiteadults in the United States, 33percent engage in regularphysical activity, compared to

only 23.7 percent of African Americanadults and 22 percent of Latino adults.5

And adults with incomes below thepoverty level are three times as likelyas high-income individuals to bephysically inactive.6

These are issues of major concern tocommunities of color and low-incomeindividuals. A 2002 survey by the PublicPolicy Institute of California found that 72percent of Latinos (and 60 percent ofEuropean Americans) believe that low-income and minority neighborhoods do

not get a fair share of well-maintainedparks and recreational facilities comparedto other neighborhoods.7A 2003 publicopinion poll by the Field ResearchCorporation on childhood obesity inCalifornia found that 51 percent of African

Americans and 49 percent of Latinos ratetheir neighborhood as being fair to verypoor in providing opportunities forchildren to be physically active. AmongEuropean Americans, almost one in threerespondents rate their neighborhood as fair

to very poor in this regard.

Los Angeles County offers one example ofsevere park inequity. More than 1.5 millionchildren in Los Angeles County do not livewithin walking distance of a public park.The existing park space isdisproportionately concentrated in theregions wealthy neighborhoods. As a result,data show that Latino, African American,and Asian American/Pacific Islander youthare less likely than their European Americancounterparts to enjoy access to parks,

playgrounds, and other exercise facilities.8Fitness reports among Californiaschoolchildren in the Los Angeles UnifiedSchool District show nearly one-third of the605 schools reporting that less than 10percent of students met basic fitness levels,and 40 schools did not have a singlephysically fit-student.9

It should be no surprise that people of colorand low-income individualsoverwhelmingly support land conservationand parks. A national poll conducted by

The Trust for Public Land and The NatureConservancy in 2004 found particularlystrong support for conservation amongLatino voters, with 77 percent willing tosupport new conservation-fundingmeasures, compared with 65 percent of allvoters. In 2002, Californians passed thelargest resource bond in U.S. history,Proposition 40, which included $2.6 billionfor parks, clean water, and clean air.Statewide exit polls showed support from77 percent of African American, 74 percentof Latino, 60 percent of Asian

American/Pacific Islander, and 56 percentof European American voters. Seventy-five(75) percent of voters making under$20,000 per year and 61 percent with ahigh school diploma or less also supportedthe proposition.10


The unfair and unequal distribution

of safe, accessible parks has a

direct and negative impact on the

health and life expectancy of the

most disadvantaged populations.



5/12

In fact, of the 263 county ballot measurestracked since 1996 by the LandVotedatabase, less affluent communities haveshown the highest levels of support forparks. By and large, these measures wereconsidered in counties where the majority

of the population is white, more affluent,and better educatedmore than twice asmany of these measures have been on theballot in communities with above averageincomes (189) than those with belowaverage incomes (74). Yet, the rate ofapproval in the more affluent communities,while very high, is slightly lower than in lessaffluent communities (76 percent comparedto 79 percent).

Significant barriers exist which contributeto lower levels of public finance activity for

parks and open space in urban jurisdictionswith large populations of low-incomecommunities of color. There are competingconcerns such as education, crime, and jobsas well as limited activity by mainstreamconservation organizations in inner-cityenvironments. Opposition by taxpayerassociations and high voter approvalthresholds for public finance measures poseadditional barriers to conservation financemeasures in some states. Yet these barriershave been successfully overcome with theright mix of strategy, resources, and

community support.

Philanthropic Leadership

National Leadership

Funders in their own cities, such as TheGeorge Gund Foundation in Cleveland,Gates Family Fund in Denver, and The SanFrancisco Foundation, have long supportedcity park investment. But in 1994, the

Wallace Readers Digest Funds raised thebar by first, thinking nationally, and second,working to link residents directly to theirsometimes faltering parks throughadvocating stronger partnerships and betterpark programming.

The Wallace program for big-city parkswas the first national effort to show thevalue of the Olmsted Legacy (parks forpeople) with an investment in both parksand in local park organizations (many ofwhich were quite fledgling). Moreover, an

important goal of the program was thelinkage of parks and neighborhoodsanapproach that was bolstered by therequirement that each community come upwith matching funds for the Wallacemoney. The results have been impressive:millions of dollars of new funding, a newgeneration of leadership, an increase incommunity control and input, and arevitalized vision of the role of parks.

