Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part One | Defining Levels of Service for individual parks

 Gaps in park master planning frameworks

-- "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" 

While covid kept me somewhat quiescent in terms of civic involvement in Salt Lake after first moving here, eventually I ended up getting involved in parks (and other development matters).  I am on the board of Sugar House Park, which is owned by both the city and county, so it has some interesting intergovernmental issues. 

Working on revitalization in DC, where the National Park Service runs many of the "local" parks, general federal-local government issues, and being on the board of Eastern Market public market for 13 years definitely prepared me for the issues present here.  

-- "Revisiting Trust for Public Land's Park Score® methodology" (2017)
-- "Federal shutdown as another example of why local jurisdictions should have more robust contingency and master planning processes" (2013)
-- "Testimony: Agency Performance Oversight, DC Department of Parks and Recreation" (2012) 

One problem with the board is that the city and county haven't invested in board development, and for the most part over the years, the board has taken a back seat to the executive branch members of the board--there are seven "lay members" and one each from city and county parks.

My background in planning, including parks planning, gives me/the board a knowledge base they didn't have access to before.  

-- "Sounds familiar to me: recommendations from a guy who visited every park in Boston" (2017): 

There is tension between being a more active or a more passive board.  Lack of investment in board development, and real complications in planning and capital budgeting between city and county have led to some problems.

Fortunately there are a couple of other "new members" who are super go getters too.  We have so much to do.  Without them though, I'd just be an old guy yelling into the wind.  But, like my brief planning job in Baltimore County proved I could do great work and work within a system--despite the lack of a degree in planning, I am helping to transform parks practice in Salt Lake City.

One thing that's interesting given how much I advocated for parks in DC and all the parks master plans I've read over the years, is identifying a number of gaps in the master plan frameworks for parks, more generally.  A bunch of items I just didn't think about until I had to.

This seven-part series covers the gaps I've identified so far.

Level of service as a public administration term

The term Level of Service is typically thought of as a transportation term referring to vehicle throughput, functioning of intersections, etc.  

It turns out that there is an International Standard (ISO 55000) for asset management, which defines levels of service as: 

…parameters, or combination of parameters, which reflect social, political, environmental and economic outcomes that the organization delivers.  These parameters might include metrics such as: 

• Safety 
• Customer expectations and satisfaction 
• Quality 
• Quantity 
• Capacity 
• Reliability 
• Responsiveness 
• Environmental acceptability 
• Availability 
• Cost

Levels of Service defined at the scale of a park system. LOS is a term used in park planning at the scale of the system ("Standards for Outdoor Recreational Areas," American Planning Association) and it's used to measure the amount of space and facilities available to residents at a gross-grained scale. 

Special levels of service demands for business districts and parks. LOS as a term isn't used that often at the micro scale in discussions about "parks conservancies" and business improvement districts, even though providing a LOS higher than a city can typically afford is exactly why such organizations have been created.--and they collect special monies to pay for it.  

For either a BID or a conservancy extra services are likely to include security, sanitation, capital improvements and marketing and for BIDs, economic development activities.  

Conservancies and BIDs as special service districts. NYC is well known for its park conservancies, starting with Central Park.  

-- Public spaces/private money: The Triumphs and Pitfalls of Urban Park Conservancies, Trust for Public Land
-- "Creating a Park Conservancy that Fits," NRPA

Discussions for creating a conservancy for Central Park started in the 1970s and came to fruition in the early 1980s.  The city agreed to provide a certain level of personnel and budget, with transfer of active management of the park to the third party nonprofit, which raised additional monies for staff, maintenance and improvements.

New York City has since developed many such groups for parks and and business districts.  Brooklyn's Prospect Park Alliance was created in 1987 and the Madison Square Park Conservancy in 2003.

