Parks Week #2: Gaps in Parks Master Planning

Parks Week.  I am calling this "Parks Week" because for the first time I will be attending the National Recreation and Parks Association national conference, in Philadelphia.  I hope to learn a lot and write some posts too.

Looking southeast across Sugar House Pond.

Based on my experience as a board member of Sugar House Park, a park in Salt Lake City that is jointly owned by the city and county, and overseen by a proto-land trust ("the board") I wrote a ten part series on "gaps in parks master planning."

Not every park master plan has these gaps, but enough do, or the way that they address one of the gaps may be inadequate, hence the list.

-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part One | Levels of Service"

-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Two | Utilizing Academic Research as Guidance"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Three | Planning for Climate Change/Environment"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Four | Planning for Seasonality and Activation"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Five | Planning for Public Art as an element of park facilities"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning, Part Six | Art(s) in the Park(s) as a comprehensive program"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Seven | Park Architectural (and Landscape Design) History" 
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Eight | Civic Engagement"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Nine | Second stage planning for parks using the cultural landscape framework" 

-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Ten | Park transportational access" (2025)

Children playing at the Parley's Creek Playground.

I have two more in (desultory) progress, one on park equity, the other on recreation center planning in downtowns.

The first piece is definitely out of my experiences both in DC and on the east coast, as well as the tricky intergrovernmental relationships in Salt Lake.

It's on "Levels of Service," the basic point is that urban parks have more needs for maintenance, perhaps programming, security, and other elements compared to most suburban parks.  This creates a problem with the County because most of their experience with parks is suburban.  E.g., they have limited problems with homelessness (so do we, but it's purely out of luck--geographical and topographical elements of the park make it not particularly attractive for the homeless).

The other thing is that as a well-situated urban park, it's used all year long, even in the winter the playgrounds are used.  And that we should have more staff in keeping with this demand.

Business districts address having greater needs than a city is prepared to provide by creating business improvement districts, which provide additional services, especially on "clean and safe issues" which is funded by a small tax on property in the defined geographical area of the district.

Parks can be funded similarly.  There is a property tax that helps to fund Bryant Park in NYC.  But a similar tax proposed for the High Line failed.  Not quite the same, SF has "green benefits districts" which fund public space improvements and maintenance.

What parks have as a form comparable to a BID is a conservancy, which raises money independent of the city and uses those funds to supplement funds that the city continues to provide for operations and capital improvements.  Generally, the conservancy is the lead on managing the park day to day.

The first entry goes into this in detail.

Tree climbing at Sugar House Park.

Other entries that are really specific to my experience are on using academic research and best practice to guide action on matters not covered by a master plan, planning art programs systematically, programming, including public art as a element of parks, using park architectural history as a way to guide building design issues, and managing the park as a cultural landscape:

e.g., Sugar House Park has six primary features defining the Park--what we call "Big Field" a large grassy bowl which abuts (2) Parley's Creek, (3) which in turn feeds Sugar House Pond, (4) the sledding hill, (5) the sledding hill on the east side of the park; together they illustrate that Sugar House Park is hilly compared to many other parks in the area, and (6) the view to the east of the Wasatch Front Mountains, although from some parts of the park the view to the west includes the Oquirrh Mountains.

The planning arts programs systematically entry is also very good.

Separately, I haven't written about it in the blog, but an article in the Washington Post, "Forget rest stops. Plan your road trip around playgrounds," gives us a lot to think about, especially because the park abuts I-80.  

It shapes the idea of having a visitor center on private property abutting the park--I wrote about that issue here, "Learnings from a recent zoning issue I've been involved in."