The excellent city park system: what makes it great and how to get there - History: UPARR at 25

Parks & Recreation, April, 2003 by Peter Harnik

Beginning in 1859, when Frederick Law Olmsted, Calvert Vaux and more than 3,00o laborers created Central Park, a wave of enthusiasm for urban "pleasure grounds" swept the nation. Thousands of parks were constructed and millions of words were written about their features and attributes. Over the next 75 years, the purpose and design Of parks metamorphosed, but they remained so important to cities that even during the depths of the Great Depression many park systems received large influxes of money and attention through the federal government's relief and conservation programs.

During the height of the city park movement, from about 1890 to 1940, great efforts were made to do parkland planning, to understand the relationship between parks and surrounding neighborhoods, and to measure the impact of parks. Leaders in Boston, Buffalo, Seattle, Portland, Denver, Baltimore and elsewhere proudly and competitively labored to convert their cities from drab, polluted industrial cores into beautiful, culturally uplifting centers. They believed a well-designed and -maintained park system was integral to that mission.

Inspired by boulevard systems in Minneapolis and Kansas City, and by Olmsted's "Emerald Necklace" in Boston, many cities sketched out interconnected greenways linking neighborhoods, parks and natural areas. Careful measurements were made of the location of parks and the travel distance (by foot, generally) for each neighborhood and resident. The field of park research was supported by the federal government through the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, which provided funding for data collection, research, analysis and dissemination.

Following World War II, the nation's attention turned toward the development of suburbs, and the commitment to the urban public domain began to wane. There was even a native assumption that private suburban backyards could replace most of the services provided by public city parks. Many of the ideas regarding parks' role in city planning and community socialization were lost. More importantly, ideas about measuring park success, assuring equity and meeting the needs of changing users languished.

Over the next half-century, much of the vast urban park system fell on hard times. Few cities provided adequate maintenance staffing and budgets, and most deferred critically needed capital investment. Many parks suffered from overuse--trampled plants and grass, deteriorated equipment, erosion, loss of soil resiliency and health. Others declined from underuse--graffiti, vandalism, invasion of noxious weeds, theft of plant resources and crime.

But every pendulum eventually swings back, and the effort to revive city park systems has slowly gained momentum. Beginning in 1995, many older cities such as Chicago, Boston, Washington and Cleveland started bouncing back from years of population loss and fiscal decline. With new residents and a greater sense of optimism, they and other places like them began seeking to reestablish a competitive edge by combining their strong geographies and histories with their newfound economies.

Elsewhere, in fast-growing, low-density places such as Charlotte, Dallas and Phoenix, planners are belatedly trying to create vibrant downtowns and walkable neighborhoods for a more cohesive urban identity. In both old cities and new, there's rising interest in the use of parks to help shape vitality. The breadth and depth of a park system, they said, can't be determined by simple statistics on acreage, recreation facilities and budgets. It was time to determine exactly what factors make for a truly excellent city park system.

To study this question--what makes an excellent city park system?--a multifaceted group of e5 urban and park experts was convened by the Trust for Public Land. The Trust for Public Land, a national land conservation group, has had a so-year interest in providing park land for city residents, and the organization is committed to understanding the factors that go into successful park making. As a result of the intensive two-day meeting, a list of ]even broad measures that make the greatest difference in defining a successful system were identified. The seven measures are:

A Clear Expression of Purpose

Park systems don't just happen. Wild areas don't automatically protect themselves from development, outmoded waterfronts don't spontaneously sprout flowers and promenades, and flat ground doesn't morph into ball-fields. The citizenry must clearly set forth in writing the purpose of the park system and a mandate for the park department. The department must then use that mandate as a springboard for its mission statement and the definition of its core services.

Also, to inform the public, the department should regularly publish an annual report summarizing its system and programs, and showing how well it fulfilled its mandate. Unfortunately, less than half of big-city agencies publish an annual report or give a comprehensive budgetary report.

Ongoing Planning and Community Involvement