Public participation program for Park Design by Aubrey Relf

A Public Participation Program for the Park 101 Vision

December 2, 2009

Report prepared by: Aurea Adao Patrick Hunter Justine Johnson Clement Lau Aubrey Relf Melissa WatsonÂ

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section

Page

1. INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT Clement Lau

2. DEMOGRAPHICS AND STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS Aubrey Relf

3. BRANDING/MARKETING Justine Johnson

4. OUTREACH Melissa Watson

5. INREACH Aurea Adao

6. RESULTS Patrick Hunter

REFERENCES

APPENDICES PowerPoint Presentation Examples of Collateral Material

Report Editor Clement Lau Presentation Coordinator Aubrey Relf

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Total Parks and Open Space as Percentage of City Area Table 2: Children’s Park Access in Seven Major Cities Table 3: Major Cap Park Proposals in Los Angeles County Table 4: Strengths/Benefits and Weaknesses/Costs of Cap Parks Table 5: Downtown Organizations/Groups Table 6: Traditional Media Strategies Table 7: New Media Strategies

5 6 8 9 17 30 31

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Public Participation Program Design Methodology Pyramid Figure 2: Timeline of Public Participation Program Figure 3: Location of Proposed Park 101 Figure 4: Park 101 Proposal Figure 5: Top 20 Largest Cities in California Figure 6: Native Languages Spoken Figure 7: Los Angeles Demographics by Race from 2000-2007 Figure 8: Map of Park 101 Surrounding Tracts Figure 9: Languages Spoken by Tracts Figure 10: Demographics by Race and Ethnicity within Tracts Figure 11: Population by Age and Gender in 2008 Figure 12: Population by Age Group between 1990 and 2008 Figure 13: Decline of Homeownership Rates of Large U.S. Cities Figure 14: 2007 LA MSA Industries by Location Quotient Figure 15: Examples of “Dream Green” Giveaways Figure 16: Four Levels of “the Public” Figure 17: Parkcycle Figure 18: Sample Questionnaire Figure 19: Workshop Seating Diagram Figure 20: Walking Tour Route Figure 21: Changes in Outreach and Inreach Figure 22: Four Categories of Participants Figure 23: Integrated Public Participation Process

1 2 3 4 11 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 15 16 19 23 28 29 33 35 40 41 42

INTRODUCTION This report presents a legitimate and credible public participation program designed to enhance public awareness to the Park 101 vision by ensuring that those who wish to participate in all facets of the process are provided an opportunity and are encouraged to do so. Specifically, this program seeks to: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Identify all stakeholders and interested parties; Enhance public awareness to the Park 101 vision; Objectively educate the public; and Facilitate a series of public meetings designed to explore the advantages and disadvantages of the vision, culminating with public hearings conducted by decisionmaking authorities.

Our objective is to ensure maximum participation in a process designed to raise awareness to a concept or vision by ensuring everyone who desires is given a chance to participate and be involved. Our focus is on raising public awareness to a vision and facilitating a public dialogue as to whether the park should be built. Our public participation program consists of six components as illustrated in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Public Participation Program Design Methodology Pyramid

•

Introduction/Context: This component is the foundation of our public participation program. The other five sections build upon the information provided in the Introduction/Context. The Introduction states the purpose and scope of our public participation program, and describes the proposed Park 101. The Context section details the existing conditions and issues related to the proposed project and its location. 1

•

Demographics/Stakeholder Identification: The accurate measurement and interpretation of changes in social and demographic conditions are critical to public participation. This section offers the social and demographic profile of the City of Los Angeles and the immediate neighborhood in which Park 101 is proposed to be built.

•

Branding/Marketing: Branding/marketing is necessary to captivate the public’s attention on the potential development of Park 101. This section explains our strategies to give the public unbiased information that does not explicitly state support or opposition of the park.

•

Outreach Strategies: This section describes our outreach approach and strategies. Outreach refers to efforts that take information to the people. It represents the most fundamental of the public participation strategies and is conducted at the earliest stages of the program.

•

Inreach Strategies: This section describes our inreach approach and strategies. Inreach refers to those strategies designed to bring people to the event. Examples include advisory groups, workshops, charrettes, and open house.

•

Results: This section defines the successful outcomes for the public participation program. Specifically, it explains the four ways we are using to measure success.

Timeline The proposed timeline of our 12-month public participation program is shown in Figure 2 below: Figure 2: Timeline of Public Participation Program

Timeframes for the five tasks overlap because every stage of a successful public participation process must be integrated. In other words, every stage of the process is not independent of the other, but rather interdependent.

The Project Park 101 is a vision for a 100-acre urban park serving downtown and adjacent neighborhoods such as Chinatown and Little Tokyo, all of which lack adequate open space. It would involve building a lid or cap above a portion of the Hollywood Freeway (U.S. 101) and its exit ramps (see Figure 3 below). This proposal would incorporate nearby parking lots and underused land next to the freeway, and reconfigure the Civic Center area—converting an eyesore into an urban park and walkable, vibrant urban neighborhood. Figure 3: Location of Proposed Park 101

Park 101 is the vision of a group of college students from around the world who participated in EDAW’s Intern Program in June 2008. (EDAW is one of the world's leading land and environment-based planning and design firms.) The interns were asked this question: How can we reconnect the city’s historic core north of the Hollywood Freeway with the civic, cultural and financial centers to the south? Their solution, Park 101, proposes to cap a half-mile length of this freeway with an urban park in the heart of downtown Los Angeles (see Figure 4). The proposal reconnects the city’s historic core at El Pueblo, north of the freeway, with the civic, cultural, and financial districts of modern Los Angeles to the south. The project provides a unique opportunity to shape a new direction for downtown. Focused on a relatively small area straddling the 101 Freeway and situated in an existing maze of roadways, Park 101 is a new initiative to remake Los Angeles into a more sustainable and livable city. Communities most benefiting from Park 101 are the densely urbanized and park-poor communities of inner Los Angeles. The proposal seeks to provide these communities and the greater Los Angeles with long term benefits by stitching together the urban fabric, strengthening the transportation system and extending the possibilities for a more sustainable place of choice in which to live and work.

