Friday, July 16, 2010

Book suggests that Dunwoody should lead development with parks to create beautiful, exciting and fun spaces.

The City of Dunwoody has been in existence for about two years and we have implemented basic services at the same or better level of service without a tax rate increase. We are reviewing public safety needs and thinking of possible improvements, we have a plan for road and infrastructure improvements and soon we will also be reviewing our parks and public recreation spaces for improvements too.

I recently met with representatives of the Dunwoody Community Garden who want to expand the green infrastructure they have already installed, at public meetings I have heard residents suggest that the city should buy depressed or vacant properties for civic use, this evening I was talking to residents of the Village Mill area who want to preserve a 40 acre stand of trees that is privately held; and this Saturday I will be walking an "unbuildable" half acre lot with a stream running through it to see if the City should adopt the land. My point is that green space in Dunwoody is at a premium and besides developing what we currently have we may need to tart thinking about protecting other space that is available.  I hope that we will soon have a candid open dialog as a community to discuss our park wants and recreational needs so that we can then decide as a community how we could best move forward with this shared vision if it exists as I believe it does.

The article below is taken from the City Parks Blog hit home for me and I believe that it has a lot to say to both the residents and local politicians of Dunwoody who believe that we can improve our quality of life though improved access to public green spaces.

We asked Peter Harnik to answer some questions about his new book, Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities, that covers how cities can plan for parks as well as how to create them in “all built-out” settings.

Your book addresses many age-old questions about parks and cities. Let’s start with the big one — how much parkland should a city have?

“Should” is the wrong verb. “Should” implies that the outcome is decided by planners. The right verb is “want”: “How much parkland do we as residents and taxpayers want?” It’s a political issue, and it’s got to be approached politically by building a base of active park supporters. Every city has a different geography, a different history and a different culture — it’s not one size fits all. I think people sometimes use the word “should” in the hopes that someone else will do the work for them. No great park system was created solely by planners using official standards.

But still — don’t even advocates need to know how their city compares to others?

Oh, definitely! That’s why I give some comparative numbers in the book and many more on our web page (at If you take a trip to Boston or Minneapolis and like what you see, you can compare what your city has with them — everything from acreage to playgrounds to recreation centers to swimming pools. Which is why I always say it’s not just about gross acreage. One place may have lots of young people primarily interested in sports fields, another may be tilted toward older folks who want walking trails through bird-filled marshes. The environment also matters: some cities easily support lush forested parks, others are built on arid deserts where trees are essentially alien species. But the most important factor is population density. Crowded New York and San Francisco have so much concrete everywhere that every added pocket park is magical. Roomy Jacksonville and Oklahoma City, with thousands of large suburban-style yards are already halfway natural even not counting their parks. Density has a major impact on how people think about parks and how they use them.

The subtitle of the book is “innovative parks for resurgent cities.” What does it mean for parks to be innovative?

When cities are young, small and expanding, parks are added on the leading edge of the growth margin. They consist of natural lands that are donated or purchased — farms, forests, woodlands, wetlands, deserts. The process is known as conservation.

In older cities that are “all built out” there is nothing natural to conserve besides the already-existing parks. New parks there must be created through development rather than conservation. To make a park from a derelict parking lot, for instance, you wouldn’t conserve it — doing that would merely retain a derelict parking lot. You’d have to tear it up, regrade it, plant it, and fit it out with a playground or a sports field or a fountain or whatever the community wanted.

The goal in built-out cities is to use innovation — acquiring no-longer-needed parcels from other government agencies, sharing land with other users, utilizing previously wasted surfaces like rooftops and highway air rights, installing gardens in gap-toothed neighborhoods, pushing developers to donate land for parks, even just making better use of existing parkland. Every one of these approaches is happening in some city right now, and a few cities are doing almost all of them.

The book touches on the different kinds of parks, from social spaces to those nearly devoid of people but full of nature. How can cities deal with such a broad spectrum?

