John Loren Wagner Dissertation

EVOLUTION OF A SUSTAINABLE PARK:
FOREST PARK, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
John Loren Wagner, B.S., M.U.P.
An Abstract Presented to the Graduate Faculty of
Saint Louis University in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2013

1
Urban parks and the benefits they provide have evolved with society since cities began to
rapidly grow in the mid-1800s, from the early Pleasure Ground parks, such as Central Park
in New York City, to the Open Space Systems of the 1970s and 1980s. A new era of urban
park appears to have taken form: the Sustainable Park, where concepts of ecological
performance are considered as well as contemporary social perspectives on environmental
issues. A Sustainable Park refers not only to tangible resources such as trees, water and
open spaces, but also to social and cultural viability, including the use of public-private
partnerships to help communities directly support their urban parks. Using case study
methodology, I examined the 1,300-acre Forest Park in St. Louis, Missouri against the
Sustainable Park Model by determining the park’s level of environmental, economic and
civic sustainability. Results show that Forest Park has evolved into a Sustainable Park since
the restoration of the park began in the late 1990s, as the 1995 Forest Park Master Plan
was implemented. The park now provides an increased level of ecological benefits from its
trees and enjoys better water quality. The park’s economic and civic sustainability has
increased with commitment from the City of St. Louis and surrounding communities
through the nonprofit organization Forest Park Forever. Often called the “Crown Jewel” of
St. Louis, Forest Park plays an essential role in the region, and the sustainability of the park
was found to have benefits that extend beyond the park’s boundaries, economically,
environmentally and in a civic fashion.

EVOLUTION OF A SUSTAINABLE PARK:
FOREST PARK, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
John Loren Wagner, B.S., M.U.P.
A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of
Saint Louis University in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2013

i
© Copyright by
John Loren Wagner
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
2013

ii
COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF CANDIDACY:
Associate Professor Robert A. Cropf,
Chairperson and Advisor
Associate Professor Sarah L. Coffin
Professor James F. Gilsinan

iii
Dedication
To my loving wife Laurie, without whom this adventure would not have been
possible, nor would the journey have been worthwhile. Also to my daughter Cecelia
and my son Jack, for the many shared explorations in the park and the adventures
we have enjoyed there.

iv
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would not have been possible without the love and support of my
family, first and foremost. I thank them for their patience as the time seemed to fly by as I
worked to complete my research and writing.
I would also like to thank my Dissertation Committee, Robert Cropf, Ph.D., Sarah
Coffin, Ph.D. and James Gilsinan, Ph.D., for their patience and invaluable feedback as I
progressed. I especially thank Dr. Cropf, as his idea to “take a look at Forest Park” a few
years ago blossomed into more than I ever dreamed it would.
Several people at the City of St. Louis, Missouri Parks Division and Budget Division
and Forest Park Forever were helpful and always eager to assist me to locate and provide
the data I needed. Particularly helpful were Dan Skillman, with the City of St. Louis,
Missouri and Lesley Hoffarth and Jim Wilson with Forest Park Forever.

v
Table of Contents
List of Tables.........................................................................................................................................................vii
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................................10
Environmental / Ecological Sustainability – Specific to Urban Parks..............................10
Urban Ecology........................................................................................................................................12
Biodiversity.............................................................................................................................................14
Urban Parks ............................................................................................................................................15
Large Urban Parks................................................................................................................................21
The Evolution of Urban Parks in America...................................................................................23
Pleasure Ground .....................................................................................................................24
Reform Park..............................................................................................................................26
Recreation Facility .................................................................................................................29
Open Space System................................................................................................................31
Sustainable Park .....................................................................................................................33
The Nonprofit – Urban Parks Relationship ................................................................................36
Civic Environmentalism.....................................................................................................................45
Nature – Human Relationship..........................................................................................................50
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................52
Construct Validity.................................................................................................................................54
Internal Validity ....................................................................................................................................57
External Validity....................................................................................................................................57
Reliability.................................................................................................................................................58
CHAPTER 4: FOREST PARK – A BRIEF HISTORY....................................................................................67
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY...................................................80
The i-Tree Methodology.....................................................................................................................80
Land Distribution in the Park ..........................................................................................................81
Tree Distribution in the Park ...........................................................................................................82
The Benefits of Forest Park’s Trees...............................................................................................84
Aesthetic Benefits...................................................................................................................85
Energy Savings Benefits.......................................................................................................87
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Benefits...............................................................87
Air Quality Benefits................................................................................................................89
Additional Forested Benefits .............................................................................................91
Stormwater Mitigation Benefits .......................................................................................92
Net Benefit and Cost-Ratio................................................................................................................94
Tree Condition .......................................................................................................................................95
Tree Size/Age Distribution............................................................................................................100

vi
Table of Contents
Tree Biodiversity..............................................................................................................................................105
Forest Park Water Quality............................................................................................................................110
CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC AND CIVIC SUSTAINABILITY........................................115
City of St. Louis Budget....................................................................................................................116
Forest Park Forever..........................................................................................................................119
Forest Park Forever Volunteers...................................................................................................123
Zoo Museum District ........................................................................................................................129
Regional Economic Impact of Forest Park...............................................................................137
Who uses the park…and why?......................................................................................................140
2006 Park User Study ......................................................................................................................140
Volunteer Opportunities.................................................................................................................147
Park User Observations: “Forest Park is theirs.”....................................................................148
Forest Park Patron Residence ......................................................................................................152
Going Forward....................................................................................................................................158
CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................161
Concluding Thoughts........................................................................................................................174
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................................178
Vita Auctoris.......................................................................................................................................................186

vii
List of Tables
Table 5.1: Distribution of Land Types in Forest Park ...................................................................82
Table 5.2: Comparison of annual air quality benefits provided by the tree canopy in the
developed portions of Forest Park and the forested areas....................................92
Table 5.3: Forest Park’s Net Benefit and Benefit-Cost Ratio ......................................................94
Table 5.4: The condition of Forest Park’s trees in 1997 and 2006 ..........................................95
Table 5.5: A comparison of the size/age distribution of trees in Forest Park – 1997
and 2006.................................................................................................................................100
Table 5.6: Top ten species with highest importance values in Forest Park’s tree
population..............................................................................................................................104
Table 6.1: Comparison of 1998 and 2010 average annual economic impacts of Forest
Park on the St. Louis Metropolitan region.................................................................138
Table 6.2: Frequency of Forest Park use by activity for the online survey and intercept
survey in the park ...............................................................................................................144

viii
List of Figures
Figure 4.1: The Original 1876 Plan for Forest Park.........................................................................68
Figure 4.2: The 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition Design......................................................70
Figure 5.1: Forest Park Tree Management Zones.............................................................................83
Figure 5.2: Number of trees in Forest Park’s developed areas, by zone .................................84
Figure 5.3: The Annual Distribution of the Benefits Forest Park’s Trees................................85
Figure 5.4: Average annual benefit per tree, in dollars, by zone ................................................86
Figure 5.5: Pounds of CO2 sequestered per tree annually, by species......................................89
Figure 5.6: Air quality benefits ($$) per tree annually, by species ............................................91
Figure 5.7: Gallons of stormwater intercepted per tree annually, species.............................93
Figure 5.8: The condition of Forest Park’s trees in 1997 and 200.............................................96
Figure 5.9: Carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration by selected tree species annually, by
condition....................................................................................................................................97
Figure 5.10: Air Quality benefits in dollars by selected tree species annually, by
condition....................................................................................................................................98
Figure 5.11: Gallons of stormwater intercepted by selected tree species annually, by
condition....................................................................................................................................99
Figure 5.12: A comparison of the size/age distribution of trees in Forest Park – 1997
and 2006.................................................................................................................................101
Figure 5.13: The relative age distribution of Forest Park trees by zone.................................102
Figure 5.14: Relative age distribution of the top ten public tree species................................103
Figure 5.15: Genus distribution of the trees in Forest Park.........................................................106
Figure 5.16: Increase in the number of tree species in Forest Park from
1997 to 2010.........................................................................................................................107
Figure 5.17: Tree species by genera that are host to Lepidoptera species ............................108
Figure 5.18: Areas of Forest Park left uncultivated Nature..........................................................110