Figure 4: Park 101 Proposal

According to EDAW, the Park 101 proposal focuses on six design principles: • Maximize Regional Connectivity • Develop a Pedestrian Focus • Provide Flexibility of Open Space • Reconnect Communities • Be a Regenerative Tool • Create a “Wow” Factor 4

CONTEXT In 1930 the Olmsted Brothers and Bartholomew & Associates submitted a report titled “Parks, Playgrounds, and Beaches in the Los Angeles Region” to the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce.1 The report proposed a comprehensive and coherent network of parks, playgrounds, schools, beaches, forests, and transportation to promote the social, economic, and environmental vitality of Los Angeles and the health of its people. The report also called for the shared use of parks and schools to make optimal use of land and public resources. The Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan was a model of ambitious and bold planning commissioned at a time when land was available and the region’s population was growing tremendously. However, the plan was never adopted and only segments of the report have been implemented to date due to a variety of political, economic, and financial reasons.2 Today Los Angeles is one of the most park-poor cities in the United States. With only 10 percent of its total area devoted to parks and open space, Los Angeles is behind all other major cities of the west coast (see Table 1) and ranks below New York and Philadelphia. In addition, parks and open spaces are distributed unevenly in the region, with a significant portion of parkland located away from the urban core and underserved communities such as South Los Angeles. Griffith Park, for example, has an area of over 4,000 acres, but does not provide for the active recreation elements typically available in an urban park.3 The park consists primarily of rugged hillsides and mountains, and is difficult to reach without a car. Its facilities, including picnic tables and parking, are so limited that visitors are often turned away on weekends during summer months. Table 1: Total Parks and Open Space as Percentage of City Area City

City Area (in acres)

Total Parks/Open Space (in acres)

Park/Open Space as Percentage of City Area

Los Angeles

300,352

30,121

10.0%

San Diego

207,360

36,108

17.4%

San Francisco

29,888

7,594

25.4%

Seattle

53,696

6,194

11.5%

Portland

79,808

12,591

15.8%

Source: Harnik, 2000.

Another indicator of park needs in a community is access as measured by the percentage of children within walking distance or one-quarter mile of a park.4 Los Angeles offers its children 1

Hise, G. & Deverell, W. (2000). Eden by Design: the 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan for the Los Angeles Region, p. 1. 2 For more information on this report, please refer to book by Hise and Deverell. 3 Active recreation requires constructed facilities such as basketball courts and fields for soccer, softball and football. 4 Most cities and counties rely on National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) standards to determine whether they have enough parks. These standards are expressed in terms of acres per 1,000 residents. While these standards may be helpful as general measures of the availability of parkland, they

the worst access to parks among the seven major cities evaluated.5 As shown in Table 2, only one-third of the city’s children live within walking distance of a park. Table 2: Children’s Park Access in Seven Major Cities City

Percentage of children within onequarter mile of a park

Number of children not within one-quarter mile of a park

33%

657,700

36%

1,694,400

Boston

97%

2,900

Dallas

42%

182,800

New York

91%

178,500

San Diego

65%

102,300

San Francisco

85%

16,700

Seattle

79%

18,600

Los Angeles Los Angeles County

Source: Trust for Public Land, 2004.

Access to and availability of public facilities for physical activity, such as parks and playgrounds, have an important role in the prevention and treatment of obesity. Research shows that when people have access to parks, they are more likely to exercise, which can reduce obesity and its associated costs and problems.6 A number of studies reviewed in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine showed that “creation of or enhanced access to places for physical activity combined with informational outreach” produced a 48 percent increase in the frequency of physical activity.7 These studies also found that easy access to a place to exercise resulted in a 5 percent median increase in aerobic capacity, along with weight loss, a reduction in body fat, and improvements in flexibility.8 There are unfair park, school, and health disparities in Los Angeles based on race, ethnicity, income, poverty, youth, and access to cars.9 Children of color disproportionately live in were established decades earlier and do not accurately reflect the dynamic environment and variety of communities today. NRPA standards, for example, do not address access nor do they include many types of open space common in urban environments such as greenbelts and trails. In addition, these standards are silent on the issue of equity; the same standards are used regardless of whether a community is currently park-poor or park-rich. 5 Trust for Public Land. (2004, November). No place to play: a comparative analysis of park access in seven major cities, p. 6. 6 Gies, E. (2006). The Health Benefits of Parks, p. 8. 7 Kahn, E. et al (2002). The Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Physical Activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, pp. 87-88. 8 Ibid. 9 García, R. & White, A. (2006). Healthy Parks, Schools, and Communities: Mapping Green Access and Equity for Los Angeles Region, p. 3.

