The "Retention Case" for Passive Park Lands (April 18, 2023)
... The precarity of passive parks
Vlog Overview
Please read my vlog entitled “The Use Case for Parks Are Like Icebergs Vlog.,” March 5, 2023.
Todays Ice Sculpture
The “Retention Case” for Passive Park Lands (April 18, 2023)
I lived in parallel worlds as a parks planner. I would work with community and administrative social actors to help transform spaces created in land use planning processes (i.e., economic institution) into places in the parks institution. Park lands were much loved and valued in this latter institution. Administrative staff were activated by community partners who thought so much of our parks they wanted to help the city provide recreation and leisure services. At the same time, elected officials, finance officials, city land managers and land use planners with only “use” not “functional” knowledge of the parks world, saw parks as simply as a tradable asset untethered to program or community needs or outcomes.
Having the benefit of working in both institutions, I acted as a translator between the two worlds/institutions, and kept the economic institution mostly at bay. However the last 10 years of my practice and since, the voice of the economic institution has overwhelmed the parks institution in seen and unseen ways. Today it is now almost open season on city owned lands as tradable assets, except the primary target is passive park lands. Why passive parks? First, what are passive park lands?
Passive Park Lands Defined
Key metrics that differentiate passive from active park lands include: outdoor vs indoor settings; unstructured vs structured activity; and limited physical exertion while using the publicly owned and maintained lands. There is a diversity of definitions in the literature and in different jurisdictions, with common elements. Some jurisdictions categorize passive spaces as treed or conservation spaces while others have broader definitions.
For the purposes of this vlog, passive leisure settings include natural/treed areas, man made naturalized areas, or manicured spaces, or combinations thereof. Passive leisure activities occurring in urban parks may include picnicking, people watching, playing, socializing, reading, suntanning, playing catch or frisbee, bird watching, listening to music, connecting with nature, attending a festival, gardening, etc. Site amenities may include picnic tables, games tables, flat or rolling open play areas, playgrounds, benches, community gardens, lighting, gazebos, picnic shelters, notice boards, water fountains, barbecue pits, etc. Why are these lands important?
Passive Parks Benefits and Outcomes
Urban parks have been viewed as an important part of urban and community development rather than just as settings for recreation and leisure (Konijnendijk, Annerstedt, Neilsen and Maruthaveeren 2013). The benefits of parks was shared in a previous vlog (Why Parks - A Summary of Benefits Research -November 14, 2022). An excerpt on the benefits of park lands is provided from my PhD dissertation is provided below. While these benefits apply to parks generally, they also apply to passive spaces further to the thoughts captured in the reference above.
The benefits provided by parks and park systems have been extensively catalogued. Park landscapes sequester pollution, reduce urban heat islands, reduce storm water run-off, and connect people to nature, thus providing a full range of ecological goods and services (Chiesura 2004; Morimito 2011; Tempesta 2012). Land uses surrounding parks have higher property values and generate additional tax revenues (Alberta Recreation and Parks Association 2007; Harnik and Crompton 2014).
Parks can increase activity levels, provide stress relief and general health and wellness benefits, (Konijnendijk, Annerstedt, Neilsen and Maruthaveeren 2013; Parry, Gollab and Frans 2014). Parks foster the creation of connections between individuals and groups with like interests, build social capital, community tolerance, and resiliency (Taylor, Davies, Wells, Gilbertson and Tayleur 2015), and reduce crime rates (Troy, Grove and O’Neill-Dunne 2012).
Robert Priebe, Social Actor Engagement in Municipal Decision-Making for Parks, Planning, and Civil Society in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 1960-2010: Institutional Intersections, 2019
A recent article by Vargas-Hernandez et al (2020) offered this take on passive recreational activities.
Passive activities are the main reason why users visit urban green spaces such as passive or informal enjoyment of the environment, social activities and attending events, getting away from it all, walking activities including dog walking, active enjoyment including sport and specific activities. Surveys have shown that people are less stressed, communicate better and make sensible decisions when surrounded by green spaces.
José G. Vargas-Hernández, Karina Pallagst, and Justyna Zdunek-Wielgołaska. Urban Chapter 8. Green Spaces as a Component of an Ecosystem. Handbook of Engaged Sustainability (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53121-2_49-1, pg. 6
Cheisura (2014) studied the role of urban parks in a sustainable city, with a focus on naturalized places. Her study of Vondelpark, Amsterdam argued that many interpretations exist of which characteristics a city should present to be considered sustainable. The study findings indicate that access to nature close to home provide intangible and non-consumptive human benefits including multiple social, psychological, recreation, leisure and health and wellness outcomes. The article concludes with the following statement.
Valuation and assessment of these intangible services and benefits is of crucial importance in order to justify and legitimize strategies for urban sustainability. It is argued that valuation of their worth to society must start from the appraisal of the needs, wants and beliefs of the individuals composing that very society. Public involvement, citizens’ participation and a qualitative appraisal of their needs and interests are believed to help urban communities to articulate commonly shared values which, in turn, can serve as reference criteria for local planners to envision more sustainable city strategies.
Chiesura, Anna. “The Role of Urban Parks for the Sustainable City.” Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2004): 129-138. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003., pg. 138.