ix
Figure 5.19: Total Phosphorus levels in Forest Park’s Linear Connected Water System
(LCWS), 2007 to 2011 .......................................................................................................113
Figure 6.1: The City of St. Louis Parks Division Budget, FY1995 to FY2012.......................116
Figure 6.2: The City of St. Louis Forestry Division Budget, FY1995 to FY2012.................117
Figure 6.3: The number of gifts annually to Forest Park Forever from 1986 to 2011....120
Figure 6.4: The number of gifts annually to Forest Park Forever from 1986 to 2011,
by category ............................................................................................................................120
Figure 6.5: The number of gifts annually to Forest Park Forever from 1986 to 2011,
top 3 categories ...................................................................................................................121
Figure 6.6: Forest Park Forever revenue from gifts, 1986 to 2011........................................122
Figure 6.7: Forest Park Forever revenue from corporate and foundation gifts,
1986 to 2011.........................................................................................................................124
Figure 6.8: Number of Forest Park Forever volunteers annually, by category,
2006 to 2011.........................................................................................................................124
Figure 6.9: Number of Forest Park Forever volunteer hours annually, by category,
2006 to 2011.........................................................................................................................125
Figure 6.10: The financial value of Forest Park Forever volunteers, 2006 to2011............129
Figure 6.11: Actual revenue from the Zoo Museum District for the Saint Louis Zoo, Saint
Louis Art Museum, the Saint Louis Science Center and the Missouri History
Museum, 1995-2010..........................................................................................................131
Figure 6.12: Adjusted revenue from the Zoo Museum District for the Saint Louis Zoo, Saint
Louis Art Museum, the Saint Louis Science Center and the Missouri History
Museum, 1995-2010..........................................................................................................131
Figure 6.13: Missouri History Museum membership revenue, 1995 – 2012........................133
Figure 6.14: Saint Louis Science Center membership revenue, 1995 – 2012.......................134
Figure 6.15: Saint Louis Art Museum membership revenue, 1995 – 2012............................135
Figure 6.16: Saint Louis Zoo Friends Association membership revenue, 1995 – 2012....136
Figure 6.17: Direct and indirect jobs resulting from Forest Park’s economic
development..........................................................................................................................139

x
Figure 6.18: Overall rating of Forest Park for the online survey and intercept survey
in the park ..............................................................................................................................142
Figure 6.19: Frequency of Forest Park use for the online survey and intercept survey in
the park ...................................................................................................................................143
Figure 6.20: Online survey favorite institutions in Forest Park .................................................145
Figure 6.21: Forest Park Forever members in St. Louis City and St. Louis County.............146
Figure 6.22: Forest Park patron residence, by St. Louis City, St. Louis County or other...153
Figure 6.23: Saint Louis Zoo patrons in St. Louis City and St. Louis County..........................154
Figure 6.24: Saint Louis Art Museum patrons in St. Louis City and St. Louis County ........155
Figure 6.25: Saint Louis Science Center patrons in St. Louis City and St. Louis County....155
Figure 6.26: Missouri History Museum patrons in St. Louis City and St. Louis County ....156
Figure 6.27: Distribution of residences of volunteers in St. Louis City and St. Louis
County......................................................................................................................................156
Figure 6.28: Distribution in St. Louis City and St. Louis County of permits issued in
Forest Park.............................................................................................................................157
Figure 6.29: Exhibit C, Zone Management System Map from City of St. Louis Ordinance
69042, approved December 6, 2011............................................................................160
Figure 7.1: A January 11, 2012 Post Dispatch photo showing wild turkeys in the
Central West End neighborhood near Forest Park ................................................163
Figure 7.2: A January 12, 2012 Post Dispatch photo showing an American White
Pelican in Forest Park........................................................................................................163

1
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Cities and the natural environment have traditionally been considered separate and
opposing forces in society since Colonial times. Cities were considered refined and cultured
while nature was rugged, something to be conquered. In larger cities, far from the
countryside, an urban park was where the city and nature came together. Early urban
parks with their vast open space, specifically, those designed by Frederick Law Olmstead in
the mid-to-late 1800’s, provided a way to bridge the gap between city and nature. Today, as
urban areas become larger and more spread out there has developed a renewed interest in
understanding the relationship between cities and the open space within them. Eighty
percent of people in the United States now live in metropolitan areas (Harnik, 2006); and
many of these city residents experience nature – or even simple open spaces – through
their city’s park system (Harnik, 2000). City parks in the United States run the gamut in
size; the fifty largest cities alone (not including their suburbs) contain more than 600,000
acres of parkland, with parks ranging in size from the jewel-like 1.7-acre Post Office Square
in Boston to the vast 24,000-acre Franklin Mountain State Park in El Paso (Harnik, 2003).
As we are just beginning to understand, urban parks and open spaces serve a
multitude of uses. They are essential for the ecological health of urban environments as
they help cool our surroundings and help reduce pollution as well as control and clean
storm-water runoff. (Platt, 1994; Sherer, 2006). Collectively, urban parks provide
playfields, teach ecology, offer exercise trails, mitigate flood waters, host concerts and
plays, protect wildlife, supply space for gardens, give a respite from commotion, and much
more (Harnik, 2003). In addition, beyond the recreational opportunities offered by parks, a

2
growing body of research shows that contact with the natural world improves physical and
psychological health (Sherer, 2006).
There are also economic and social benefits to urban parks. Property values have
increased for properties near parks. They also support economic revitalization and
recovery efforts as cities showcase their parks in attracting and retaining businesses and
residents, and as part of the tourism industry (Sherer, 2006). Among the most important
benefits of city parks, though, and perhaps the most difficult to quantify, is the role they
serve in the community. Parks serve as valuable contributors to larger urban policy
objectives, such as job opportunities, youth development, public health and community
building, all of which help strengthen the neighborhoods in which parks are located
(Walker, 2004). City parks make inner-city neighborhoods more livable; they offer
recreational opportunities for at-risk youth, low-income children and families. They also
provide places in low-income neighborhoods where people can experience a sense of
community. The role of public parks cannot be underestimated, not only in terms of the
natural and recreational amenities they provide, but also for their role in bringing people
together, orchestrating face-to-face interaction and strengthening community (Beatley &
Manning, 1997).
This study is about an urban park in St. Louis, Missouri, Forest Park; specifically
investigating whether the park has evolved into a Sustainable Park, as characterized by
Cranz and Boland (2004). The problem I have chosen to examine, or better yet, the
question I answered in the course of my research, is: To what extent does the restoration
of Forest Park (St. Louis) reflect the Sustainable Park model?

3
Since 1995, Forest Park has been the subject of a large-scale restoration effort to,
among other things; restore some sense of nature in the midst of the park’s civic
institutions and recreation facilities (Landscape Architecture, 1998; Forest Park Master
Plan, 1995). Following Galen Cranz’s (1982) four eras of urban parks, she and Michael
Boland (2004, 2003) hypothesized that a fifth era has developed to meet the needs of
contemporary society: the Sustainable Park. Before describing the Sustainable Park model
that will guide my research, I believe a look at the first four eras is important for context.
As with every segment of society, urban parks have evolved as changes in the
culture of American life have changed. In The Politics of Park Design Galen Cranz (1982)
developed four ideal types to describe the evolution of urban parks over the last 150 years.
Her classification includes consideration of both the shifting social purposes that parks
have addressed as well as corresponding distinctions in design form. The four types of
parks are the Pleasure Ground (1850-1900), the Reform Park (1900-1930), the Recreation
Facility (1930-1965), and the Open Space System (1965-?) (Cranz, 1982). In addition,
Cranz and Boland (2004, 2003) have identified the emergence of yet another type of urban
park, addressing the contemporary social perspective on environmental issues. This
Sustainable or Ecological Park refers not only to tangible resources such as trees, water and
open spaces, but also to social and cultural viability, including the use of public-private
partnerships to help communities directly support urban parks.
Each of the previous four eras of urban parks dominated the landscape for 30 to 50
years and was generational in nature (Cranz & Boland, 2004). Each park type also evolved
to address what were considered to be pressing urban social problems of the day. Today,
we find ourselves in the midst of a new set of social challenges, specifically, the

4
sustainability of our way of life and the role of nature in our society. People are
reevaluating conventional ideas about nature, shifting away from a model that opposes
nature in our culture toward one that conceives of humans as part of an integrated
ecological whole. In terms of urban park design, Cranz & Boland (2004, 2003) believe this
shift has brought us to the threshold of a new era in urban park evolution, the Sustainable
Park. Historically, urban parks expressed a variety of ideas about nature, but they showed
little concern for actual ecological fitness. Yet today, ecological problems are becoming one
of our most important social concerns, so a new type of urban park focused on social
solutions to ecological problems would be consistent with previous incentives for urban
park development (Cranz & Boland, 2003).
The concept embedded in the Sustainable Park echoes the nineteenth-century
notion of parks as the "lungs of the city." (Cranz & Boland, 2003) as they help clean and
cool the air. It is important to note, however, that the Pleasure Ground parks sought to
create a naturalistic landscape that mimicked nature in aesthetic terms but not in species
composition or ecological function (Cranz & Boland, 2004); the Sustainable Park achieves
both. Sustainable design practices have been useful in the restoration of historic Pleasure
Grounds, such as New York’s Central Park and Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. Forest Park in St.
Louis, Missouri, according to Cranz and Boland (2004), has also been restored as a
Sustainable Park, and it is this restoration that was the subject of my research.
To evaluate the degree to which Forest Park fits the Sustainable Park model, I
explored three elements of sustainability – environmental, economic and civic. This
combination is a variation of the often used environmental, economic and social themes
commonly found in the sustainability literature. Replacing “social” for “civic” provides a

5
clearer image of the support the park receives which, in my estimation, is a critical factor in
the park’s sustainability picture. This is not to imply that the social sustainability of the
park is not important, indeed it is critical, as Low, Taplin and Scheld (2005) argue, but an
examination of the social sustainability of the park is beyond the scope of this study.1
The theoretical framework for the study involves determining the extent and
integration of the Environmental Sustainability, Economic Sustainability and Civic
Sustainability of the park, described in detail in Chapter 3, Research Methodology.
While there is some overlap – as the term “integration” implies – each of these
aspects of sustainability generally relate to the Sustainable Park model – derived from
Cranz and Boland (2004) – as follows:
1. A Sustainable Park has qualities generally thought to increase the ecological
performance of the park; including the use of native plants, the restoration of
streams or other natural systems, wildlife habitat, integration of appropriate
technologies or infrastructure, recycling and sustainable construction and
maintenance practices. (Environmental, Economic and Civic Sustainability)
2. A Sustainable Park should be able to increase or maintain this ecological
performance from an economic perspective. Public-private partnerships and
community stewardship programs have been increasingly used as mechanisms
whereby communities may directly support the development and maintenance of
urban parks. (Environmental, Economic and Civic Sustainability)
3. A Sustainable Park should educate residents by exposing them to new ideas and
attitudes about nature and the urban landscape. Again, community-based
1 For more on social issues of Forest Park, see Carole Knight’s (2001) dissertation that looked at the evolution
of Forest Park as a reflection of the social and cultural dynamics of St. Louis.

