The Implications of Sprawl on Parks and Park Services (September 28)
...People Centred Growth vs Infrastructure Growth
Vlog Overview
This free parks and urban planning vlog is intended to share my 30+ years of parks practitioner experience married with my recently completed (2019) Phd exploring park and urban planning decision-making processes. The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone. They are not intended to be the definitive answers or positions, but instead suggest hopefully engender reflection on your own practices. For more information about my vlog, and why you should subscribe, please read the vlog entitled “The Use Case for Parks Are Like Icebergs Vlog.,” March 5, 2023. Please subscribe and share with your friends to allow me to continue to my informed knowledge sharing initiative.
Todays Ice Sculpture:
The Implications of Sprawl on Parks and Park Services
Definitions of the term sprawl are many but include notions of the spread of urban landscapes, unrestricted growth with little regard to urban planning, and the associated negative impacts of social and environmental implications. The concepts include low density single use lands, strip development, scattered or leap frogged development. City Plan, the City of Edmonton municipal plan, has promoted the concept of higher density development in both new and existing developed areas, but neither promote reduced urban landscape development footprints, nor do they provide specific strategies to transform spaces into places. The default development scenario resident in our legislation and policy frameworks pre-configures physical and infrastructure growth in the land use change processes, rather than people centred growth that is the result of same. What is the right balance? How did we get here? Click on the green button below for a verbal summary.
Contemporary Urban Planning
In early 1960s the Provincial government mandated the creation of General Municipal Plans (GMPs). Urban area development was to be planned in more comprehensive ways based on high level policies and strategic direction. They also mandated the creation of Park Master Plans (PMPs). GMPs and PMPs plans cover the entire city. Area plans are developed, reviewed and approved based on compliance with the MDP and PMs for segments of the City as the urbanized areas expand.
Operationalizing Space Creation in Area Plans In Land Use Change Processes
Park space plan review creation activities extend well beyond applications touching or near parks. Within a neighbourhood, planning documents and processes create multiple smaller area plans and processes (i.e., plans of subdivision, engineering drawings, zoning). Each type of file requires the marshalling of staff resources to review and comment on alignment with policy and strategies.
Every single plan of subdivision, including non park subdivisions, are submitted to the city and reviewed to determine how municipal reserves are taken for each application (i.e., cash-in-lieu, land or combination thereof), and needs to be captured and monitored on a developer, parcel, neighbourhood and area basis. There are multiple subdivisions (100+) in each neighbourhood.
Every single engineering drawing, including non park drawings, must be reviewed to ensure roads and utility servicing are available for the desired program for each park site. There are often more than one for each plan of subdivision. Engineering drawings that include natural areas must be reviewed for the impact of grades and utility servicing adjacent to sites. Once approved, economic interests are responsible for installation at significant expense of infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities).
There are a small number of school and park sites (3-4 sites) that require zoning, each reviewed to ensure the intended program.
Land use change processes creating spaces today are totally reliant on the timing and needs of economic interests, not community interests. There is no plan or strategy to focus development activities. This is a time consuming geographically uncoordinated approach to development when viewed on a city wide basis at a macro level vs the application processes for single files when viewed on a micro level. Over time the macro and micro are merged, but that takes decades. The Blue Quill School and Park neighbourhood took 20+ years to achieve full build out after developers asked for multiple plan amendments to create more “market driven” single family homes rather than multi-family housing sites. Park services were able to be operationalized in about 15 years.
Operationalizing Park Services
In new planned areas, all of the above factors impact the speed to which school and park sites are fully assembled in Edmonton. Full assembly of park sites complete with roadway and utility servicing is required in order to construct base level services (i.e., grade, level, seed, trees, sports fixtures, park sign). Once in place, community cost shared funding (i.e., playgrounds, plazas, lighting, community gardens) can proceed, but is often largely dependent on the speed of build out. Community Hall (100% community funded), major recreation centres (100% city funded) and school(s) construction proceed, also based on community and area development of multiple neighbourhoods and available funding.
