June 11, 2019. Park visitors using the Chicago 606 Trail. Photo credit: Armando L. Sanchez / Chicago Tribune
Intro
In 2006, the Atlanta BeltLine Inc. was created to build expansive parks and trails in Atlanta, connecting 45 Atlanta neighborhoods by redeveloping abandoned railroad lines. But researchers worry there is a big risk: the Atlanta BeltLine could drive “green gentrification” in historically marginalized communities of color on the westside of Atlanta.
“Green gentrification” is becoming a pressing issue for cities like Atlanta nationwide.
The study
Researchers at the University of Illinois and University of Colorado explored “green gentrification” in 10 different U.S. cities, including New York, NY; Los Angeles, CA; and Chicago, IL. They define green gentrification as the process by which creating parks and open spaces results in increased housing prices and, often, the displacement of low-income residents in urban neighborhoods.
The researchers investigated if new parks built between 2008 and 2016 drove green gentrification within half a mile from census tracts. They examined how park location, size and function affect neighborhood change:
- Do new parks always foster gentrification in surrounding neighborhoods?
- Does the location and size of parks matter?
- Are parks with active transportation trails worse for gentrification?
Most importantly, the researchers challenge the “Just Green Enough” claim that small-scale parks drive less green gentrification compared to large parks.
The study found that newer parks do drive green gentrification. The results of the study revealed that while small parks did not necessarily influence less gentrification, park function and location did. Specifically, parks that were large and centrally located/close to downtown, such as in Los Angeles and Seattle, had a bigger gentrifying impact than suburban parks.
Additionally, the study found that new parks with greenways, corridors of vegetation conserved for recreational use, accelerated gentrification when they included active transportation trails, such as walking and bike trails. This was the case in Chicago’s 606 trail, for example, where housing units around the 2.7-mile abandoned rail line-turned-recreational park were valued more because of their close proximity to the park and its amenities.
Recommendations for urban park designers
Few studies have paid attention to how new and centrally located park projects can potentially drive neighborhood change. The results of this study call into question the role of urban park improvements in increasing the quality of life for at-risk communities.
To prevent displacement of low-income communities alongside new parks, the researchers propose that urban planners must learn from injustices created by developed parks, such as Atlanta’s BeltLine and New York’s High Line, when planning the design of parks. They suggest that through investigating how residents from marginalized communities perceive and use new parks in gentrifying neighborhoods, the gentrifying impact of new parks can be better understood.
Most importantly, the researchers advise that urban planners spend more of their efforts on securing affordable housing for existing residents rather than trying to replicate popular public parks. Securing affordable housing will not only ensure current residents are not displaced by new park development, but also center marginalized voices in the design and creation of public parks. Instead of tourist-oriented parks, we need more community-oriented parks.