6
stewardship programs provide a way for urban residents to rediscover (or
discover) ecological processes and wild places hidden in the urban environment and
to play a role in their preservation or restoration. (Environmental, Economic and
Civic Sustainability)
4. A Sustainable Park should be an integrated part of the larger urban region; and
as such, can help resolve urban problems beyond the boundaries of the park.
Early Pleasure Ground parks were conceived as antidotes to the problems of urban
living – an opportunity to address poor air quality, access to sunlight, limited
opportunities for exercise and other urban problems of the late nineteenth century.
Successive park designs had equally well-developed social agendas and problem
solving roles for the city and region. The Sustainable Park builds on this history,
addressing urban problems involving infrastructure, reclamation, health and social
well-being. (Integration)
Note that the first three characteristics of the Sustainable Park model address all
elements of sustainability – environmental, economic and civic – while the fourth
characteristic integrates them.
I used a variety of data to establish the level of environmental, economic and civic
sustainability of Forest Park that ultimately determined how well the park fit the
Sustainable Park model. Environmental sustainability was determined by evaluating the
environmental improvements that have been done to restore the park since 1995,
including the planting and management of trees, execution of a Water Quality Management
Plan and the restoration of savannahs and prairies, in addition to other enhancements. The

7
environmental sustainability measure(s), while still interpretive in nature, was perhaps the
most straight-forward of the three elements.
Determining economic sustainability involved, among other things, a review of the
City of St. Louis budget back to 1995; to see how much of the budget was devoted to the
Parks and Forestry Divisions, and whether or not this amount diminished over time, as has
happened to a number of park budgets throughout the country in lean economic times.
This aspect of sustainability also involved Forest Park Forever (FPF), the nonprofit
“Friends of the Park” group formed to help support the park. FPF plays a major role in the
maintenance and operation of the park. I examined the formal agreements between FPF
and the City; both the original agreement, signed in 1997 and amended in 2007, and the
most recent agreement signed in December of 2011. I looked for the differences between
these documents that determined economic and operational stability for the park going
forward.
Civic sustainability was determined by reviewing the number and amount of
charitable donations made to Forest Park Forever and the number of volunteer hours
donated annually to the park, through FPF, dating back to 2006; I interviewed several
volunteers to determine their rationale for donating their time. I also made observations of
park visitors, comparing these to the results of the Forest Park Forever Park Used Research
Project (2006).
A vital aspect of this study is to demonstrate integration of these three aspects of
sustainability. For example, the number of gifts made to FPF obviously contributes to the
economic sustainability of the park, as do the volunteer hours, as they perform work that
either the City of St. Louis or FPF would ordinarily pay to have done. Also, leaving certain

8
areas of the park to grow naturally not only permits a more natural landscape for native
plants and animals, it is one less area that needs to be maintained, benefitting
environmental and economic sustainability. There are other examples, as my research
illustrates. The extent of integration is key to long-term sustainability of the park.
Urban parks are a vital part of the urban fabric, and, as Chiesura (2004) suggests,
they can play a role in improving the entire urban environment, within and beyond the
park’s boundaries, enhancing its sustainability, both socially and ecologically. One of the
important purposes of this research is to see what role Forest Park has in improving the St.
Louis landscape beyond the park’s boundaries. Indeed, what role any urban park can play
in the sustainability of any region.
My research leading up to this study revealed no other work in this area, so this
study may be breaking new ground in exploring the “sustainability” of a specific urban
park, particularly the civic sustainability component, as well as its integration with the
environmental and economic aspects of sustainability. It is my hope that this research will
add to the existing literature regarding the importance of urban parks, albeit with a
different twist, integrating the environmental, economic and civic sustainability elements.
This dissertation consists of seven chapters. Beyond this introductory chapter,
chapter 2 provides a detailed review of the literature that I will draw from throughout the
course of my research. As there is somewhat limited amount of research on the
sustainability of urban parks, I also rely on literature pertaining to urban ecology,
environmental sustainability theory, urban parks, the non-profit/urban park relationship,
civic environmentalism as well as literature on the nature/human relationship.

9
Chapter 3 details the case study methodology I employ to perform my research.
Chapter 4 provides a brief history of Forest Park, concluding with adoption of the 1995
Master Plan that provides the starting point for my study. The park has an extensive and
unique history, even for an urban park. This chapter will provide much needed context for
the reader to better comprehend and appreciate the role of the park in the St. Louis
community and significance of its sustainability.
Chapters 5 and 6 address the results of the analyses of the environmental, economic
and civic sustainability of the park while Chapter 7 addresses the significance of the
research and offers some concluding thoughts on the study.

10
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
Not surprisingly, there is no shortage of literature on the subject of sustainability
and on the subject of urban parks, as separate topics. With the exception of Cranz and
Boland’s articles (2003, 2004) and Sauri, et al. (2009), though, no research has specifically
addressed the “sustainability of urban parks.” Therefore, the literature I referenced to
conduct my research crosses several disciplines, including environmental/ecological
sustainability (particularly in urban areas), urban ecology, urban parks, the
nonprofit/urban park relationship, civic environmentalism as well as literature on the
nature/human relationship.
In the 1970s and early 1980s, the concept of sustainability was usually used in
reference to environmental issues. In the mid-1980s, however, the Brundtland Commission
(1987) released Our Common Future, more commonly known as The Bruntland Report,
introducing the economic dimension of sustainability, and in the 1990s the concept
expanded to incorporate social and political issues. With this expanded, more
comprehensive view of sustainability, researchers began calling for ways to integrate these
three elements for a more complete portrayal of sustainability (Sauri, D., et al. 2009), one
that incorporates the participation of people in order to stimulate the creation of social
capital around nature. Because of their many possible uses, urban public spaces, parks in
particular, offer a unique opportunity to achieve this integration.
Environmental / Ecological Sustainability – Specific to Urban Parks
There are numerous environmental and ecological benefits of urban parks,
including pollution abatement, stormwater management and cooling of the urban heat
island (Ryan, 2006; Sherer, 2006). It has been estimated that if a city’s tree canopy is

11
increased by five percent in urban areas, temperatures will fall between 2 and 4 degrees
Fahrenheit as the tree foliage helps to reduce the ambient air temperature (Garvin, 2008).
The concept of large urban parks as the “lungs of the city,” so much a part of the rationale
for the creation of these parks in the mid 1800s, is also relevant today.
Parks also provide habitat for a wide array of plant and animal populations in urban
areas (Corner, 2007), whose effects can extend beyond the boundary of the park, as is the
case with bird populations that nest in the park and pollinate plants beyond the park’s
boundaries. Large urban parks in particular, where more extensive habitat is available and
where large amounts of land are necessary to produce the effects of nature, are better able
to take advantage of these environmental amenities in pursuit of sustainability. In addition,
an animal that has a large range, or one that occupies a large amount of space in the course
of its daily activities, would logically benefit from living in a larger urban park, whereas
they may not even be able to exist in a smaller park.
The landscape of a sustainable park is much different than the landscape of the
Pleasure Ground. The large urban parks of the late 1800s were the result of massive rock
excavation and earth moving, after which most of the plantings consisted of exotic (non-
native) species. A contemporary sustainable park would be composed primarily of species
native to the area, making them, among other things, more drought resistant and less
expensive to maintain, enhancing its sustainability. Most people mistakenly thought that
these earlier Pleasure Ground parks existed naturally, there simply because the land was
not developed, as if nature was able to run its course. They were in fact, created using a
vast amount of resources. As Peter Harnick (2010, p. 3) points out, these parks were “about
as natural as Disneyland.”