Atlanta

The Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation isworking to develop a system of GreatParks in Atlanta, tied to the larger vision ofhow public space connects the entirecommunity. By providing support, theFoundations goal is to help create parks andensure that they are high quality, well-maintained, and protected. The Foundationdecided in 2001 to make parks andgreenspace inside Atlantas I-285 beltway amajor priority, pledging between $20million and $30 million for land acquisitionand maintenance. The Foundations

Environmental Initiative has already helpedto preserve more than 1,100 acres of land inmetropolitan Atlanta, simultaneouslyachieving environmental, public access,social capital, and urban developmentobjectives.

The Blank Foundation is assisting the cityof Atlanta in implementing its vision forthe Beltline, a 22-mile green ribbonaround the city that will create new parks,transit stops, and housing options. TheBeltline project is expected to cost over $2

billion and take close to 25 years. TheFoundation kicked off its investment in theproject with a $2.5 million grant to TheTrust for Public Land to invest in buildingthe public parkway by acquiring right-of-way for the project.




6/12

Detroit

In 2003, the Kresge Foundation announceda $50 million grant to fund and maintain athree-mile RiverWalk pathway throughdowntown Detroit along the Detroit River.The scope of the riverfront vision is vast. Itincludes a new state park with a harbor; anew port facility for cruise ships andsightseeing vessels; and a plaza, promenade,and retail development near GeneralMotors Renaissance Center headquarters.Eventually, hundreds of new housing unitsare expected to surround the public spacesalong the Detroit River.

The RiverWalkfor walking, cycling, andskatinglinks all elements of the riverfrontvision together, positioning the Kresge gift alinchpin for the project. The Foundation is

paying $50 million in a series of five grantsover five years that, creates a reward for

accomplishing one part andkeeps the carrot out in front sothe process keeps moving,according to John Marshall III,former president of theFoundation. In 2005, the FordFoundation and W.K. KelloggFoundation made substantialgifts to the Riverfront Projectfunding community-basedplanning, site development, and

long-term sustainability. TheDetroit Riverfront Conservancy, Inc.,created to lead the effort, expects that the$250 million public and private investmentin the Detroit RiverWalk will spur morethan $1 billion in economic development.When we started this, we said we didntjust want to create public space on theriverfront; it was always done in the contextof creating economic development, saysMatthew Cullen, co-chair of theconservancy and general manager ofeconomic development and enterprise

services at General Motors Corp.

Camden, N.J.

After a relentless 50-year decline, the city ofCamden, N.J., is now the focus of a state

Economic Recovery Board, proposedinvestment by area developers, and a newgreenway. The Cooper River greenway, a24-mile corridorbut for the citys nine-acre sectionspans most of CamdenCounty. This extension of the trail into the

city of Camden has issues similar to manyurban trails being built around the country,such as the challenge of assembling parcelsalong roads through heavily developedpublic and private properties and near oldindustrial sites. The trail project, supportedby the Ford Foundation, will benefitmultiple neighborhoods, passing throughschool property, city parks, and taking usersto the shoreline of the Delaware River for aview of Philadelphia. But the trail is alsoenvisioned as a regional project,symbolically and actually, linking the city

to existing trails throughout the county andbeing a key segment of the proposedRiver-to-Bay greenway that will runacross the state.

Opportunities for Funders

The funding community has begun to playa significant role in urban park renovationbut there is much more that needs to bedone. Following is a list of eight types of

strategies that funders may consider in orderto support the role that parks andgreenspace play in building communities.

Support the development of standards forurban park creation, development, andmanagement. Standards are needed toguide public investment. The Trust forPublic Land has undertaken an initialround of such research that resulted in itsbook, Inside City Parks, which looks at thecenter cities of the 60 largest metropolitanareas. But no comparable work exists forsmaller cities, suburban communities, orcounties. For many years there have beentheoretical standards of minimum acres-per-1,000 of neighborhood and regional parksand other facilities. But these are grosscalibrations and do not take into account


The Detroit Riverfront Conservancy,

Inc. expects that the $250 million

public and private investment in the

Detroit RiverWalk will spur more

than $1 billion in economic

development.