Community members are integral partners in the co-production of municipal recreation and leisure services in both open space and indoor facilities (i.e., coaches, team managers, fund raisers, tournament or festival organizers, dog park ambassadors, master naturalists, hall and community garden management), including schools (i.e., parent advisory councils). These groups and individuals work with administrative staff (i.e., park planners, landscape architects, ecologists, recreation outreach and maintenance functions) to co-produce recreation and leisure services, collectively forming the park institution system wide (i.e., elected officials, administrators, Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues, individual community NGOs, and schools through the Joint Use Agreement and Tri-Partite Liscence agreement). Legislation bars developers from being required to pay for base or shared park land development, but can volunteer resources or services. The latter is not the norm in Edmonton. Developers may be required to contribute to major recreation centres but Edmonton has chosen not to access that opportunity which means taxpayers pay more.
My Take - Impact of Sprawl on Parks and Park Services
Todays land use change legislation and policy frameworks facilitate economic development without a meaningful way to expedite community and place making - a trickle down approach to community development and long term people centred growth and harmony. Land use change processes do little to proactively limit or circumvent social disorders of homelessness, a lack of affordable housing, rising rates of obesity, crime, drug addiction and mental health challenges because they focus on land and infrastructure, not community and services to the community.
The net result is that there are multiple neighbourhoods with no or only partially assembled park sites spread across the city. Municipal administrators cannot budget for base or shared level park development because sites are not assembled, nor budget for recreation centres (i.e., Lewis Farms). School planners are unable to budget for new schools, and there is not enough community to co-fund and co-produce recreational and leisure services after the sites have been acquired. In other words the opportunity to transition spaces (i.e., park land titles) into places (i.e., land endowed with meaning by the community) has been delayed, as has access to associated ecological, social, health and wellness benefits required in a sustainable city. How can this occur?
We need to develop processes that facilitate TARGETED approaches to urban development and redevelopment that TARGET NEIGHBHOURHOODS and associated services, not land per se. There are two common planning planning terms that can be combined - the “15 Minute City” and complete streets that are both part of the policy framework of City Plan. The target is people and community first and foremost, who happen to reside, or will reside in communities. The focus shifts people centred community development, where a complete set of municipal, commercial, institutional and employment services are provided. This requires metrics to be developed that speak to COMPLETE communities in addition to metrics we currently have that speak to how quickly file applications are approved, the value of building permits, etc. It is these broader community metrics that should use to align staff resources. I believe many of these community metrics are already in place but don’t drive land use change processes while taking up an inordinate amount time and resources of both administrative staff and elected officials time.
This change in municipal governance for parks would ensure local populations are in place to more quickly transition park spaces into places complete with playgrounds, community gardens, sports fields, plazas, lighting and natural areas with subsequent school, community hall and indoor recreation facilities on an area or district basis. Those amenities and recreation services would be co-funded and co-produced with and for the community where all parks, schools and recreation facilities are in place sooner rather not driven by the discretion of economic interests. I would also suggest the City revisit the opportunity for a recreational facility levy to reduce costs to taxpayers or provide a broader range of opportunities. A targeted approach to governance would also mean that the documented ecological, social, economic, health and wellness benefits would be accessible to address social disorder.
A targeted community/people approach will facilitate a full range of municipal services (i.e., parks, police, fire, transportation, utilities, schools, libraries, etc) to be provided at cost effective scale for taxpayers. The increased populations arriving more quickly will allow commercial opportunities such as grocery stores, bakeries, restaurants, clothing stores, etc to arrive more quickly as well, and potentially bring to fruition the 15 minute city concept, rather than waiting for some undetermined period of time.
Finally the above is not intended to be a binary choice one where people centred needs are entirely prioritized at the expense of developer centred needs. Targeted neighbourhoods would include both existing mature areas and new areas, but not all new planned areas. The new approach to targeting would need to be negotiated with both community and development industry NGO partners and local school boards at the same table given them each the same amount of agency to influence policy change. Creative problem solving occurs in the open between all impacted social actors, not behind closed doors with the selected few.
Finally, the obligatory doggo picture.