12
To help mitigate climate change, urban parks have great potential to sequester, or
“lock-up” large amounts of carbon, removing it from the air through the trees throughout
the park, while improving air quality (Pouyat, et al., 2006 and Nowak and Crane, 2002). The
Trust for Public Land (2008) echoes the potential of trees in urban parks to sequester
massive amounts of carbon in urban areas. Trees also have the potential to remove
significant amounts of other pollutants from the air as well (Nowak, et al., 2006, Spirn,
1984, Alberti, 2008 and Garvin, 2008). This pollution is in the form of greenhouse gases
that are attributable to climate change, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and ozone (O3), in
addition to other pollutants like sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and small
particulate matter in the air (PM10).
Urban Ecology
Urban Ecology is the study of ecosystems that include humans living in cities and
urbanizing landscapes (Alberti, 2008) and is closely associated with issues involving
environmental sustainability. It is an emerging, interdisciplinary field that seeks to
understand how human and ecological processes can coexist in human-dominated systems
and help society with the effort to become more sustainable. It has deep roots in many
disciplines, including sociology, geography, urban planning, landscape architecture,
engineering, economics, anthropology, climatology, public health and ecology. Because of
its interdisciplinary nature and unique focus on humans and natural systems, the term
"urban ecology" has been used to describe the study of humans in cities, of nature in cities,
and of the coupled relationships between humans and nature.
Apart from the educational value, urban natural systems also offer a number of
ecosystem services (Daily, 1997). These include the benefits of increased biodiversity,

13
habitat, soil formation, ecological memory, seed dispersal, pollination, and storage and
cycling of nutrients. Ecosystem services also help regulate noise and air temperature, and
relieve air pollution while protecting water quality. Many of these services are essential for
human well-being (Chiesura 2004) and thus are an important aspect of livable, sustainable
cities. Also, unlike many rural areas, cultural and recreational amenities abound in many
urbanized areas, many of which are located in or near urban parks.
Ecologists are paying increasing attention to the relationship between urbanization
and ecosystems, but few have directly addressed how human and ecological patterns
emerge from the interactions between socioeconomic and biophysical processes. Although
a substantial body of urban research has focused on the dynamics of urban systems – their
sociology, economics, ecology and policies – Alberti (2008) argues that these diverse
dimensions have yet to be synthesized into one coherent theoretical framework. Most
ecological studies treat urban areas as homogeneous phenomena and combine all
anthropogenic (human-related) factors into one aggregated variable. In essence,
urbanization is represented as one-dimensional, an unrealistic assumption. Urbanization is,
in reality, multi-dimensional and highly variable across space and time. Likewise,
socioeconomic studies highly simplify and rarely discriminate among different and
complex ecological and biophysical processes (Alberti, et al., 2003).
Both ecologists and social scientists have studied emergent ecological and social
phenomena, but they have not explored the landscape-level interactions between social
and ecological media. In their separate domains, neither the natural nor the social sciences
have explained how integrated human and ecological systems merge and evolve, because
human and ecological factors work simultaneously at various levels (Alberti, et al., 2003),

14
and urban parks, particularly large urban parks like Forest Park, provide an excellent
laboratory to study this issue further.2
Biodiversity
Landscape designs have promoted the wide-scale replacement of native plant
species with plants that evolved elsewhere for over two centuries. Repeated disturbance, in
combination with unintentional and purposeful importation of introduced species has
resulted in the establishment invasive plants and animals (Tallamy and Shropshire, 2008).
The bias toward landscaping with introduced ornamentals has been so complete that the
first trophic level in suburban and urban ecosystems throughout the United States is now
dominated by plant species that evolved in Southeast Asia, Europe, and South America.
(Tallamy and Shropshire, 2008)
Tallamy and Shropshire (2008) surmise that if introduced plants are the ecological
equivalents of the native plants they replace, their inclusion in managed landscapes would
likely have minimal impact on organisms at higher trophic levels that depend directly or
indirectly on plants as energy sources. But, they continue, if introduced species are not the
ecological equivalents of native species, particularly in their use by herbivores (plant
eaters) that transfer energy to higher-level consumers, herbivore productivity and the
diversity and biomass of organisms at higher trophic levels that depend on these animals
will be compromised in landscapes where introduced plants comprise a larger share of the
total. This will be true regardless of the invasive behavior of the alien plant species in
question. Most ornamental aliens are not invasive, but when they are planted by the
2
This concept is different than the Concentric Zone Theory developed by Park, Burgess and McKenzie (1925).
Their model explained the spatial organization of urban areas as “urban ecology,” similar to the ecology definition
in the natural sciences. My point here, along with Alberti, et.al (2003) is that neither the social nor the natural
sciences have explained to what extent each discipline integrates with the other, whether in urban areas or in the
country.

15
millions throughout managed ecosystems, they dominate landscapes as if they were
(Tallamy and Shropshire, 2008). In essence, the biodiversity of the plants in an area will
affect biodiversity of other plants and animals that ultimately depend of these plants.
Urban Parks
The vision for the urban park was derived from the experience of European cities
whose parks were universally acknowledged as a means of improving the health, social
welfare and moral refinement of their citizens (Ward Thompson, 2002, 1998). British
landscapes, in particular, were carefully designed to showcase "the natural" and to disguise
the human role in shaping it. American parks combined this tradition of formal landscape
design while providing open spaces to serve as places of public gathering and recreation
(Bachin, 2003). Early park proponents envisioned the park as the complete antithesis of
the city, highlighting nature and subordinating the manmade to achieve moral and spiritual
harmony with nature (Bachin, 2003). Urban parks were also to serve as a remedy to urban
problems, providing places of active recreation for residents of tenement housing, a means
to promote public health and sanitation; and acting as regional commodities and sites of
shared civic identity.
Urban parks provide countless benefits to the city and its residents in a variety of
ways, including social and economic advantages. (Sherer, 2006). They provide public space
for residents to assemble and a sense of nature in the urban environment. The digital age
has increasingly isolated individuals, who seek community not with their neighbors but
with the virtual communities of the internet (Shutkin, 2000). Urban parks offer a variety of
ways to physically connect with the other members of the community. Also, in large,
densely populated cities, public parks are among a community’s most highly valued assets,

16
not simply for their greenery, but also for the opportunity they afford for organized or
spontaneous contact with other community members (Beatley & Manning, 1997). Urban
parks provide economic benefits in the form of increased property values for both
residential and commercial sites, and thus enhanced revenues in surrounding
neighborhoods, and advantages for their own towns over other less green cities in the
competition for tax-paying businesses and residents (Beardsley, 2007).
Among the most important benefits of city parks, and perhaps the hardest to
quantify, is their role as community development tools. City parks make inner-city
neighborhoods more livable. Parks offer recreational opportunities for at-risk youth, low-
income children and low-income families. They provide places in low-income
neighborhoods where people can experience a sense of community. Also, through research
conducted for its Green Cities Initiative, the Trust for Public Land has determined that
crime decreases in areas that incorporate parks and recreational activities (Beatley &
Manning, 1997).
Urban parks provide public space for residents to assemble and a sense of nature in
the urban environment. The most progressive cities in terms of social improvements and
economic growth are able to show notable physical improvements to their outdoor areas
(Heckscher, 1977). Many cities, such as Minneapolis, Dallas and Atlanta, while dealing with
social problems of the 1970s created new open spaces to tackle these issues. Conversely,
when parks were neglected, lack of civic leadership and a diminished quality of urban life
were sure to follow (Heckscher, 1977).
Urban parks are first and foremost public spaces (public goods). Carr, et al (1992)
identifies three key principles indicative of a good public space, namely that public spaces

17
should be responsive, democratic, and meaningful. Responsive spaces are those that are
designed and managed to serve the needs of their users. Democratic spaces protect the
rights of user groups, are accessible to everyone and provide for freedom of action.
Meaningful spaces are those that allow people to make strong connections between the
place and their personal lives where people can relate to their physical and social context
(Carr, et al., 1992).
McCormack et al (2010), in their review of qualitative research on the
characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity, found that
social and physical environments appear to inform one another in ways that influence park
use and park-based physical activity, and the direction of influence may be negative or
positive. The findings of their review suggest that well-maintained parks, containing a
number of amenities and facilities that are clean, aesthetically appealing and safe have the
potential to encourage use; those that are neglected and fall into disrepair are used less
often.
Their review also highlights the importance of social environments for park use.
Specifically, the socio-demographic characteristics of surrounding neighborhoods, as well
as the presence of community groups or social clubs as park users and in park governance,
can influence how people perceive a park. Low, Taplin and Scheld (2005) note that
involving community members in the park planning process ongoing management
activities may result in parks that more effectively balance the needs of specific population
groups. In addition, involving community members and local residents in the planning
process may provide them with a sense of place and guardianship over parks, contributing
to greater use of parks and to higher levels of physical activity across populations.