7/12

population density or the many differentpurposes of parks and open space. Insteadof merely counting inputs of land anddollars, community decisions should bebased on an analysis of measurableoutcomesbenefits received by actual

urban dwellers in terms of recreation,conservation, livability, and property valueenhancement. No system of measuringoutcomes has been devised.

Support demonstration projects thatadvance the strategic use of parks andopen space.Just as with transit stations, itmakes fiscal sense for urban parks to belocated near densely-populated urbanneighborhoods. A public investment inparks should serve larger numbers ofpeople. Conversely, crowded neighborhoods

have particular need for patches of openspace. Funders can encourage park designand redesign as part of a broad strategy forimproving urban environments.

Integrate parks into the redevelopment oflow-income neighborhoods that havelarge numbers of tax-foreclosed vacantlots. In cities such as Baltimore, Detroit,Newark, N.J., and Chicago, communitydevelopment corporations are activelyconstructing new housing units. But toooften the housing is being planned withlittle or no regard for public parks and

greenspace, failing to do the one thingguaranteed to increase neighborhoodsdesirability. Many communities have foundthat uniting to fix parks, clean-up vacantlots, and build community gardens has beenthe first step to collaboration on other morecontentious issuesparks can serve as theleading vehicle for growing strongercommunity relations. Supporters ofChicagos Garfield Park have broadenedtheir interests to work side-by-side with theNew Bethel community developmentcorporation not only on park

improvements, but also on new inner-cityhousing and better public transit.

Recognize the relationship between parksand environmental sustainability.Withgrowing populations, more and more

metropolitan areas are grappling withproblems of water supply and purity andmany are considering using parks and openspace as buffers to protect streams, canals,rivers, and lakes. Voters inCharlotte/Mecklenburg County, N.C.,

deemed their drinking water source,Mountain Island Lake, worthy of a $20million investment. From Charlotte in thewater-rich southeast to Cincinnati along theflood-prone Ohio River to ChicagosCalumet Lakes cleanup to Phoenix in theArizona desert, hydrologists and parkplanners are beginning to work together todesign systems that meet multiple objectivesof water management, water qualityimprovement, and recreation. Among thenumerous challenges are designing flood-resistant facilities, establishing artificial

wetlands that are open to public use, andcontrolling run-off from parking lots.

Cities and inner-ring suburbs are alsograppling with the challenge of abandonedbrownfields. Some of these are problematicbuilding sites, but can be cleaned-up andreclaimed as parks and open space. Denverconverted an old rail yard into a newdowntown Commons, a new focal point forthe city that is stimulating new housing andretail development. San Franciscosabandoned Mission Bay rail yard is being

readied for something similar. Chicago willconvert a mile-square shuttered steel millproperty to parkland, a museum, a parkwayand housing. Pittsburgh is reclaiming ahuge slagheap into a greenway that will runfrom Frick Park to the Monongahela River(with support from the HeinzEndowments). Virginia Beach, Va.,transformed an old landfill into Mt.Trashmore Park (the highest point in thecity), and New York City turned the 3,000-acre Fresh Kills landfill into the largest parkin that city.

Investigate the use of developer impactfees for park creation and open spacepreservation. Many suburban counties andcities, including Chicago, Atlanta, and allcities in California, require developers to




8/12

donate land or make a commensuratepayment in order to preserve greenspace aspart of new construction. Other cities haveno such requirement. Supporters laud themechanism for saving land and keepingtaxes from climbing; opponents claim that

it raises the cost of new housing and drivesdevelopers away to other jurisdictions. Noone has fully analyzed its real impact onurban open space preservation.

Promote integrated funding programs.Public expenditures and bond referenda atall levels of government need to bepromoted as collaborative tools andincentives that can provide more resourcesfor local parks. Bringing federal and stategovernments into the picture is importantnot only for the resources they have but also

for the structural requirement they bringplanning. (It is notable that now, while theimportance of neighborhood planning isbecoming more widely recognized, mostcities park agencies are still operating eitheron an outmoded plan or on no plan at all.)The combination of a planning obligationwith some federal and state matching fundscould do for city parks what a comparableprogramtransportationdid for cityhighways in the 1970s and 1980s.