communities of concentrated poverty without enough parks and playgrounds to play in, and do not have the means to reach parks and school fields in other neighborhoods. The health implications of the lack of physical activity are significant. Children in underserved communities are much more likely to suffer from obesity, diabetes, and other diseases related to inactivity.10 García and White (2006) even declared that “this is the first generation in the history of this country in which children will have a lower life expectancy than their parents if present trends continue” (p. 3). Funding for parks and recreation is also unevenly distributed. In most communities, new neighborhood parks are funded through the Quimby Act which requires developers to help mitigate the impacts of residential subdivisions on parks and recreational resources. Specifically, the Act requires developers to either build new parks or pay a fee to the local parks department which then uses the money to develop new parks or improve existing parks in the area of the proposed development. While the Quimby Act supplements the limited budget of park agencies, it only maintains the status quo and does not address existing inequities in the provision of parks. Quimby fees are only generated in areas where new development is occurring. Because few new housing units have been built in economically depressed, underserved neighborhoods, very limited fees have been collected there. Fortunately, a coalition of community-based environmental and social justice groups has emerged recently to lead efforts to address inequities in the provision of parks in Los Angeles. This coalition is trying to revive the Olmsted-Bartholomew vision and has experienced some success along the Los Angeles River and at nearby lands that were previously slated for nonpark development. Specific examples include the Cornfield near Chinatown and Taylor Yard, both of which have been developed with new state parks serving inner city residents.11 In addition, the business community as well as planning and design professionals have advocated for new large urban parks in Los Angeles seeking to duplicate the success of New York City’s Central Park. Park 101 is one of the proposals.12 Another is the proposed 44-acre Hollywood Freeway Central Park which has the backing of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and a long list of politicians.13 Proponents of both parks believe that the parks would offer economic benefits in addition to addressing the park deficit in Los Angeles, including: enhancing real estate values, and attracting tourists and businesses. Crompton (2001) demonstrates through his studies that the economic values of parks can be measured and their economic benefits can be realized through appropriate design, siting, maintenance, and marketing.14

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (2007, October). Preventing childhood obesity: the need to create healthy places, p. 5. 11 More information regarding the Cornfield and Taylor Yard are provided in Arnold (2007)’s Fair and Healthy Land Use: Environmental Justice and Planning, pp. 112-113. 12 Davies, V. (2008, August). A “Central Park” for Los Angeles? Urban Land, 67(8), pp. 42-45. 13 Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. (2007). Fact Sheet: Hollywood Freeway Central Park. 14 Crompton, J.L. (2001). Parks and economic development.

Cap Parks Both Park 101 and the Hollywood Freeway Central Park are proposed “cap parks.” Cap parks, also referred to as highway parks, are parks that are built over segments of freeways. A 2007 TPL study found that there are over 20 cap parks in the United States and at least a dozen more in various stages of planning.15 The average size of the country’s cap parks is nine acres and each covers 1,620 linear feet of highway. The study also discovered that projects where freeways are already below grade are more feasible than others. Civic and business leaders as well as planners and architects have proposed several cap parks in Los Angeles. Los Angeles seems ideal for new cap parks. The county’s extensive network of freeways translates to numerous locations that may be capped with new parks. The three major cap park proposals in the Los Angeles area are: Hollywood Freeway Central Park, Park 101, and the Pasadena Great Park. Table 3 provides a summary of these proposals. Table 3: Major Cap Park Proposals in Los Angeles County Cap Park Proposal

Hollywood Freeway Central Park

Park 101

Location

Hollywood

Downtown L.A.

Pasadena

Above 101 Freeway between Sunset & Hollywood Boulevard overpasses

Above 101 Freeway, halfmile long stretch each of 110 Freeway interchange

Above 210 Freeway between Fair Oaks Avenue bridge & Wilson Avenue bridge.

44 acres

100 acres

50 acres

$950 million

$700 million*

No estimate available

Size Construction Cost Major Proponents

Pasadena Great Park

•

Hollywood Chamber of Commerce

•

EDAW design firm

•

Politicians16

•

Caltrans

•

Metro

•

SCAG

•

City of Los Angeles

•

Downtown Neighborhood Council

•

West Pasadena Residents’ Association

•

City of Pasadena

Sources: EDAW/AECOM, 2008; V. Davies, 2008; M. Persico, 2008. * This appears to be a gross estimate given that the smaller Hollywood Freeway Central Park will cost $950 million.

As of this writing, there are no vocal opponents to the above proposals. However, commuters may have concerns about being stuck in tunnels for lengthy periods during traffic jams.17 15

Harnik, P. & Welle, B. (2007, April). Nature over traffic. Urban Land, 66(4), p. 102. Politicians include: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, City Council President Eric Garcetti, City Councilman Tom LaBonge, Congressman Xavier Becerra, Congresswoman Diane Watson, former State Senator and County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, and California Assemblyman Mike Feuer. As of this writing, no politicians have officially endorsed the Park 101 and Pasadena Great Park proposals. 16

Construction costs for cap parks can be very high, as evidenced by the expected price tags of the Hollywood Freeway Central Park and Park 101. However, the land may be free, made available as air rights by Caltrans. This can translate to a multimillion-dollar gift in urban locations. For example, land costs $2 million to $3 million per acre near the Santa Ana Freeway by Los Angeles City Hall.18 Various local, state, and federal funds may be used to finance cap parks. One approach is to create a tax increment financing district, whereby future increased tax revenue is used to pay back the costs of the park. Other local funding sources include public works capital funds or municipal bonds. The federal or state government may also pay for the cap, while the city finances the actual park development. Because of their location, cap parks may expose future park users to potential health threats related to poor air quality and excessive noise. In particular, a USC study has shown that children living near freeways are more likely to develop asthma.19 The environmental impacts of the three cap park proposals have not been evaluated yet. An environmental impact report (EIR) will be prepared for the proposed Hollywood Freeway Central Park and should be available for public review in 2010. EIRs will also be required for the other two proposals when they are further along in the planning process. Table 4 summarizes the strengths/benefits and weaknesses/costs of cap parks. Table 4: Strengths/Benefits and Weaknesses/Costs of Cap Parks Strengths/Benefits

Weaknesses/Costs

•

Create large new parks in urban areas.

•

Land may be generally free.

•

Enhance adjacent property values.

•

Attract businesses and visitors.

•

Large park proposals appeal to a much broader audience than smaller projects. Political and business leaders are eager to support grand visions of large new urban parks in Los Angeles.