18
Since the reforms of the progressive era, Americans have taken for granted that
streets, plazas, and parks are exclusively provided by the government (Kohn, 2004). When
economists write about public goods they mean things such as national defense and
lighthouses; things that one person can enjoy without diminishing someone else’s ability to
do so, making these nonrival goods. Public goods also include things such as clean air and
interstate highways, items that cannot easily be allocated based on the individual’s ability
to pay, or nonexcludable goods. Frederick Law Olmsted, the designer of many Pleasure
Ground parks, most notably Central Park in New York City, treated parks and plazas as
public goods. These places are not consumed or diminished when others enjoy them,
unless the park is exceedingly crowded. In fact, in many public places, especially urban
parks, their value actually increases when a critical mass of people come together. Unlike
the tragedy of the commons, which describes the tendency of individuals to overexploit
shared resources, this could be called the “carnival of the commons” (Kohn, 2004). When
large numbers of people gather in one place, visitors are more likely to encounter
acquaintances. Young people can meet friends and older people feel the safety in numbers
that is missing in isolated areas.
Kohn (2004) maintains that the argument for the public, as opposed to market-
based, provision of collective goods such as parks is essentially redistributive, adding that
rational choice theory does provide an adequate rationale for protecting public space from
privatization. The market is certainly capable of providing collective amenities such as
parks and plazas. The problem lies in the fact that it cannot provide these services to
everyone, just those with the ability to pay. If inviting, engaging spaces are to be accessible
to the entire public, including lower-income resident, who may not be able to pay, then

19
they must be subsidized by those with more resources; and indeed the government does
devote substantial resources to providing public space.
This normative position provides theoretical reasons why citizens should support
funding for public space amenities, but issues of public space are not exclusively
redistributive in nature. The argument against privatization is not simply that poor people
need parks or swimming pools. If this were the case it would be possible to accommodate
low-income persons in segregated facilities or to provide subsidies so they could go to
commercial recreational facilities. The normative argument also fails to explain why
citizens should prioritize public space over other goods and services. By treating public
space as yet another resource to be distributed, it overlooks the distinctive character of
public space in that it symbolizes and fosters social relations between residents (Kohn,
2004).
The normative rationale for supporting public goods differs from the economic
rationale because it is based on justice rather than self- interest. According to the economic
rationale, the individual acts as a consumer who purchases the collective goods that he
desires and can afford. In many cases these collective goods will be provided by private
entrepreneurs. In the case of parks and open space, there exist many private botanical
gardens or other similar facilities for people to purchase a membership to enjoy. In
exceptional cases of market failure, though, these places may be provided by the
government.
The normative point of view recognizes that public space is not public if it is only
available to those who can pay an admission charge. It acknowledges that creating public
spaces involves some government subsidy (Kohn, 2004). The funding of public amenities

20
would vary according to the preferences of citizens, but it would still meet the
requirements of justice insofar as it provided shared public amenities for everyone
regardless of ability to pay (Kohn, 2004). The economic rationale helps explain why
government provides certain goods and services, particularly those with high transaction
costs such as sidewalks and roads. But it fails to explain why government should provide
other public spaces, such as community centers, parks, and plazas. It is perfectly feasible to
build a gate and charge an entrance fee (Kohn, 2004). But if we assume that people do
desire parks, plazas, and playgrounds, then they should not be the exclusive privilege of the
rich.
Today, it is generally accepted in the western world that democracy means equal
access for all, regardless of gender, ethnicity or socio-economic class. The difficulty lies in
deciding how best to identify the needs and desires of all and how to provide appropriately
for them in such a way that what suits one group does not preclude provision for, and
enjoyment by, another group (Ward Thompson, 1998). Ward Thompson (1998) notes that
the public attitude toward a democratic, multicultural society has changed in the latter half
of the twentieth century; pluralism rather than conformity is the catchword, and this
implies an acceptance of diversity in needs, attitudes and provisions. Cranz (1982) adds
that we no longer need the concept of park as a “melting pot”, as was envisioned for the
early Pleasure Ground parks, where all cultural expression is homogenized. Instead, she
believes we need the park as a “salad bowl” where different cultures can each find
individual expression.

21
Large Urban Parks
Large urban parks function differently than the smaller neighborhood or “pocket
park.” They are complex and diverse systems that respond to processes of economic
growth and decay, to their own evolving ecology, to shifts in demographics and social
practices and to changes in aesthetic sensibilities (Berrizbeitia, 2007). The large park, what
Hargreaves (2007) calls those generally greater than 500 acres, affords the scale to
realistically evaluate the degrees of success or failure of many of the issues embedded in
the public landscape. In addition to their social and cultural effects, large parks are also
valued for their ecological function, more so than smaller parks. They store and process
stormwater more effectively, cool air temperature in the urban core, and provide habitat
for a rich array of plant and animal populations (Corner, 2007). Large amounts of land are
necessary to produce the effects of nature and to design a natural system that is
economically sustainable – that is, big enough to include the resources for the park’s own
making. (Czerniak, 2007)
Large parks were envisioned from the beginning of the urban park movement in the
mid-1800s. Andrew Jackson Downing, in referring to Central Park, suggested that “Five
hundred acres is the smallest area that should be reserved for the future wants of such a
city…in that area there would be space enough to have broad reaches of park and pleasure
grounds, with a real feeling of the breadth and beauty of green fields, the perfume and
freshness of nature” (Czerniak, 2007 page 23). In the early stages of America’s
urbanization, it was easy and relatively inexpensive to acquire the amount of land Downing
envisioned. As a result, many nineteenth century parks were very large, with most well
beyond 500 acres in size (Czerniak, 2007). As competition for limited urban space has

22
continued to increase over the years, these large urban parks were considered to be the
most logical and least expensive locations for a variety of civic institutions, such as
museums and zoos; and indeed this is the case with Forest Park, although the 1904 World’s
Fair helped facilitate this situation in St. Louis, as I’ll explain in Chapter 4.
While large parks provide so much delight, space and function, they also pose
enormous challenges. Expensive to design and build, they are even more expensive to
operate and manage. As noted earlier, in times of fiscal stress, park budgets are the first to
be cut. When this happens, as has been the case all too often, parks quickly fall into states
of disrepair and abandonment (Corner, 2007). In The Death and Life of Great American
Cities, Jane Jacobs (1961) suggested that large parks are especially vulnerable to being
“dispirited border vacuums,” a single massive use of territory that produces danger and
possible stagnation in surrounding neighborhoods. She called for large parks to include
metropolitan attractions, and cited Central Park as a place that could “make greater use of
its perimeter…creating a lively connection between the park and city” (Jacobs 1961, p.351).
She had little reason to think otherwise when her book was published in 1961, the heyday
for the decay of urban parks.
Yet, for all their susceptibility to the ebb and flow of urban circumstances, large
parks remain fundamental to cities, not only because they take on infrastructural and
ecological functions displaced from densely built centers but because they are distinct,
memorable places. They absorb the identity of the city as much as they project one,
becoming socially and culturally recognizable places that are unique and irreproducible
(Berrizbeitia, 2007). It is increasingly difficult to find a large park anywhere in the world
that is fully public – that is, entirely free and accessible in all places at all times and fully

23
supported by public funds. To some extent, this is a function of their physical scale and
social complexity. Large parks are more difficult than small ones to finance and maintain,
which has resulted in the growth of public-private partnerships to manage their
construction and upkeep. They are characterized by greater ecological complexity than
small parks, along with more diverse and dispersed programs, all of which put significant
management pressures on their public sponsors. At the same time, large parks serve more
diverse constituencies than small ones. While the latter might be situated within coherent
and even homogeneous neighborhoods, the former are typically adjacent to several
different communities and necessarily serve more diverse socioeconomic groups
(Beardsley, 2007).
The Evolution of Urban Parks in America
As with every segment of society, urban parks have evolved as the culture of
American life has changed. In The Politics of Park Design Galen Cranz (1982) developed four
ideal types to describe the evolution of urban parks over the last 150 years. Her
classification includes consideration of both the shifting social purposes that parks have
addressed as well as corresponding distinctions in design form. The four types of parks are
the Pleasure Ground (1850-1900), the Reform Park (1900-1930), the Recreation Facility
(1930-1965), and the Open Space System (1965-?) (Cranz, 1982). In addition, Cranz and
Boland (2004, 2003) have identified the emergence of yet another type of urban park,
addressing the contemporary social stance on environmental issues. This Sustainable or
Ecological Park refers not only to tangible resources such as trees, water and open spaces,
but also to social and cultural viability, including the use of public-private partnerships to
help communities directly support urban parks.