The Bryant Park Conservancy was created in 1980 and its revitalization is a well known story in planning circles ("Inside the transformation of Bryant Park," New York Daily News, "Splendor in the Grass," New York Times, Bryant Park case study, "Life of Bryant: Bryant Park’s Transformation Into the Center of Midtown" "Lessons from NYC’s Bryant Park must guide James Weldon Johnson Park’s redesign" Jaxson, "A Place Is Better Than a Plan: Revitalizing urban areas is best done through small improvements, not grand designs,:" City Journal, "Bryant Park, NY: Publicly Owned, Privately Managed, and Financially Self-Supporting" Project for Public Spaces)  and is a good model for other communities--although New York City has an advantage because of its great wealth-- because the park is smaller, only 10 acres,  compared to large scale parks like Central Park or Prospect Park.

Criticism of conservancies and BIDs as privatization of the public space and civic commons.  Note that these kinds of initiatives can be controversial both locally and in the academic literature.  These are legitimate criticisms.  At the same time if you want better places, it costs money and this method may be the only way a community can provide the LOS in terms of management, operations, and capital improvements it wants for its key/anchor/signature civic assets.

-- "Stewarding the City as Commons: Parks Conservancies and Community Land Trusts Community Land Trusts " City University of New York Law Review
-- Private Funding of Public Parks Assessing the Role of Philanthropy , Resources for the Future
-- "Our Parks Are Not for Sale: From the Gold Coast of New York to the Venice Biennale," Dissent
--" Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth: Challenges in Managing Philanthropic Support for Public Services," Public Administration Review
-- "Park (in)Equity," Deconstructing the High Line: Post Industrial Urbanism and the Rise of the Elevated Park

Sugar House Park is a conservancy.  Technically.  But it hasn't created the innfrastructure and capacity to take advantage of this status.  Plus, Salt Lake City, unlike NYC, isn't full of wealth, although there are plenty of philanthropic opportunities that the park can seek out.  

To my way of thinking, from the standpoint of Social Psychology of Organizations, the group is on the cusp of moving from a more ad hoc structure to one that is more organized and active.  (A move from a stage one organization to stage two.)

Uncleared sidewalks from 1300 East to Sugar House Park.

Levels of Service at the scale of an individual park is an issue with Sugar House Park. 

It's an urban park, a regional park serving all of the County, but it's also heavily used by city as well as neighborhood residents.  The neighborhood is pretty densely populated, leading to even higher use.

But the County, which is contracted to maintain the park, and provides key administrative and planning support, mostly doesn't manage parks in center cities, with all the issues that such park locations may have-- security, homelessness (Dealing With Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks, ASU POP Center) and other issues like snow clearance to maintain winter access that are not typical of suburban parks .

Finding the money to provide the necessary level of "extra service" is difficult because we have to get agreement from both the city and the county, and as park systems, because Sugar House Park is simultaneously part of both, and yet separate, not part of either system, this can be a long process.

At the scale of parks master planning, it's important to come up with a LOS typology for individual parks/parks at the micro scale, and provide the desired LOS as needed.

And that's what I'm in the process of trying to do with Sugar House Park.  

"Why is our meager budget earned from pavilion rentals paying for security?" or "why can't the City Public Utilities agency help pay for dredging the pond since it is part of their watershed?" or "why don't we have better snow clearance?" are the kinds of questions that I've been asking and should lead to significant changes over time.

Developing a LOS dashboard.  I don't manage the park.  The County is developing a dashboard for the park system and individual parks, focused on state of good repair.  To address the issue of differentiated level of service requirements, we need a checklist/chart/dashboard.  That's the best way to justify the recommendations, decisions and choices you make, based on demand for quantity and quality of particular services.  It would include items such as:

• Security services
• Restroom services
• Maintenance standards/State of Good Repair
• Ornamental plantings
• Lighting (morning, night, winter)
• Types of street furniture
• The array of programming offered
• The type and operation of facilities
• Special facilities like bike share stations
• Snow clearance practice
• Hours of operation

-- SF Park Evaluation Standards, 2022-

-- Safe and Managed Public Spaces Operations Dashboard, Boulder

-- Safe and Managed Public Spaces Action Plan 2023, Boulder