Undertake research to provide a credibleanalysis of the fiscal impact of parks.Perhaps the single greatest long-term

research need is providing economicproof of the value of urban parks. Parks,of course, will always be revered for theirmany other benefits, but their support willincrease further if it can be demonstratedthat they have economic clout that can

match or surpass the clout of their localizedcompetitorshousing, retail, andemployment nodes. In order to havemaximum participation in future policydiscussions, parks advocates need acarefully-designed study that measures andquantifies the economic impact of differentkinds of urban parks.

Leverage additional public and privatefunding. Public funding for parks isextremely limited. City parks are the leastlikely neighborhood benefit to find public

funding. No federal or state programs existto support them. No revenues are generatedfrom park projects that might attract privatedevelopers. City parks must be creativelydeveloped and marketed to leverage andattract fundingand private philanthropicfunding can be just the catalyst to doing so.These can be complex projects; from siteacquisition and potential elimination ofcontamination to community-based designto construction and ongoing management,they require extensive partnerships anddedication. It takes vision, commitment,and some risk-taking to kick them offwhich means it takes leadership.




9/12


Where Its Working Innovative Partnerships

Los AngelesSmall Parks, New Partnerships

Over 25 city and state agencies, community-based organizations and businesses areworking on a Parks for People initiative in Los Angeles. The partnership has proposed

adding 25 new parks to the city by 2010. Extensive geographic information system (GIS)analysis has pinpointed the neighborhoods most in need, including the Central City area,South L.A., portions of Southwest and Southeast L.A. County (including Wilmingtonand San Pedro), East L.A., and the Pacoima/San Fernando area.

Parks for People-LA (P4P-LA) serves as a catalyst for park development and a forum fordiscussion about healthy communities. The partnership with local neighborhoodorganizations and stakeholders drives community empowerment, aids neighborhoodrevitalization, and contributes to the development of healthy neighborhoods.

Parks for People-LA is a model of innovation, taking a different approach to solving atraditional problem by acting as an incubator and resource venture fund for parkdevelopment. Aided by the GIS tool, Greenprinting, P4P-LA works with local governmentagencies and community organizations, as well as their leaders and constituents, to

ground truth the planning maps and identify prospective park sites, engage naturalpartners and stakeholders, and secure public and private funds for land acquisition andconstruction. Underserved communities often have insufficient local financial resourcesand no access to private and public funding. This innovative program specifically assiststhose neighborhoods with the greatest needs.

Community organizing is critical. Parks for People-LA provides direct and indirectassistance to rally communities around projects, attending and hosting meetings tofacilitate dialogue and create local ownership. This includes a community design andplanning process. As plans are developed, P4P-LA identifies resources (public and private)for acquisition, design, construction, and stewardship.

Project management during and throughout construction is often facilitated by P4P-LAand culminates with the transfer of the park and/or improvements at completion.Stewardship planning, training, and programming are also provided.

A park project by itself cannot revitalize neighborhoods facing economic challenges,crime, violence, and other obstacles. Yet the process of engaging residents serves as acatalyst for creating neighborhood empowerment and a deeper sense of commitment. Theparticipatory process educates residents in organizing and vocalizing their concerns andbuilds crucial skills for long-term community renewal. Recognizing that long-termstewardship is vital to the success and longevity of parks, P4P-LA invests heavily inbuilding community stewardship programs.

Philadelphia Green and City Parks11

Philadelphia is blessed with 150 neighborhood parks, from tiny Bardascino Park in SouthPhiladelphia to 44-acre Wissinoming Park in the Northeast. Each park is different,reflecting the history, culture, and rich mosaic of its surroundings.

