Urban Parks: A Bittersweet Story

 

Image Credit: LIBERTIESDUBLIN.IE

 

Few urban parks are better known than Central Park. Central Park is a much-loved oasis in the midst of New York City’s urban sprawl and fast-paced life. But did you know that part of Central Park was once home to Seneca Village, a predominantly free African-American community?

Seneca Village was located between 82nd and 89th streets on what is known as the west side of Central Park today. Founded in 1825, it served as a safe haven from the unhealthy conditions in downtown Manhattan. In 1857, just 32 years after Seneca Village was founded, the city of New York evicted all 1,600 residents and forced them to relocate elsewhere. The reason? New York wanted to create a 750-acre public park for recreation.

This legacy of dispossession makes Central Park’s history bittersweet. Although Central Park was created with good intentions, it came at a grave cost to a unique community. Today, a small outdoor exhibit honors Seneca Village. But it is hardly enough.

Things have not changed much since then. Urban parks still impose burdens on low-income communities. A major factor is gentrification, when influxes of wealthy people and businesses renovate low-income neighborhoods, forcing residents out as rents soar. In this study, Baltimore and New York City were identified as two cities with the highest rates of gentrification around large urban parks as they attracted waves of wealthier newcomers drawn to the parks’ amenities.

Is it possible to make a space for everyone, where everyone’s voices are heard and no one’s rights are violated? In Washington, D.C., Building Bridges Across the River actively sought feedback from Capitol Hill and Anacostia residents to design a park that reflects their needs and interests. In Lower Manhattan, New York City, the city government allowed residents to redevelop abandoned lots into “pocket parks,” small communal parks. One example is the Creative Little Garden, where members all collaborate on the landscaping of the whole garden. Residents have full ownership of these parks and determine the park use. As these examples show, parks can help shape local identity when place-based strategies are implemented.

For my beat, I will be examining how parks can both create and erase identities. I want to know who gets to have a voice in this process. Who truly benefits from public parks? What approaches are currently being used to prevent or reduce gentrification?

 

Where the Sidewalk Ends: How Cities Can Save the Environment

In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved its regional headquarters in downtown Kansas City to a new building in suburban Lenexa. The new building has water-efficient toilets, energy-efficient hand dryers, underfloor heating, air conditioning, and ventilation systems, and, to top it all off, a constructed wetland to sustainably manage 100% of its storm-water. All of these features have become hallmarks of a twenty-first century eco-friendly building.

But it’s also a move with potentially disastrous consequences for the environment.

Jeff Speck, author of Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step At A Time, borrows fellow author David Owen’s term, “LEED brain,” to diagnose the EPA’s problem. LEED refers to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification, in which the sustainability of buildings are evaluated against a set of standards during both construction and maintenance. The different categories range from the sourcing of materials to the renewability of the energy used to power the building.

In the case of the EPA’s new building, the carbon saved with the impressive energy-saving measures will never balance out the tons of carbon emitted by the hundreds of employees now commuting daily to its new suburban location. Many of them used to take public transit to the old headquarters in the heart of Kansas City’s downtown. For many, the move added twenty miles or more to their daily commutes.

Speck, a planning professional for over twenty years, believes that Western society’s preoccupation with easy, flashy technological fixes causes less palatable but equally effective solutions to be overlooked. That is exactly why Walkable City is a must-read, and a breath of fresh air, not only for environmentalists, but also for public health professionals, government officials, and concerned citizens.

Speck prefaces his book with the disclaimer that “this is not the next great book on American cities,” even though Walkable City was named the best design/planning book of 2013. This is perhaps because he already co-authored that one: Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream is widely regarded as the seminal work of the twenty-first century planning movement. But where Suburban Nation was about the problem, Walkable City is about the solutions.

Flickr/Rev Stan

 

In Speck’s view, walkability offers more than just benefits for our environment. By reducing air pollution, asthma rates can be drastically lowered, and an active lifestyle can help curb obesity. The number of injurious and fatal car crashes would decrease while increasing productivity, attracting top talent, and stimulating the local economy. In documenting these side effects, Speck invites an audience much wider than his fellow planners to read his book, appealing to those interested in, as he puts it, “health, wealth, and sustainability.”

Speck isn’t all talk and no walk. With data and real-life experience to support his assertions, Walkable City challenges decades of conventional planning wisdom, advocating for narrower roads and lane widths and the eventual elimination of off-street parking (and higher on-street parking prices). These measures, Speck argues, will reduce congestion drastically, and save millions of gallons of fuel. He believes they will also increase the safety and comfort of pedestrians, as well as business revenue.

These policy recommendations add up to his “General Theory of Walkability,” which maintains that American downtowns need to be useful, safe, comfortable, and interesting. The stark contrast drawn between different cities — even sometimes between different neighborhoods — certainly makes it clear that these qualities do indeed have a strong effect on whether the average citizen chooses to go for a stroll or for a drive.

Discussing zoning code reform and other rather dry topics can make for a less than captivating read. Speck, however, has no problem capturing and holding the interest of the reader. Incorporating witty asides such as a quote from George Costanza of Seinfeld and brash statements like “traffic studies are bullshit” into a compelling and serious narrative is not an easy task, but one that Speck has mastered beautifully in Walkable City.

Likewise, with the content of this book, Speck has done the near-impossible: get to the bottom of what is wrong with with our cities and lay out a clear, concise, and most importantly, implementable vision for their future, backed up by decades of research.

In 2012, had Speck consulted the EPA on its new headquarters, it’s a sure bet that he would have pushed very hard to keep them in Kansas City, especially given that the EPA’s presence there was a dam holding back the flood of businesses and families leaving for the suburbs. For Kansas City, and other American cities struggling to turn the tide, Speck has the answer: walkability.