24
Pleasure Ground
The early urban park movement in the U.S. had a philosophical beginning. This
philosophical basis lay in romanticism and its belief that nature and natural scenery had
the power to uplift and restore the human spirit. Romanticism arose in reaction to the
effects of industrial capitalism already prevalent in the 1840s and 1850s (Low, Taplin &
Scheld, 2005). Conditions in rapidly growing cities, tenement housing crowded with
immigrants, factory life, disease and smoke provided the impetus for early parks. The
Pleasure Ground is closely associated with this romantic period of park development
beginning around 1850. These parks included the larger urban parks like New York’s
Central Park and San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park (Sherer, 2006). As with urban parks of
every era, American cities built these grand city parks to improve their residents’ quality of
life. The Pleasure Ground was meant to provide a setting in which all social classes could
interact, particularly immigrants new to the country. Municipal officials saw these parks as
a refuge from the crowded, polluted, stressful cities, places where citizens could experience
fresh air, sunshine, and the spiritually transforming power of nature. It was also a place for
recreation and a democratizing public space where rich and poor would mix on equal
terms (Sherer, 2006). The new American parks were meant to be pieces of the country,
with fresh air, meadows, lakes and sunshine incorporated into the fabric of everyday life in
the city.
Pleasure Grounds were arranged like an organism in which the few specialized
areas were conceptually subordinate to the whole (Young, 1995). In contrast with the
geometric regularity of the urban grid, the park’s landscape was curvilinear, with few
structures. Visitors to any portion of the park were supposed to feel as though they were in

25
an unspecified and boundless natural setting (Young, 1995), unable to see beyond the park
boundaries. Designers argued that being able to see beyond the boundary of the park into
another landscape (the city) would ruin the pastoral illusion in which residents found
themselves (Cranz, 1982).
Although planned as places of healthful recreation for all classes, these early
landscape parks were built to middle-class standards (Cranz, 1982 & Low, Taplin & Scheld,
2005). Planners excluded aspects of popular culture at the time such as alcohol, raucous
music, and dancing associated with immigrants and their crowded slums (Cranz, 1982).
This environment of seamless coherence between polite middle-class behavior and a
graceful, tastefully furnished landscape would naturally compel the working-class users to
emulate their social betters. If emulation was not forthcoming, widespread supervision and
enforcement effectively curtailed unsuitable behavior. The conflicts that sometimes
occurred between working-class behavior and middle-class mores resulted in the
criminalization of certain forms of behavior in the parks (Low, Taplin & Scheld, 2005).
Additionally, prior to the 1880s the crucial users of parks were adult males. Men were
considered most important because they were seen as the most likely to have their health
suffer in the city. They were the persons most involved in public, entrepreneurial,
commercial activities. Park proponents contended that commercial activity was exhausting,
led to a loss of personal vitality and undermined the ultimate goal of commerce – financial
prosperity. The solution was periodic immersion in a virtue-generating park, after which
visitors were supposed to be refreshed and braced for another round of commercial
activity (Young, 1995).

26
Reform Park
Critics of large urban parks at the turn of the century argued that these spaces did
not serve the needs of many local communities and neighborhoods, generally those
consisting of working class immigrants living in tenement housing far from the large urban
parks. Large families lived in crowded, rundown apartments and children had nowhere to
play but the streets. Progressives interested in neighborhood reform argued that
recreational needs should be met daily at nearby parks, rather than on occasional outings
to the city's periphery (Cranz, 1982). Residents of overcrowded wards wanted public parks
and playgrounds to meet their social and recreational needs, as well as provide much
needed open space. But because real tenement reform would have required massive
government funding, reformers focused on something more feasible – creating public
amenities, mostly parks and playgrounds, where children and adults could enjoy the
benefits of leisure and play (Kohn, 2004). Small park advocates sought to establish these
parks on a few square blocks in the inner city. This movement to address neighborhood-
level needs merged with a similar movement advocating playgrounds for children,
resulting in the Reform Park, with special play equipment for children. The design of
neighborhood parks differed significantly from that of larger parks. These parks typically
were rectangular in shape, working within the existing layout of the city rather than trying
to conceal it (Cranz & Boland, 2004). They were small and symmetrical, with no illusion of
countryside or nature. Their principal architectural innovation was the field house,
envisioned as a club house for the working class (Cranz & Boland, 2004).
In the Reform Park (1900-1930), it was appropriate for women, adolescents and
children to be included as patrons of the park, not just the working men of the population.

27
Playgrounds were accepted as childhood became viewed as a stage in the development of a
properly socialized individual. Rationalistic advocates argued that these playgrounds,
especially those used by the urban poor and ethnic populations, fostered social harmony
and deterred crime through youth training (Young, 1995). In addition, the emphasis for all
age categories shifted away from individuals to groups of users. Professional play leaders
organized and supervised activities. No longer were families expected to entertain
themselves as a group; each age and sex was assumed to have special needs (Cranz, 1982).
Reform park advocates sought a sense of competition among the local population.
Proponents of athletics argued that active pastimes like sports should be encouraged
because they trained the mind and body for greater individual and group efficiency (Young,
1995). There were several motivations driving the Reform Park movement. Parks and
playgrounds were thought to improve health by bringing sunlight and air into dark,
overcrowded neighborhoods. Also, progressive era reformers believed that public spaces
could help solve urban social problems (Kohn, 2004), similar to how the large, natural
spaces of the Pleasure Grounds were designed to provide a setting where citizens of lower
class could learn the proper qualities of citizenship.
Around the turn of the century, many of the large urban parks in the United States
created during the romantic era were transformed by the logic of the rationalists (Young,
1995). Young (1995) notes that the components and values of the new rationalistic
definition of nature did not replace the romantic ones as much as they expanded on them.
New elements and spatial segments were added to improve on existing park designs; a
romantic park was not considered unacceptable as much as it was considered
underdeveloped (Young, 1995). Also, it was fairly simple for rationalistic designers to

28
create new specific-use spaces in an existing romantic park because the existing park was
generic (Young, 1995). It was easy to add new features such as ornamental plants, areas for
children’s play equipment and athletic fields. Perhaps most importantly, where those who
advocated creation of the Pleasure Grounds considered themselves (and their fellow man)
to be an integral part of nature, the rationalistic park proponents sought to add to the
existing parks because they tended to see themselves as separate from nature.
Although advocates consistently contended that parks were a vehicle to improve
society, the definition of what constituted the best, most effective park changed during the
1880s. Prior to this time, American park proponents tended to believe that nature included
both the physical world and humanity. That interpretation of parks as a universal sense of
nature was an extension of the Romantic Movement. The premise for those romantic
proponents’ belief that parks improved society was the notion that nature was designed,
balanced and inherently good (Young, 1995). When a Darwinian (rationalistic)
interpretation of nature replaced a romantic one, the physical world became imbalanced, in
a constant state of struggle and, therefore, no longer inherently good. With goodness now
extrinsic to nature, parks became increasingly important as the ideal arenas for other good
or virtue-generating activities. As landscape architect George Burnap indicated in 1916,
parks in this new era required both “beauty and utility.” (Young, 1995).
With the arrival of the Reform Park, straight roads began to appear in parks more
often and the romantic notion of keeping surrounding urban scenes from view within the
park declined as the regularity that defined the built environment beyond a park was
recognized and often celebrated within it (Young, 1995). The aesthetics of the rationalistic
park proponents coincided neatly with those of the City Beautiful Movement. The City

29
Beautiful invaded the naturalistic landscape, cluttering it with artificial temples and
statuary so that instead of being an alternative to the urban environment the urban park
became an extension of it (Schuyler, 1986). Although City Beautiful was a product of the
industrial age, its goal was to bring classical beauty into an urban scene that was rejected
as being chaotic and untidy (Carr, et al., 1992). The romantic vision that had shaped so
many urban parks in the second half of the nineteenth century was swept aside. Country,
even the conscious suggestion of country within the park, gave way to a celebration of the
city (Schuyler, 1986).
Even though their ideologies were different, these first two eras in the evolution of
urban park development enumerated all the social goals that parks served: to reduce class
conflict, to reinforce the family unit, to socialize immigrants to the American way of life, to
stop the spread of disease and to educate citizens (Cranz & Boland, 2004).
Recreation Facility
After the 1920s a variety of other kinds of parks – neighborhood, regional, state and
national – reduced the importance of older, central-city parks. Suburbanites increasingly
looked for nature either closer to home or farther away in larger wilderness parks. As a
consequence, large urban parks no longer needed to respond to every metropolitan
demand. Increasingly they had become the landscape of central city residents (Young,
1995). Thus begins the era of the Recreation Facility, characterized by Cranz (1982) as the
years from 1930 to 1965. During this period, public facilities for active recreation – both
outdoor and indoor – were developed at a level far exceeding that of the previous era, but
with one major difference: the provision of these resources was not influenced by the kind
of overarching social philosophy that guided the romantic parks or the reform-era

30
playground movement. Rather, parks and recreation officials viewed facilities like ball
fields, playgrounds, pools and beaches as public services that were demanded and expected
by a growing middle-class population with more leisure time than earlier generations of
Americans (Carr, et al., 1992).
This third era in the evolution of urban parks was most closely associated with
Robert Moses, former Commissioner of New York City’s Parks Department. By the 1930s
Moses and other park administrators had abandoned the idealistic efforts to use parks as a
mechanism of social reform. Parks no longer had to justify their existence as an avenue of
social change. Recreation was accepted as a municipal function and an established
institution, rather than as a reform movement (Cranz, 1982). Earlier park planners justified
their actions by pointing out all the things that were being accomplished in parks –
reducing class conflict, socializing immigrants, stopping the spread of disease and
educating people, among others. But for Moses and his supporters, parks were a recognized
governmental service needing no justification. The emphasis was on establishing
government norms and extending service to the suburbs and other urban areas without
parks (Cranz & Boland, 2003). Out of a desire to accommodate multiple, active recreational
uses in parks and to simplify maintenance, hard surfaces proliferated and nature was kept
within very narrow confines. In essence, parks became very generic.
However, Cranz (1982) observed, that while parks gained large budgets and
bureaucratic support during the era of the Recreation Facility, they lost their movement.
Acquiring land for parks became an end in and of itself as cities built parkways sports
arenas inside them. She contends that this shift in thinking about parks was a sad period in
a way, because it had very little artistic vision; and, therefore, very little social vision. That