When neighbors come together to reclaim a park, they begin to reclaim theirneighborhood. In 1993, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Societys Philadelphia Greenlaunched its Parks Revitalization Project to help community groups take charge of theirparks. Begun as a modest initiative involving just three parks, the project now involvesnearly 60 throughout Philadelphia. Through the collaborative efforts of Philadelphia



10/12


Green, the citys Department of Recreation, the Fairmount Park Commission, andcommunity groups, the project has had a dramatic impact, greatly improving theappearance of many parks and making them an integral part of urban life once again.

Supported by the William Penn Foundation and beginning with Vernon Park, NorrisSquare in North Philadelphia, and Wharton Square in South Philadelphia, Philadelphia

Green organized volunteers into independent friends groups to serve as park stewards.At the same time, it offered training and technical support to Department of Recreationstaff and volunteers. A three-way partnership was born as Philadelphia Green staff, cityworkers, and volunteer groups worked together.

Philadelphia Green helped park groups to organize, plan projects, and recruit volunteers.It also channeled funding to the groups for small enhancement projects. The Departmentof Recreation responded to the groundswell of community support with stepped-upmowing, trash collection, and infrastructure repair. The cycle of decline in city parks soonslowed and eventually stopped and the system of neighborhood parks began a steadyclimb back toward vitality.

Government found ways to redirect existing resources and the community found ways tocontribute to park maintenance, said Joan Reilly, director of partnership development for

Philadelphia Green. We found ways to support both in the process, acting as a catalyst forchange. Volunteers say the three-way alliance created easier access to resources and contacts.Tom Fox, deputy commissioner for the Department of Recreation, says the strong commitmenton the part of everyone involved helped leverage more funds from the city, enabling thedepartment to slowly rebuild its staff and budget from a low-point in the early 1990s.

New York City and a Schools Partnership

The need for playgrounds and parks is acute in New York Citys low-incomeneighborhoods. Fully 16 of the citys 18 lowest-income Community Board Districts fail tomeet the accepted standard of 2.5 acres of open space per thousand residents, leavingfamilies in these communities with few recreational alternatives. Further, fewer than halfof New York Citys elementary schools have playgrounds and most of those are little morethan cracked asphalt lots.

In 1996, The Trust for Public Land (TPL) launched its City Spaces Playground Programand created 13 playgrounds by 2005. City Spaces involves extensive community outreach,participatory design, environmental education, and stewardship training processes. Theprocess allows children, parents, teachers, administrators, and other community membersto participate and contribute to all aspects of a sites conception, construction, eventualprogramming, and long-term management.

Through a five-year partnership with the New York City Department of Education that wasannounced in 2004, the City Spaces program will create 25 new community playgrounds ata cost of $1 million each. Foundations such as MetLife Foundation, The J.M. Kaplan Fund,and the Horace W. Goldsmith Foundation are contributing to the $25 million public-private partnership, one-third of which will be raised through private fund-raising efforts.

Part of what makes City Spaces work is the close working relationship with schools and

community groups to design, build, program, and then manage the playgrounds. Further,community outreach works to provide playgrounds that serve the community as a whole.City Spaces launches extensive outreach to the community at large, together with theschool and the local partner, with the aim of involving as many people as possible tocreate community connections with the new park.



11/12

Conclusion

The debate over how communities grow andchange did not start with parks, but thesediscussions are allowing residents to revisit

Frederick Law Olmsteds views about thesocial promise of parks and greenspace.Nineteenth century park advocates were thefirst to see the public health, civic, and socialbenefits to public open space, and OlmstedsCentral Park was the first to demonstrate theeconomic benefits that parks can leveragethrough increased property values. For manyyears these powerful concepts guided citybuilding and then for many more yearsafterward they were lost. Now, fortunately,the pendulum is swinging back.

There is a role for funders in supporting thecreation of standards that can createcommunity scorecards and common

expectations for identifying needs andpolicies to address them. And there is aneed to create a common language and avision that captures the physical and socialneeds that a communityresidents,environmentalists, and communitydevelopers alikeall have for creating parksand greenspace in and around where peoplelive and work.


Endnotes

1 Cohen, D. [et al]. Proximity of Parks and Schools is Associated with Physical Activity in AdolescentGirls. Active Living Research Conference, San Diego, February 2005.