•

Build on successes elsewhere including Seattle’s Freeway Park.

•

Construction, operation, and maintenance costs are high due to large size of parks.

•

Time and process required for park development will be lengthy.

•

Only one or two cap parks will likely be pursued at a time due to costs and complexity of these projects.

•

Expose park users to: 1) potential health risks related to air quality and noise; and 2) potential safety risks since pedestrian access to cap parks may be dangerous.

•

Parks may attract the homeless and gang members.

Pool, B. (2008, November 19). Plan for park atop Hollywood Freeway is praised. Los Angeles Times, p. B3. 18 Harnik, P. & Welle, B. (2007, April). Nature over traffic. Urban Land, 66(4), p. 103. 19 Gauderman, W. J. et al (2007). Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study. The Lancet, 368, pp. 535-537. The study, which tracked 3,600 children for 13 years, found that those living within 500 yards of a highway faced risk of permanent health damage, including stunted lung growth and respiratory problems.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS The accurate measurement and interpretation of changes in social and demographic conditions are critical to public participation. Misinterpretation of social and demographic change can result in erroneous urban policies and projects that have adverse impacts on the disengaged public. Failure to grasp the significance of demographic changes can also result in an illegitimate public participation process that overlooks the diverse cultures, multi-layered issues, and the various realms of social, ecological, and economic characteristics that are unique to a specific place. Such failure also lessens the credibility of the decision-making process and opposes the tenet of participation: “two-way communication and interaction, with the overall goal of better decisions that are supported by the public” (Creighton, 2005). This two-way communication is legitimized when the organization conducting the process engages participants that reflect the community impacted by the decision-making process. Objective The objective of this analysis is to maximize two-way communication by first understanding the population, identity, and languages of Los Angeles. This analysis offers a demographic profile of the City of Los Angeles and the immediate neighborhood in which Park 101 is proposed to be built. We analyze the population, age, gender, housing characteristics, and languages spoken in Los Angeles and the neighborhood in order to strategically target all aspects of the community and maximize the legitimacy of the participation process. Furthermore, the level of interaction between an organization and the public depends significantly on the ability to speak a common language and to appeal to the various age and race/ethnic groups that comprise the community. Methodology Data was collected from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 1990 and 2000 Decennial analysis data sets by tract level. We also used 2007 and 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) data sets available on the Census website. The ACS data sets do not offer data by tract level, but provide the most recent, comprehensive information by city level, allowing one to trace and study changes over time. As described in the findings section, the data collected from these sources reveal the diversity and uniqueness of Los Angeles and its residents. In addition to data available through the Census Bureau, interviews with community members and observations of places within Los Angeles and its downtown neighborhoods yielded foundational information that is necessary for us to design a legitimate participation process. Information was also retrieved from HealthyCity.org to identify potential stakeholders, including public agencies, private businesses and corporations, nonprofits and other community-based organizations, and other groups. HealthyCity.org is an online community service and policy research tool for all of Los Angeles County, and provides access to a large database of community resources and localized demographic and health data on a GIS mapping platform.

Findings The findings of our demographic analysis are presented on the following pages. Our participation strategies (to be described in subsequent sections) are based upon the findings of this analysis. Population and Language With a population of 3.7 million residents, Los Angeles is the largest city in the State of California. However, not only is Los Angeles very populated, it is also incredibly diverse. To facilitate legitimate participation, unique strategies of “parade building” in Los Angeles is essential. Figure 5 below shows the population of the 20 largest cities in California. Figure 5: Top 20 Largest Cities in California

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, table B01003.

The sheer size of Los Angeles’ population complicates the ability to attract and engage the public within its boundaries. Consequently, to meet the challenge of engaging so many residents, a systematic approach to outreach must be implemented by focusing on smaller groups, such as younger age groups, ethnic/cultural communities, linguistically isolated neighborhoods, and other groups. This approach makes outreach to the masses more manageable by targeting smaller groups with unique interest(s) and characteristics. It also increases legitimacy by recognizing groups that have traditionally been overlooked by top-down efforts of decision-making and through outreach techniques that focus only on the majority of the population while excluding minority groups. Further understanding and analysis of the city’s population is critical to elevating the level of engagement within its boundaries. In particular, a study of the languages spoken is necessary and helpful. Methods of public outreach must address and reflect the diversity of the city’s population and the multiple languages spoken within its boundaries. Identifying the proportion of those populations who do not speak English well is critical to the facilitation of legitimate participation. These groups make up linguistically isolated communities which present challenges to effective 11

two-way communication. Figure 6 shows that among Los Angeles residents who do not have command of the English language, the Spanish-speaking community accounted for the largest share (23.2 percent). Outreach strategies must take this information into consideration. Figure 6: Native Languages Spoken by People who Do Not Speak English Well in Los Angeles

Source: 2008 U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, table B16001.

Race and Ethnicity Related to language is information related to race and ethnicity. Figure 7 below shows the race/ethnic break-down of the city’s population and trends from 2000 to 2007. Los Angeles has a very diverse population. Latinos represent the majority of the city’s population, increasing from 46.5 percent in 2000 to 48.5 percent in 2007. Also, Whites make up a significant, but gradually declining portion; as of 2007, Whites accounted for 29.3 percent. The African American and Asian shares of the population were both at approximately 10 percent in 2007. Figure 7: Percent Share of Los Angeles Demographics by Race from 2000-2007

Source: 2000, 2007 U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, P7, B03002.