31
this is why citizens sometimes viewed parks during this era as boring (Project for Public
Spaces 2000).
Open Space System
After 1965, the importance of parks in the public psyche diminished while theories
about the importance of interconnected systems of open and green spaces gained strength.
In addition to parks, included in this continuous system were streets, plazas as well as
empty lots – areas previously thought to be unusable (Cranz, 1982). Every parcel of land
was potentially valuable as the open-space philosophy considered all unbuilt space as a
potential source of visual and psychic relief. This new park type perhaps is characterized
best by the adventure playground. Conventional playground items such as swings, slides
and teeter-totters prevalent in the Recreation Facility were abandoned in favor of more
free-form environments and play equipment. Railway ties formed a module for many play
structures. Cement culverts were also popular. These items were extremely sturdy, had
few movable parts and were neither easily vandalized nor costly to maintain.
Water was utilized in parks more so than the previous eras; not just for swimming
pools but for waterfalls and other exhibits to attract people and relieve stress (Cranz,
1982). Tall chain link fences were removed around parks as well as vegetation that
screened the view beyond the park in an effort to integrate the city and the park into a
seamless environment. Also, with competition for land intense and, in an effort to use every
available parcel, the small urban plaza or "vest pocket" park was popularized in this era.
Interestingly, Cranz (1982) observes these parks created small urban havens meant to
offer the same kind of relief that Olmsted thought required several hundred acres in the
mid-1800s, with one notable exception. A primary tenet of Olmstead’s design was to block

32
the view from the park into the adjacent city in order to provide a complete natural
experience and escape from the city (Ward Thompson, 2002, 1998). The Open Space
System was also meant to provide a relaxing experience, but not necessarily an escape
from the city; the park and city were meant to function in unison. Many parks were
deserted and dangerous until the fences and vegetation was removed. Only then did
residents feel safe enough to visit the park (Ryan, 2006). Parks were again meant to
provide a comforting, relaxed atmosphere; Olmsted removed the city from his setting
whereas park planners in the 1960s included it.
In this sense then, this new era of Open Space Systems had more of a social aspect
than the Recreation Facility (Cranz, 1982) as direct participation was often a central theme
of open space programming as opposed to passive or self-guided recreation. City
departments also considered more seriously their obligation to provide recreation
experiences rather than just recreation facilities (Cranz, 1982). This led to the sponsoring of
parades and festivals in many parks not only by municipal governments but also by
community groups. As the term “open space” implies, there developed in this era a widely
accepted attitude in parks that “anything goes,” ranging from the passive family picnic or
cultural festival to the more raucous demonstrations. Predictably, only the latter received
widespread attention, often to the detriment of the park and city.
The change in philosophy that prompted the development of the Open Space System
from the Recreation Facility had its origins in the urban crises of the 1960s (Cranz, 1982).
This new attitude toward the city and its open space came around just when the inner city
was perceived as decaying. Middle-class residents no longer used urban parks; in fact,
those who did not flee to the suburbs were deliberately avoiding them as they were

33
considered unsafe. Somewhere between Olmsted’s Pleasure Grounds and Moses’
Recreation Facility, parks lost their critical urban function as places where people
exercised their democratic prerogative. They became merely recreational spaces, and as a
result, when leadership and patrons disappeared, or when budgets were squeezed, parks
lost their funding. When urban problems emerged in the 1960s, many cities pushed parks
lower on the priorities list. As a result, parks were allowed to languish with outdated and
under-funded maintenance and social programs. Crime-ridden, empty, and in various
states of disrepair, they became part of the problem, instead of part of the solution (Public
Parks, Private Partners. 2000).
While park planners in the 1960s could not cure all of the city’s problems, they
believed that a change in philosophy toward urban parks would provide a new attitude for
residents and perhaps provide a foundation for revitalization. But the migration to the
suburbs continued while park budgets continued to suffer. Without middle-class political
support, the growth of open space systems was halted and they began to go into decline as
other social demands on scarce public funds came to the forefront in many communities.
Rules of use in existing spaces were often relaxed, and public spaces again became
battlegrounds in the growing social and racial conflict between less successful members of
the white ethnic working class and people of color (Carr, et al., 1992). It would take the
emergence of public-private partnerships in the management and funding of urban parks
in the 1980s to halt the decline and restore parks as an integral part of the city.
Sustainable Park
Each of the four eras of urban parks to date dominated the landscape for 30-50
years and was generational in nature (Cranz & Boland, 2004). Each park type also evolved

34
to address what were considered to be pressing urban social problems at the time. Today,
we find ourselves in the midst of a new set of social challenges, specifically, the
sustainability of our way of life and the role of nature in our society. We are reevaluating
conventional ideas about nature, shifting away from a model that opposes nature in our
culture toward one that conceives of humans as a part of an integrated ecological whole. In
terms of urban park design, Cranz & Boland (2003) believe this shift has brought us to the
threshold of a new era in urban parks, the Sustainable Park. Historically, urban parks
expressed various ideas about nature, but they showed little concern for actual ecological
fitness. Yet today, ecological problems are becoming one of our most important social
concerns, so a new urban park type focused on social solutions to ecological problems
would be consistent with previous incentives for urban park development (Cranz & Boland,
2003).
Sustainable Parks logically have traits generally thought to increase the ecological
performance of parks, including the use of native plants, the restoration of streams or other
natural systems, wildlife habitat, integration of appropriate technologies or infrastructure,
recycling and sustainable construction and maintenance practices (Cranz & Boland, 2004).
In addition, Cranz and Boland (2004) believe that Sustainable Parks should be able to
increase or maintain their ecological health in the face of funding cuts and changing
recreational demands; and public-private partnerships and community stewardship
programs have been increasingly used as mechanisms whereby communities may directly
support the development and maintenance of urban parks.
Education plays a big role in improving the quality of life; and Sustainable Parks can
educate residents by exposing them to new ideas and attitudes about nature and the urban

35
landscape (Cranz & Boland, 2004). In constructing Crissy Field in the Golden Gate National
Park in San Francisco, over 3,000 volunteers from the local community collected seeds to
plant native species in the park. As a result of this program, park staff reported a demand
for native plants in nearby residences and schools. This type of community involvement
has created more responsible park users. Engaging young people in this way has the
potential to reduce intentional vandalism and encourages responsible use of the park, also
reducing unintentional damage in the process. Reducing both types of damage is essential
to protect ecological processes in urban environments (Cranz & Boland, 2004).
Community-based stewardship programs in Sustainable Parks provide a way for urban
residents to rediscover (or discover) ecological processes and wild places hidden in the
urban environment and to play a role in their preservation.
Through the design of healthier open spaces, the concept embedded in the
Sustainable Park echoes the nineteenth-century notion of parks as the "lungs of the city."
(Cranz & Boland, 2003). However, it is important to note that the Pleasure Ground parks
designed by Olmsted sought to create a naturalistic landscape that mimicked nature in
aesthetic terms but not in species composition or ecological function (Cranz & Boland,
2004); the Sustainable Park achieves both.
Sustainable Parks should also be an integrated part of the larger urban region; and
as such, help resolve urban problems beyond the boundaries of the park. Olmsted’s early
“Pleasure Grounds” were conceived as antidotes to the problems of urban living, an
opportunity to address poor air quality, access to sunlight, limited opportunities for
exercise and other urban problems of the late nineteenth century. Successive park designs
had equally well-developed social agendas and problem solving roles for the city as a

36
whole. The Sustainable Park builds on this history, addressing urban problems involving
infrastructure, reclamation, health and social well-being (Cranz & Boland, 2004).
The Nonprofit – Urban Parks Relationship
Spending on urban parks declined beginning in the Great Depression and continuing
through much of the 20th century. The affluent and frequently white members of the urban
communities abandoned cities for the suburbs, taking public funding with them, resulting
in a pattern of decay in cities, including its urban parks. As cities reduced funds for
maintenance, urban parks deteriorated. This decline was accompanied by an increase in
crime, leading many city dwellers came to view most urban parks as too dangerous to visit.
The pace of deterioration accelerated after World War II as the nation’s attention turned
toward the development of suburbs as a place of opportunity for returning veterans; and
the commitment to the parks and public spaces of cities continued to diminish (Cranz,
1982).
Without adequate maintenance, staffing and budgets, most parks had no choice but
to defer essential upgrades in infrastructure and other capital investment. Many parks also
suffered from overuse – trampled plants and grass, deteriorated equipment, erosion, loss of
soil resiliency and health; among others. Other parks declined from underuse – graffiti,
vandalism, invasion of unwanted (usually non-native) plants, theft of resources, and, of
course, crime. The decline was masked. In the older northern cities, general urban decline
was the focus of policy makers, making parks seem less important in the overall urban
scheme. In the new cities of the south and west, low-density, suburban development made
parks seem unnecessary (Harnik, 2006).