2 Telephone conversation with Dr. Deborah Cohen, MD, MPH, Rand Corp., March 21, 2005.

3 Active Living and Social EquityCreating Healthy Communities for All Residents: A Guide for LocalGovernments. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, January 2005.

4 Powell, Lisa M [et al]. The relationship between community physical activity settings and race, eth-nicity and socioeconomic status. Evidence-Based Preventive Medicine, 2004, 1(2), p. 143.

5 Early Release of Selected Estimates Based on Data from the 2002 National Health Interview Survey,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, June 29, 2005.

6 Barnes, Patricia M. and Schoenborn, Charlotte. Physical Activity Among Adults: United States, 2000.Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,National Center for Health Statistics, May 14, 2003, p. 6.

7 Baldassare, Mark. PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and the Environment. SanFrancisco: Public Policy Institute of California, June 2002.

8 Pincetl, Stephanie [et al]. Toward a Sustainable Los Angeles: A Natures Services Approach, Center forSustainable Cities. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, March 2003, p. 36.

9 2003-2004 California Physical Fitness Report data, as cited in Garcia, Robert and Flores Baltodano,Erica. Healthy Children, Healthy Communities, and Legal Services.Journal of Poverty Law andPolicy, May-June 2005, 39(1), p. 57.

10 Garcia, Robert [et al]. Dreams of Fields: Soccer, Community and Equal Justice. Report on Sports inUrban Parks to the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Los Angeles: Center for Law inthe Public Interest, December 2002.

11 Drawn extensively from the Wharton School case study of the Pennsylvania Horticultures city parksprogram: http://www.pennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org/phlgreen/revitalizing_phila_parks.htm.



12/12

1500 San Remo Avenue, Suite 249Coral Gables, FL 33146(305) 667-6350 phone

(305) 667-6355 [email protected]

Translation Papers

The Funders Networks series of translation papers are designed to assist funders and otherinterested parties to better understand the connection between sprawling patterns ofdevelopment and urban disinvestment and specific issue areas and to articulate opportunities forprogress that would be created by smarter growth policies and practices. Four updated second

editions of the first papers in the series, including this one, have been published to date. Sixteentopics were covered by first editions in the series. Visit www.fundersnetwork.org to downloadelectronic copies or request printed versions.

2nd Editions

#4 Civic Participation and Smarter Growth: Improving How Communities and Places Growand Change.

#3 Parks, Public Greenspace, and Smarter Growth: Opportunities for Linking Land and People

#2 Workforce Development and Smart Growth: Opportunities for Linking Movements.

#1 Regional Equity and Smart Growth: Opportunities for Advancing Social and EconomicJustice in America.

1st Editions

#16Air Quality and Smart Growth: Planning for Cleaner Air.

#15 Energy and Smart Growth: Its About How and Where We Build.

#14 Water and Smart Growth: The Impacts of Sprawl on Aquatic Ecosystems.

#13 Community Development and Smart Growth: Stopping Sprawl at its Source.Jointly commissioned by the Funders Network and the Local Initiatives SupportCorporation (LISC).

#12 The Arts and Smart Growth: The Role of Arts in Placemaking.Jointly commissionedby the Funders Network and Grantmakers in the Arts.

#11 Health and Smart Growth: Building Health, Promoting Active Communities.#10 Biodiversity and Smart Growth: Sprawl Threatens Our Natural Heritage.

#9 Children, Youth and Families and Smart Growth: Building Family Friendly Communities.

#8 Education and Smart Growth: Reversing School Sprawl for Better Schools andCommunities.

#7 Aging and Smart Growth: Building Aging-Sensitive Communities.

#6 Transportation Reform and Smart Growth: A Nation at the Tipping Point.

#5 Agricultural Sustainability and Smart Growth: Saving Urban Influenced Farmland.

#4 Civic Participation and Smart Growth: Transforming Sprawl into a Broader Sense ofCitizenship.

#3 Opportunities for Smarter Growth: Parks, Greenspace and Land Conservation.

#2 Opportunities for Linking Movements: Workforce Development and Smart Growth.

#1 Opportunities for Smarter Growth: Social Equity and the Smart Growth Movement.


Documents

Parks and Smarter Growth