In efforts to include all groups within decision-making, we also examined data at the tract level to capture the unique composition of the immediate neighborhood in which Park 101 is proposed. Thus, in addition to data for the entire City of Los Angeles, focused analysis of this neighborhood is necessary to ensure that no pockets of areas are overlooked within the participation process. After all, if the demographic analysis does not hone into the specific neighborhoods surrounding a proposed development, the overall study may be misleading and result in marginalized communities being overlooked. To ensure adequate opportunities to participate in decision-making are afforded to all groups, further analysis of language, race, and ethnicity was conducted in communities immediately surrounding the proposed site of Park 101. Language and Ethnicity in Tracts Surrounding Park 101 Our research reveals that there are many Chinese speakers in two tracts surrounding Park 101 (see Figure 9). In particular, Asians account for over 80 percent of the total population in tract 2071 (see Figure 10). This is not surprising because this tract includes Chinatown. The proportion of Asians and Chinese speakers are also high in tract 2060.1 located northeast of downtown. However, the proportion of Spanish speakers in this tract is actually higher. Also noteworthy is the high proportion of English-only speakers in tract 2074 (88 percent). Figure 8: Map of Park 101 Surrounding Tracts

Figure 9: Languages Spoken by Tracts

Figure 10: Demographics by Race and Ethnicity within Tracts Surrounding Proposed Park 101

Source: 2008 U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, table P7.

Age and Cohort Analysis of Los Angeles Outreach strategies must also consider the age and gender composition of the population. Figure 11 offers the age and gender profile of Los Angelesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; population. Noteworthy are that men have a 10 percent larger share of the total population than women and that the 25 to 34 group is largely populated by men. Figure 11: Population by Age and Gender in 2008

Source: 2008 U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, Table B01001.

Figure 12 offers further analysis based on age. It displays a cohort analysis which traces the trends of age-groups at three points in time. It illustrates a dramatic decline in the 25 to 34 age group from 2000 to 2008, while the 35 to 44 age group accounted for the largest share of total population in 2008. These findings may help an organization to better facilitate two-way communication by relating to issues associated with the paradigm shifts that have taken place over time and by recognizing the divergent views among certain age groups. Figure 12: Percent of Total Population by Age Group in Los Angeles between 1990 and 2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 1990, 2000, 2008, SF3, Tables P013, P8, B01001 Tabulation: age-group/total population*100

Designing outreach strategies to reflect cohorts and age-groups may yield better results by targeting all age groups and by appealing to the various issues related to paradigm shifts that have taken place over time. Knowing an age group’s percent share of the population and understanding changes over time can help design methods of outreach that facilitate high levels of community engagement. Housing Analyzing social demographics along with housing characteristics can shed light on additional issues faced by individuals within a community and shape outreach strategies that consider both small and large interests groups. Being aware of public issues and concerns is important in the development of effective outreach strategies. An example of such issues is the decline in homeownership. As shown in Figure 13, Los Angeles is not the only major city facing this problem. Amidst the economic crises felt throughout the nation, Los Angeles’ homeownership rate dropped significantly from 2000 to 2008 (61.4 to 39.4 percent). Figure 13: Decline of Homeownership Rates of Large U.S. Cities from 2000 to 2008

Source: 2000, 2008 U.S. Census Bureau, SF3, Tables H007001 B25003.

The level of homeownership is significant and relevant to public participation. In particular, one may argue and interpret the loss of homeowners as an increase of renters who may not be as invested in their communities as owners. Thus, an erosion of public participation in these areas may occur. In contrast to this possible interpretation of the data, one may revisit the case of the redevelopment of Santa Monica’s downtown and understand that, “Its success was in large part due to the mobilization of renters who had been civically engaged as a result of their opposition to crooked landlords and rent control issues in their community” (Denny Zane, former Mayor of Santa Monica, California). Regardless of whether renters or owners are more civically engaged, it is clear that identifying issues that permeate a community through demographic analyses can be instrumental in communicating and interacting effectively with the public. Organizers should be well aware of important community issues, facilitate input from concerned members, and collaborate with neighborhood councils or other groups that cater to various social, economic, and 15

environmental aspects of a specific locality. Doing so will lay the foundation upon which to build a legitimate participation process. Location Quotient Analysis Cooperation and partnership with the business community is vital to realizing feasible park plans for downtown Los Angeles. A location quotient analysis was conducted to identify major business sectors in Los Angeles. Location quotient analysis is a technique used to identify the concentration of an industrial sector in a local economy relative to a larger reference economy. It is shown as a ratio between the percentage of employment in an industry locally to the percentage of employment in the same industry found in the state or nation being used as a reference. If the ratio of the local to the reference economy is greater than one, it means that the industry is concentrated (overrepresented) in the local area compared to the reference economy. If the ratio is less than one, however, the industry is locally underrepresented. In this case, Los Angeles Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is the local economy and the U.S. is the reference economy. An example of a LQ analysis is shown in Figure 14 by tabulating data retrieved from the 2000 – 2007 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The calculation used was: Location quotient (LQ) = Local Sector employment / Local Total Employment Reference Sector Employment / Reference Total Employment Figure 14 shows that many sectors within the entertainment industry are highly concentrated in the Los Angeles MSA. Consequently, common interests with or concerns about the development of Park 101 held by key players among Los Angeles’ industrial sectors should be identified. Figure 14: 2007 LA MSA Industries by Location Quotient

Source: 2007 Business of Labor and Statistics Data by Los Angeles MSA vs. the U.S. Tabulation: Location quotient (LQ) = Los Angeles Sec empl / Los Angeles total empl U.S. sec empl / U.S. total empl

Stakeholders We also retrieved information from HealthyCity.org to identify potential stakeholders, including public agencies, private businesses and corporations, nonprofits, and other community-based organizations. The following list (Table 5) identifies possible organizations that may be instrumental to implementing outreach strategies in downtown Los Angeles. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but offers a glimpse as to the diversity of organizations operating in and around downtown. Table 5: Downtown Organizations/Groups Name of Organization/Group