37
A simultaneous decline in federal aid exacerbated the problems cities were
experiencing. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 was enacted to
help preserve, develop and ensure access to outdoor recreation resources. One of the main
goals of the law was to facilitate participation in recreation and strengthen the “health and
vitality” of U.S. citizens (Vincent, 2006). The LWCF provided funds to local governments
through matching grants provided to states through the Act’s Stateside Program. Only half
of a project’s cost could be borne by LWCF funds; the remainder was the responsibility of
the state or municipality (Vincent, 2006). In the early years of the program, more funds
generally went to the Stateside Program than to the other four eligible agencies combined:
the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service and
the Forest Service. However, just when interest in community land conservation was on the
rise in the 1980s, the Stateside Program declined as a portion of total LWCF appropriations
(Poole, 1993); and received no appropriations (except for program administration) from
fiscal year (FY) 1996 through FY1999. From FY2002 to FY2006, funding for the Stateside
Program was roughly 20% of total LWCF appropriations, falling to 8% in FY2006 (Vincent,
2006).
Another federal initiative, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR)
program was established in 1978. The aim of this program was to help urban areas
rehabilitate their recreational facilities. Following the fate of the LWCF, support for this
program also diminished as the years went by; UPARR received no funding in FY2003,
down from $28.9 million in both FY2001 and FY2002. President Bush’s budget proposal for
FY2004 also allocated no UPARR funding (Vincent, 2006). The Bush Administration also
did not request funds for new LWCF stateside grants in FY2006 and FY2007, in part, on the

38
grounds that state and local governments have alternative sources of funding for parkland
acquisition and development, primarily funds resulting from public – private partnerships.
Supporters see this shift in funding priorities as a way to help fiscally-strained local
governments spend less of its own money on parks and instead use the money on other
valuable programs, such as those involving healthcare (Vincent, 2006).
The 1990s emerged with a revitalized economy and a renewed interest in urban
parks and open space (Harnik, 2006), despite the lack of federal aid. Many of the nation’s
older cities started to rebound from years of population loss and economic decline, owing
partly to “gentrification”, the return of suburban empty-nesters and young professionals to
restore older urban neighborhoods.3 With new residents and a greater sense of optimism,
these cities began searching for ways to take advantage of their urban centers by
revitalizing neglected parks, as well as other resources such as museums and performing
arts centers. There was strong interest in the use of parks to promote urban vitality
(Harnik, 2006) and this appreciation manifested itself in a proliferation of private nonprofit
park conservancies (“Friends of the Park” groups), land trusts and foundations that raised
money for park maintenance and improvements (Ryan, 2006).
Crompton (1999) notes that the initial momentum for this change was stimulated
by dissatisfaction with the high cost and inflexibility associated with the traditional model
that required an agency not only to fully finance all land acquisition and capital
improvements, but also to hire relatively large numbers of full-time personnel to perform
specialized tasks. Crompton (1999) adds that typically a staggering two thirds of an
agency’s budget is committed to personnel salaries and benefits. These limitations
3
One of the well-documented problems associated with gentrification is the resulting displacement of the low-
income households.

39
inhibited an agency’s flexibility and agility, making it is less able to respond to changes in
citizens’ demands and priorities. Indeed, throughout the 1980s, many park and recreation
agencies were told to do more with less, even in the face of rising need. A 1994 study by the
National Recreation and Park Association showed that $30.7 billion of state and local
recreational investment would be needed between 1995 and 1999 in order to meet rising
public demand (Rosen, 1997).
With continued decline in federal aid and the tendency of cities to cut park budgets
when money was tight, many urban parks were in dire need of repair and rejuvenation,
and money was simply not available (Walker, 1999). Recognizing that the need for parks
doesn't go away, cash-strapped states and cities moved quickly to raise local money and
take advantage of private funds. At the same time, and perhaps not coincidentally, there
was a change in the way urban parks were perceived. There was a growing belief that the
most successful parks emerge from broad community support and participation, and that
they contribute value to nearby residential and commercial districts. Indeed, Low, Taplin &
Scheld, (2005) consider the most important partners in any park plan to be nearby
residents and neighborhood groups. They add that even though these community members
often possess more knowledge about a park, particularly the recognition of cultural
awareness, they are frequently not included in the planning and maintenance processes
(Low, Taplin & Scheld, 2005).
This combination of factors led to a proliferation of public/private partnerships
between city governments and nonprofit “Friends of the Park” organizations to create,
rejuvenate, and sometimes manage urban parks and open space (Rosen, 1997). Walker
(1999) observes that public-private partnerships for parks are flourishing across the

40
country mainly because they work. They are successfully combining the assets of the public
and private sectors in novel ways to create new and refurbished parks, greenways, trails,
and other community assets in our cities, most often in the face of municipal budget
constraints (Walker, 1999).
One of the first and still most familiar nonprofit organizations involved in urban
park management is the Central Park Conservancy in New York City, established in 1980 to
remedy the deteriorating physical condition of the park and the diminishing budgets for
maintenance and recreation. By the late 1990s, the Conservancy had a staff of 250 as well
as 1,200 volunteers, and an endowment of $65 million. It was so successful that in 1998,
the City of New York contracted with the Central Park Conservancy to take over most of the
day-to-day maintenance of the park. Similar public-private partnerships in park
management have emerged in other cities. In Boston, private support for public parks
began with the organization of Friends of the Public Garden in 1971 and the Franklin Park
Coalition in 1975. Several years later, these groups joined with others to form the Boston
Greenspace Alliance (Beardsley, 2007). Similar groups have also formed in the cities of
Austin, Chicago, Houston, San Francisco and, of course, in St. Louis with its partnership
with Forest Park Forever.
One indication of a well-functioning partnership is that joint assets are strengthened
and liabilities reduced through cooperation (Walker, 1999). Both public and nonprofit
organizations agree that there is great strength in the diversity each brings to projects. As
in other public/private partnerships, what one partner lacks in resources, authority or
expertise, the other can often provide (Endicott, 1993; Walker, 2004). Nonprofits in
particular bring valuable new resources in the way of funding, expertise, and new

41
constituencies to the parks field. Partnerships also have value in their own right, helping to
strengthen the local civic infrastructure of communities (Walker, 1999). Nonprofits also
provide people. While the government is often more generous at providing money for land
acquisition or maintenance (when available), nonprofits are better at providing manpower
than the more bureaucratic government agencies (Endicott, 1993). Nonprofits are also
strong partners because they can more easily involve the community of park users directly
in park design, construction, programming, and management. Membership organizations,
in particular, often are able to rally volunteers and monitor their work more easily than can
parks agencies (Walker, 1999).
Beardsley (2007) points out that these public-private partnerships, though highly
commendable in themselves, have the potential for some troubling public policy
implications. Indeed, he believes that growing privatization is one of the greatest
challenges facing urban parks today, signaling an erosion of commitment among public
institutions to maintain them (Beardsley, 2007). With increasing devolution of government
responsibilities to nonprofit sectors, the nonprofits become part of the emerging
governance structure and may gradually lose their independent point of view. The
nonprofit sector in becoming an innovator for funding mechanisms, a power broker and an
arbiter of acceptable park projects, risks usurping public participation and debate while
imposing its values about what kinds of parks and open spaces are appropriate, and for
whom (Pincetl, 2003). “Friends of the Park” groups are usually highly valued as loyal
supporters by park managers and city officials, and they often take on voluntary work and
fund-raising which is greatly welcomed, but they thereby become “proprietors” in a way
which can exclude others (Ward Thompson, 1998). In essence, the tail can seem to wag the

42
dog, with the definition of "park" potentially changing based on donor requirements
(Kleiman, 2004). Beardsley (2007) notes that these partnerships are one of the ways in
which the line between public and private is being distorted, as private groups are
responsible only to their membership and boards of directors, not to the public at large
(Carr, et al., 1992). Although, Kleiman (2004) quotes Peter Harnik of the Trust for Public
Lands, an organization that urges increased private support for public open space “If an
adjunct fundraising operation comes into existence, that's wonderful, but it needs to follow
the plan and the priorities of the [park] agency, with decisions publicly made...”
The issue of private versus public control in the creation and management of urban
parks and open space is also a question of equity (Carr, et al., 1992). Are the parks being
managed for everyone? Ryan (2006) surmises that the challenge of the modern urban
parks movement is to ensure that these partnerships develop productively and equitably,
i.e. sustainably (Ryan (2006).
Another concern with partnerships is the equitable distribution of private funding
throughout a community or park system. Donors tend to support parks in high-profile
locations (Kleiman, 2004). Of greater concern on a city-wide basis, would be the possibility
that parks in wealthy areas would be better funded, and consequently, better maintained,
than those in less-wealthy neighborhoods (Ward Thompson, 1998). Pittsburgh addressed
this inequity issue by transforming a proposal for a Schenley Park Conservancy into an
agreement that a public-private partnership would support all four of the city's major
parks (Kleiman, 2004.)
Murray (2010) points out that theory explaining behavior of nonprofit
organizations has revolved around two basic approaches, the public goods theory and the

John Loren Wagner Dissertation

John Loren Wagner Dissertation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to John Loren Wagner Dissertation

Similar to John Loren Wagner Dissertation (20)

John Loren Wagner Dissertation