Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 09/20/2001

Home

-136- 8 Planning August 2001 Fieldhouses vs. Meadows: The Debate Goes On 'Recreation has been an important element since the beginning of the parks movement. Frederick Law Olmsted and his 19th century £ollowers provided canals and lagoons for rowing, trails fbr walking, hills for sledding, and open fields for picnicking and games. As early as 1870, Olmsted and Vaux iucluded playing fields in their design for Chicago's Washington Park. By the turn of the century, the recreation movement began in earnest. Advocates promoted organized activi- ties and dedikated facilities as a cure for juvenile delin- quency and other social ills. Over the next 50 years, the demand for recreation grew to the extent that it over- shadowed the philosophy behind the Olmsted parks and changed the connotation of the word "park." By the 1960s, most cities had combined their parks deparrmentwith their recreation department. Since then, the emphasis on recreation has continued and the role of park professionals, such as landscape architects, bota- nists, and arborists, has been diminished or eliminated as park systems have faced fiscal pressures.' Recreation facilities and programming get the lion's share of' funding in most communities, because they fit the cost-benefit model, acknowledges John Crompton, of Texas A&M University. "Over the 7ears, parks people became overly concerned with funding. They use a revenue-driven decision-making process that only looks at cost and return." In a recreation-dominated system, pure parks tend to be carved up and devoted to recreational facilities. used to think that a park could accommodate recre- ational facilities as long as the facilities don't dominate the character of the park," says Lee Springgate, former director o£the Bellevue, Washington, Parks Department and principal of the Point Wilson Group consulting "But most communities haven't found a way to ,:neet recreational needs without denigrating the informal park space," Springgate adds. "Most suburban Parks from the last 30 years are nothing more than a recreational activity center with a landscaped edge. How you choose to develop a space dictates the use. If you build baseball diamonds then you have no choice but baseball. The space is clearly intended for one activity and it will remain empty until someone shows up to play baseball." In contrast, parks that provide unstructured open space invite users to exercise their imaginations. A base- ball game may break out in a meadow, says Springgate, but a rugby match won't start on a baseball diamond. The irony is that the focus on "active" recreational facilities devalues and discourages other activities that are erroneously classified as "passive." Springgate bristles at the use of both terms, "Go to a park where there are three slow pitch softball games being played and you'll find a few people active in each game ar any one time. Compa,'e that to all the people walking, biking, climbing trails, and tossing fi'isbees and ask yourself, "Who's active?" Mayors at a O~. Parks Forum press conJbrence last April in Louisville. From left.'Jeff Griffm (Reno, Nevada), Kenneth Bam' (Forr WordJ, Texas), Elected officials are also beginning to take rice of parks, in part because the modern community is increasingly aware of their value. As John Crompton, of Texas A&M University, au- thor of an upcoming APA Planning Advisory Service report on the economic value of parks and recreation, points out, companies in a technologi- cal economy are free to choose their locations. Evidence is mounting, he says, that quality of life is the primary factor in choosing where to locate a business and that access to parks and recreational opportunities is central to quality of 'A place for kids': Sketchers from Louisville Collegiate School in Cherokee Park (/Car left)