My practitioner take is that Chiesura points to the need to understand the import and values of public open space in strategic directives, as well as in implementing land use change processes that impact parks.
Greco (2013) reflected on Jane Jacobs perspective of urban parks. Jacobs argued core elements of parks that resonate with me, and my experience in Edmonton. Jacobs argue parks for parks sake is not useful. She asked “Parks for what purpose?” Jacobs argued that people don’t use parks because they are there, or because urban planners or urban designers think they should. There needs to be a reason for draw them to the parks. In (my) park planning practitioner speak, this means the sites must provide a benefit (i.e., program) and functional, not simply be bleak volumes of land between buildings. Moreover, the park can serve to improve the neighborhood, but only to the extent the community gives back. It is a symbiotic relationship if parks are to be successful. This latter element speaks to the community development aspect of parks, resident in Edmonton.
But if parks are important to the community, why is there so much pressure to defend those benefits and outcomes?
Passive Park Lands As Catnip
In the past 60+ years, Edmonton approved car-orientated unsustainable low density residential development that left a legacy of climatic and financial problems to overcome. As urbanized areas were built out, economic institutions (i.e., land use or property institution) continue to explore the same areas for redevelopment opportunities in order to increase land values and their own profits. The land use/property institution social actors value property, any property, as a tradable asset, less so as a public or social good valued in intangible and non-consumptive ways. Today in built out areas there are few properties left of any size to redevelop, with the exception of public park and school lands and possibly privately owned shopping centres or downtown office spaces.
Park lands are particularly attractive. Park lands that were provided at no or low cost to the city through the land subdivision process. Passive park lands in larger assemblages of land, free of most environmental contaminants, serviced but unencumbered by utilities, and free of buildings to de-constructed and remediated prior to construction. These lands therefore have high property values and excellent return to city coffers for entrepreneurial administrators and elected officials.
By comparison, privately owned lands in larger parcels (i.e., shopping centres and office buildings) are costly to redevelop. Elected officials who “own” and control municipal land assets have short term tenures and seek more immediate outcomes. They also control the tenure of senior administrators, who direct the actions of their staff.
Power and Agency
The land use change process itself is an integral part or mechanism of economic interests to develop and redevelop lands of all kinds. Corporate land managers, land use planners and elected officials have hegemonic power and agency to effect land use change. The fairness and equity of land use change processes are measured by the willingness of process managers (i.e., elected officials and administrators) to transparently share legible information in timeframes that make sense with non-hegemonic community social actors in timely (non-expedited) processes. (See Old Strathcona Public Realm Strategy Part III - March 25, 2023). Planning legislation mandates a public hearing and public notice, but does not mandate full disclosure of information or inclusion of discordant perspectives in public reporting, nor require a recreational need assessment to assess the loss of park lands.
Summary
Cities and their populations change over time, as do recreation, leisure and other community needs. Edmontons’ City Plan projects a doubling of the entire population, including 600,000 in existing mature areas where land parcels are already allocated between private and public ownership, while we also see a culturally diversifying population base.
It is illogical to assume that park land decommissioning should be automatically be excluded from discussion in creating a sustainable city. However, those discussions must also reflect and consider the political and economic settings that exist today.
Passive spaces are particularly “ripe” for development because they are “owned” by municipal governments, are largely unencumbered, have significant property value, and the potential to increase property taxes where none exist today: catnip for economic institutions using selected sustainable city rhetoric (i.e., affordable housing). Unfortunately, this occurs at a time when recreation and leisure needs and urban population are both expanding, increasing the needs for those lands. As I have stated before, this seems like improv theatre, not long range sustainable city planning, when they target “available” and “accessible” park lands rather than the offending low density land uses.
The fairness and equity of land use change processes are only as good as the process managers willingness (i.e., elected officials and administrators) to engage in meaningful review processes. Land use change process must transparently share accurate unambiguous legible information with all stakeholders in timely (non-expedited) processes, and allow the community to tell their lived experiences of the places they may lose (See Land Use Change Processes are From Mars, Place Telling Processes Are From Venue Part III - February 1) should recognize the unequal level of power and agency between elected officials/administrators and community social actors, and between economic institutions and the parks institutions that co-produce recreation and leisure services.
In short, public park lands are pre-carious in todays political and economic governance settings. This is particularly true when economic institutions use what are short sustainable city narratives/rhetoric. Community social actors interests in the park institution are vulnerable, and rely on fair and equitable processes.
(Some) References
Chiesura, Anna. “The Role of Urban Parks for the Sustainable City.” Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2004): 129-138. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003.
Greco, JoAnn (2013). Learning from Jane Jacobs. Parks and Recreation, June 2007, pg. 54-57.
Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Toronto, Ontario, Random House. 1961
Konijendijk, C.C., Annerstedt, M., Neilsen, A.B. and Maruthaveeren, S. “Benefits of Urban Parks – A systematic review.” Copenhagen and Alnarp: International Federation of Parks and Recreation Administration. 2013
Vargas, Jose G., Pallagst, Karina, and Zdunek-Wielgolaska, Justyna. “Urban Chapter 8. Green Spaces as a Component of an Ecosystem.” Handbook of Engaged Sustainability (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53121-2_49-1
Would RiverCrossing Rossdale plan be an example of passive parks with too much development pressure.