Address

1. Castelar Elementary School

840 N. Yale St., Los Angeles, CA 90012

2. Alpine Recreation Center

817 Yale St., Los Angeles, CA 90012

3. Chinatown Service Center

767 N. Hill St., Ste. 108, Los Angeles, CA 90012

4. Evans Community Adult School

717 N. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90012

5. Altamed Grand Plaza Adult Day Health Care Center

701 W. Cesar Chavez, Suite 201, Los Angeles, CA 90012

6. LA City Library - Chinatown Branch

639 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012

7. Station No. 4 - N. Main St.

800 N. Main St., Los Angeles, CA 90012

8. CA Community Tech Policy Group

1000 Alameda St., Ste. 240, Los Angeles, CA 90012

9. Teen Post â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Chinatown

600 N. Broadway, Ste. D, Los Angeles, CA 90012

10. Chinatown Senior Services Center

600 N. Broadway, Ste. B, Los Angeles, CA 90012

11. Chinese Committee On Aging

600 N. Broadway, Ste. C, Los Angeles, CA 90012

12. Center Theatre Group

601 W. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012

13. Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels

555 W. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012

14. Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church

535 N. Main St., Los Angeles, CA 90012

15. First District-Supervisor Gloria Molina

500 W. Temple St., Rm. 856, Los Angeles, CA 90012

16. LA County Office of Affirmative Action

500 W. Temple St., Rm. 780, Los Angeles, CA 90012

17. LA County Chief Executive Office

500 W. Temple St., Rm. 358, Los Angeles, CA 90012

18. LA County Business License Commission

500 W. Temple St., Rm 374, Los Angeles, CA 90012

19. LA County Board of Supervisors

500 W. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012

20. LA County Consumer Affairs

500 W. Temple St., B-96, Los Angeles, CA 90012

21. LA County Office of County Counsel

500 West Temple St. 648, Los Angeles, CA 90012

22. LA County Domestic Violence Council

500 W. Temple St., B-50, Los Angeles, CA 90012

Source: HealthyCity.org, 2009.

The Outreach section of this paper describes a strategic approach of collaboration with specific large scale corporations and organizations.

Summary This section is intended to improve our understanding of potential stakeholders of the proposed Park 101 project, including residents in both adjacent neighborhoods and the City of Los Angeles as a whole. The location quotient analysis and information obtained via HealthyCity.org help us to identify potential partners including public agencies, private corporations and businesses, nonprofit organizations, community-based groups, and other leaders within the community. Our findings enable us to develop an intelligent approach to facilitating the underpinning theme of legitimate participation, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Interaction with the overall goal of better decisions that are supported by the publicâ&#x20AC;? (Creighton, 2005). The data revealed that outreach and inreach strategies must not only appeal to the majority of the population, but must also target and attract smaller segments of the public whose voices have historically been unheard. This targeted strategy increases the quantity of participants as well as the quality of the participation process. Informed decisions and strategies are critical to both the effective and efficient implementation of public outreach techniques. The findings of this section can guide our approach to outreach and influence strategic partnerships with collaborative entities in these areas that may have developed a rapport with members of the community. These partnerships are invaluable to facilitating effective two-way communication and civic engagement within these communities. As an additional approach to building effective two-way communication between organizations and the public, organizations should proactively create cultural awareness amongst their internal staff and understand the specific segments of the public prior to outreach. This will maximize legitimacy of the participation process and attract higher quantities of participants through more intelligent approaches to outreach.

BRANDING/MARKETING The growth of social media and innovative public outreach techniques has inspired us to create a set of strategies that meet the dual objectives of: 1) educating the public and 2) provoking a social movement centered on the need and importance of parks in Los Angeles. The purpose of branding Park 101 is to captivate the public’s attention on the potential development of the park. Our strategies focus on providing the public with unbiased information that does not explicitly state favor or opposition of the proposed park. Simply put, we seek to enhance the public’s education about Park 101 by stimulating public awareness. Our recommended strategies include the following: • • • • •

Create an attractive slogan; Provide public giveaways; Put up noticeable signage in public places; Collaborate with private businesses, corporations, and foundations; and Identify celebrity spokesperson(s).

Slogan In order for Park 101 to spark a social movement, people must have something that grabs their attention. Appealing slogans are an effective tool for marketing products in the for-profit sector. Similarly, we decided to utilize this approach in establishing a slogan that represents Park 101. The goal of the slogan is to draw attention to Park 101 in a manner that does not create a biased opinion as to the ultimate future of the park proposal. “Dream Green” is our proposed slogan. We see this phrase as catchy, yet simple. This phrase can encourage and motivate the public to think futuristically about parks and green space. “Dream Green” is more than just a slogan; our team envisions this phrase as the start of a significant movement. “Dream Green” will become a familiar phrase that can be recognized in public giveaways. Giveaways The demographic characteristics of the communities around Park 101 will determine the types of giveaways that should be provided to the public. Our earlier analysis revealed that many of the people living in neighborhoods near the proposed Park 101 are Latino and Asian within the age range of 25-54. The combination of rising millennials, Generation Y, and Generation X that comprise the area also help us to determine the appropriate type of giveaways for this targeted population. The diverse set of languages spoken in the area also requires that the “Dream Green” slogan be displayed in different languages to meet the linguistic needs of the population. Our suggested giveaways include the following: T-shirts, hats, buttons, rubber green bracelets, drinking canteens, recyclable tote bags, pens, key rings, magnets and bumper stickers (see Figure 15). The giveaways will be provided for those who participate: in public meetings 19

(workshops, open house, etc), on the community advisory committee, in charrettes, at the park picnic, and in the mobile park and kiosks. Figure 15: Examples of “Dream Green” Giveaways