After Gertrude Stein said, “A rose is a rose is a rose,” you’ll notice she didn’t say “A park is a park is a park.” The large number of park types, ranging from insect-filled wetlands that have no human visitors to center-city brick plazas that have no grass and sometimes even no trees, can be confounding to any planning process and even to a general conversation. The vast number of activities that can and do take place in parks makes the discussion even more complex. I don’t use the confusing words “passive” and “active,” but I do like the new concept coming out of Portland, Ore., where planners talk of a spectrum that ranges from spaces of extreme sociability to spaces of extreme ecological purity. They created a three-way classification they call “people-to-people” places, “people-to-nature” places, and “nature-to-nature” places. The former two support different types of human recreation, the last is for pure conservation (or what some people are now calling “green infrastructure”). The Portland system is based on the relationship among experiences, settings, and activities, with experiences being paramount.

Are parks important in spread out cities and sprawling suburbs?

People with large yards don’t need parks as much for things like barbecue picnics, playing catch or kicking a ball, going to a playground, or sitting on benches, but they still need them for many other reasons: organized sports fields, greenway trails, large forest reserves. But there’s something else. As America seeks to reign in sprawl, we need nodes to build some density around. The most powerful nodes are probably transit stations, but I believe parks are just about as significant. If someone has a beautiful park a block or two away, he or she may be much more willing to live without a yard in a townhouse or an apartment in a walkable neighborhood with other nearby conveniences. It’s called park-oriented development and it could have a big impact on our cities and suburbs.

You suggest numerous ways cities can add parks — decking freeways, sharing schoolyards, using old landfills, greening rooftops, and much more. Is there a place to start? What do you say if a mayor asks you what’s the biggest bang for the buck?

Again, every city is different. Dallas has a below-grade freeway segment that is just crying out for a park deck to link uptown with downtown and serve as a seed for redevelopment. Boston happened to have a perfectly located 100-acre landfill that was all filled up and ready for conversion to sport fields. Space is so tight in Brooklyn that New York was forced to tackle the complexities of an agreement to use formerly locked schoolyards as after-school parks. The creative folks at Oakland Cemetery in Atlanta are committed to making that space as absolutely park-like and inviting as possible. The purpose of my book is to open people’s eyes to the many possibilities out there — all of them proven — but each will have to be analyzed on the local level as to feasibility.

If there is one piece of advice you could give to a city, what would it be?

I would say, “Lead with your parks.” The two blockbuster infill parks of the 21st Century — Millennium Park in Chicago and The High Line in New York — have each generated well over a billion dollars of redevelopment and renewal, not to mention tourist revenue and all-around “buzz.” It’s similar with innovative parks in St. Louis, Denver, Houston, Boston, Atlanta and other places. If park advocates and mayors create beautiful, exciting and fun spaces in the hearts of cities, developers, tourists and residents will quickly follow.


Chip said...


The road and infrastructure plan you refer to is nothing more than a plan to repave existing roads.

The City needs to also "step up" with a transportation and intersection improvement plan to alleviate traffic congestion, especially along the Tilly Mill corridor near GPC.

The Council has been nothing but struthious in regard to this matter.

Sure it's politically a 'hot potato' and bound to upset some of the die-hard "Farmhousers". But, we're being held captive by a lack of imagination and an unwillingness to look ahead (in spite of all the Land Use and Master Plan talk)regarding roads.

There are straightforward and effective, minimal impact solutions to many of our roadway problems, if the Council has the courage to promote and execute them.

Case in point---the Council was considering restriping Tilly Mill back to two lanes with shoulders. Even a cursory look through the roadway design manuals shows that the accident rate for two lane roads with shoulders is HIGHER than for roads without shoulders, primarily due to cars going "around" cars waiting for a left turn. Right now, the City has an opportunity to improve Tilly Mill by expanding traffic control features in that center lane to promote safer turning behavior and to eliminate some of the complaints, if it only has the desire to do something more positive than "going back to the way it was."

Parks and green space are very important components of a city's environment and I'm all for going ahead with the studies and planning for these properties.

But, back on point, the City does NOT have an infrastructure plan in place, or if it does, it hasn't been shared with the public. I would be happy to stand corrected on this point, if I am wrong.



Cerebration said...

We all know that the county has park bond money to spend. It's good that Dunwoody has wrangled control of their portion of funds due. We have received very, Very little of it in my district - District 2 - represented by Jeff Rader. I know that Heritage School would be a wonderful park for my district, but the school board won't even consider selling - even though this tiny school is virtually useless, and neighbors want it to convert to total parkland (a portion of it is a small park already).

Jeff wrote a very interesting post about our inequity in park land in his blog(!) Yes -- my commissioner has a blog! Yay Jeff!

dunwoodydad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.