Creating an Atmosphere of Playground Innovation
The City Parks Blog (well worth a follow) just shared an interview they had with Peter Harnik of the Trust for Public Land, about his new book, Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgant Cities. While the interview is mostly park based (in the sense that it doesn’t explicitly mention places to play) it has some wonderful recommendations as well as provocative questions that we can ask ourselves about parks and places to play in our communities.
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.
Let’s look at this again, replacing parks with “playspaces” – the points are still supremely valid.
The right verb is “want”: “How much space to play 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 playspace supporters. Every city has a different geography, a different history and a different culture — it’s not one size fits all.
He also mentions comparing the parkland in your city with other cities and towns. The Trust for Public Land has records from FY 2008 of city parkland at tpl.org/cityparkfacts and they’ve also compiled statistics on which communities have the most playgrounds per person – fantastic!
Here's more on promoting innovation:
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.
There’s also a discussion about how to classify parks, in that there’s such a wide range of kinds. The same can be true of playgrounds, though I’m not sure what the scale would be called (though please feel free to share on the message boards!)
“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.”
It ends on a great reminder: “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.” These ideas to change the way your community looks at parks and playgrounds IS do-able!
Make sure to read the full article here.
What does your community think? Are they innovating, or are they not sure where to start? How can you use this information to convince those that are hesitant?
Want to keep updated about play advocacy? Subscribe to Play Times! It's a monthly e-newsletter about taking action on behalf of play! We’ll share tips, tricks, and examples of exceptional advocacy from our Playmaker Network. Any questions? Drop us a line: playmaker@kaboom.org
Hi, Gary! I met you at the Conference on the Value of Play. You taught me all sorts of cool frisbee tricks. I felt like a Harlem Globetrotter. Are you going to the ACEI Global Summit on Childhood this week by any chance?
Not planning on it...but then again I wasn't planning on going to Clemson... should I? If I can't will you tell me what I missed? When is your next staff playday?
I had a great time last year. The conference brought together a good group of educators, teacher educators, and advocates for children. This year is shaping up to be awesome, with a lot of great partners on board: the Alliance for Childhood, Gesell Institute, Rutgers. Plus I read that over 600 delegates had signed up. I can definitely keep you updated, if you can't go. I'll tweet out as much as I can from @mapofplay -- and I'm sure @njoyplay and @balmeras will be tweeting, too!
As for the next staff playday, it's tomorrow! I have to miss it for the conference, unfortunately.