The purpose of the giveaways is to provide the public with an item to personalize on their experience of dreaming big about the present and future needs of green space in Los Angeles. Each item that displays the “Dream Green” slogan sparks the external pressure for people to outwardly show their pride in engaging in a momentous event. Public giveaways are important to the branding process, but the reach has to impact the population that may not want to engage in public events. Signage Public signage is necessary to reach those who may not be interested in participating in Park 101 public events. The targeted population for this strategy is the 20 percent of people that are not interested or vested in public participation. By using attractive signage that has bold letters of “DREAM GREEN” followed by small letters with a website and phone number naturally draws attention to the human eye. These signs should be located inside and outside of buses and trains, at bus stop benches, and posters in public buildings such as libraries and schools. The prominence of signage around the vicinity of Park 101 will help to foster inquisitiveness of those 20

that seek to understand what “Dream Green” actually means. Visual appeal and graphic design help to captivate public attention. Signage will provide the inreach needed to promote awareness and education through an individual’s independent usage of the Park 101 website information and the Park 101 telephone hotline. Collaborations Targeting the private sector (i.e. businesses, corporations, foundations) as an affiliate to assisting public participation is pivotal to the success of bringing awareness to Park 101. For example, those promoting Chicago’s Millennium Park made great strides by bridging a relationship with the private sector. Millennium Park gained intrinsic (expertise) and extrinsic (financial) private sector support in the pre and post planning processes. Similarly, we suggest that Park 101 uses Millennium Park as a best practice of relationship building when planning a participation model for Park 101. Corporations and foundations are usually interested in giving philanthropic dollars to cause-related issues that involve environmental or social objectives. Presenting information to corporations and foundations about Park 101 and the goal of enhancing civic engagement could be an attractive opportunity for private investment. Corporate sponsorship into the “Dream Green” movement benefits the corporation through name recognition on “Dream Green” banners, posters, and t-shirts. Engaging the corporation and foundations into the branding process of Park 101 can provide the much needed knowledge, expertise, and financial resources. While large scale private reach is needed, the local business community is the best opportunity to visibly reach out to those in the local community. Establishing a positive relationship with the local business community near the vicinity can assist in getting the public engaged about Park 101. Local businesses have a direct connection to the local community as they are frequently used by the local residents. For local businesses that are in support of Park 101’s goal of educating and engaging the public, we propose giving each of them a “Dream Green” banner or poster that can be displayed in store fronts or office windows. The goal is to get the local business community interested about the proposed Park 101 and publically display the need for the public to get involved and “Dream Green”. Each business that is approached would be given advertisement space if the owner agrees to put a “Dream Green” poster inside his/her business. Businesses will also be given the option of having a larger size of advertisement space for a $50 fee. Bookmark-like flyers will also be available with information about public events regarding Park 101. Private web companies can also muster the social capital that is needed to draw attention to the proposed Park 101. Building relationships with various social web companies such as Twitter, Google, MySpace, Facebook, and AOL allows us to reach a broad range of audiences that is necessary for successful participation in Park 101. In addition, social websites that target specific interests of green space and parks in Los Angeles can trigger a worldwide movement of people who are informed and abreast on the status of Park 101. Web companies such as Google allow their software engineers to use 20 percent of their time doing volunteer projects that interests them (Source: www.allforgood.org/about). We suggest that using collaborating with software engineers at Google will help to further expand the scope of public outreach through social technology. The innovative staff at Google could launch a website that is interactive and allows people to link onto social media websites to state their awareness and position about Park 101. Partnering with social websites puts more momentum behind the “Dream Green” movement. The goal is to create the social pressure that is needed to push people to feel compelled to participate. 21

Spokesperson(s) Lastly, Park 101’s “Dream Green” movement should have a local spokesperson(s) that the community can identify with. The spokespersons should be reflective of the current population and their dominant languages spoken. Based on our demographic analysis, the community surrounding the proposed Park 101 includes English, Spanish, and Chinese speakers. The local spokesperson must be able to speak fluently in one or more of these predominant languages. We propose the following local spokespersons: •

•

Teresa Quevedo: Ms. Quevedo has over eighteen years of experience in Spanish news journalism. Ms. Quevedo has been anchor for weekday news program “Noticias 34”, on KMEX-TV Channel 34, for over 10 years. She is an ideal representative whom many individuals within the Latino community can identify with due to her familiar face on Spanish television station KMEX-TV Channel 34. Marc Brown: Mr. Brown is a news anchor for the top rated evening news program “Eyewitness News”, which can be seen on KABC-TV Channel 7. With over eleven years of experience as news anchor for Eyewitness News, Mr. Brown would be an ideal spokesperson that English speakers would recognize by face. Sharon Ha: Miss Ha was the crowned Queen of the 2008 Miss Los Angeles Chinatown Pageant. Since 1963, the historic pageant has been going strong in the Los Angeles Chinatown community.

These spokespersons were selected because of their background, ability to speak in one or more of the predominant languages, and their upbringing in the Los Angeles area. The local spokesperson(s) role in the “Dream Green” movement is to educate and stimulate awareness on the lack of green spaces in Los Angeles. The local spokesperson(s) should not explicitly state their personal position on Park 101. Their responsibilities would include but not limited to the following: 1. Making public appearances at “Dream Green” events, such as the open house or mobile park kiosk; 2. Wearing “Dream Green” apparel at public participation events (i.e. Dream Green Tshirt and hat); 3. Partaking in television and radio commercials that educate the public on the current and future environmental trends in Los Angeles; and 4. Using social media websites that encourage the public to “Dream Green”. The use of local spokesperson(s) is important to attracting a wider range of people that make up the 70 percent of people that occasionally participate, as well as the 20 percent that does not participate at all.

OUTREACH Outreach is defined as all those activities where we take information out to the public: that is, activities where we go to them. This definition works in tandem with our definition for inreach strategies in which the public comes to us for meetings, charrettes, field trips, etc. In order to inform the public about the Park 101 idea and gather input from them, outreach strategies are essential. Outreach strategies are key to sharing knowledge and gathering input in a manner in which members of the public does not have to change their routines in order to learn more about Park 101, and if done effectively will increase awareness of and participation in our various inreach activities. Methodology The outreach strategies we have developed are designed to reach three levels of “the public”: 1) immediate neighbors of the Park 101 site; 2) people who live or work downtown or nearby neighborhoods; and 3) people from the wider Los Angeles metropolitan region. Using new media and other methods, we will are also likely to reach a fourth level consisting of people who live throughout the United States and possibly across the globe. As shown in Figure 16, the four levels we will target can be illustrated as four concentric circles, with the inner circle representing the smallest and most important target group and the outer circle representing the largest and geographically broadest group. Figure 16: Four Levels of “the Public”

1. Immediate Neighbors The first core group consists of immediate neighbors of the proposed Park 101 site. These are the people who will be most affected by the parkâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s construction and presence. This group is vital. In this case, many of the immediate neighbors happen to be decision-makers as well (including City Hall) so it is especially important to make them feel like they are influential and a part of the process from the beginning. Other immediate neighbors include Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Central Los Angeles Area High School #9 for the Visual and Performing Arts, Union Station, and Pico House and other historic buildings east of the 101. Additional neighbors are identified in Table 5 of the Demographics section of this report. 2. Downtown Los Angeles and Surrounding Neighborhoods This group consists of all people who live, work, or play in downtown Los Angeles and surrounding neighborhoods, including Chinatown and Little Tokyo. As the demographic data indicate, this is a very diverse group with varying ages, ethnicities, languages, professions, and lifestyles. Our outreach strategies are tailored to this diverse public, expressed in greater detail below. 3. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Region Thanks to its incredible positioning at the heart of the regional transportation network, Park 101 has the potential to be a destination for people from all around the city of Los Angeles and the metropolitan region as a whole. The site is located across the street from Union Station, the hub of Metro rail, Metrolink, and Amtrak trains, as well as many Metro bus lines. Multiple major freeways pass near the site as well. Because of this wide impact, our outreach strategies must be equally broad so as to include the maximum number of stakeholders in the process. 4. National and International New media strategies will enable us to easily reach a worldwide audience, sharing information with people interested in parks and the environment across the globe. The First Step: Briefing Key Stakeholders Before going public, the first step in the outreach process consists of briefing key stakeholders and decision-makers. These are personal visits to key stakeholders and agencies to inform them of the planned public participation program and invite them into the process early on so as to head off potential conflict or controversy later. By ensuring that they do not first learn of the Dream Green public participation program in a newspaper (or worse from a vocal opponent of the project), we can avoid the risk of bad feelings. In addition to preventing potential resentment, briefings are a good tool to get input from these key individuals and groups before we go out to the general public. If we can gain their support early on, they will feel more ownership over the process, can help shape it to make it more effective, and will likely help the Dream Green movement as it progresses. We have identified the following eight elected officials, individuals, and groups that should be briefed before commencing the public participation outreach strategies. Since the proposed park is adjacent to the Civic Center, all briefings can be conducted without traveling far. We recommend scheduling a few each day at each site so that you can complete them all within a week, allowing us to quickly move on to following public outreach strategies. 24

•

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 7 –Tel: (213) 897-3656 o Park 101 is proposed as a cap park above the 101 Freeway and calls for the rerouting of several main streets that currently cross above the freeway, so Caltrans must be a key figure. It will also involve the transfer of Caltrans’ air rights above the freeway. Asking for their input and their support, and encouraging them to “buy-in” to the process early on will surely smooth out potential hurdles to come.

•

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – Tel: (213) 485-2121 o As a major public figure and decision-maker in Los Angeles, Mayor Villaraigosa should be made aware of the campaign as soon as possible. He will also be influential in gathering support. This meeting should take place at City Hall, and would ideally be scheduled the same day as the meetings with the City Council and Councilmember Huizár.

•

Los Angeles City Council – Tel: (213) 473-7013 o Not only will the City Council affect this project as a major decision-maker, its location just one block away from the Park 101 site means City Hall will be affected by the project—and benefit from the park—as well.

• • •

Councilmember Ed Reyes, Council District #1 – Tel: (213)-473-7001 Councilmember Jan Perry, Council District #9 – Tel: (213)-473-7009 Councilmember Jose Huizár, Council District #14 – Tel: (213) 473-701 o The proposed Park 101 is of particular interest to three council districts: 1, 9, and 14. We will meet with all three councilmembers and their field deputies as they should be some of the first people informed of the public participation program. They may find it in their best electoral interests to support a park project, as the public generally sees parks in a favorable light.

•

Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels – Tel: (213) 680-5200 o It is extremely important that the Cathedral be a part of this movement from the beginning, and that we strive to take their concerns into account regarding potential side effects of the construction of a park over the adjacent freeway. The church has already expressed concern that the proposed park would prevent motorists on the 101 from seeing its towering cross above them as they pass through downtown—a cross that was designed specifically with those drivers in mind. We will need to respond to their concern and establish from the beginning that we wish to work with them to find a solution rather than fight against them or ignore them.

•

Union Station – Tel: (310) 206-5388 o Union Station is the hub of rail transportation for the entire Los Angeles region, and an important neighbor to the Park 101 site. When meeting personally with station leadership, it would be a good idea to discuss possible collaboration efforts to reach the maximum number of people with the Dream Green message, such as advertisements inside or outside trains and subways.

•

El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument – Tel: (213) 485-6855 o Pico House belongs to El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument, which plays a central role in Park 101’s vision of connecting the historic center with downtown LA. This historic area is a major draw for tourists and it is important that they feel ownership over the park movement.

•

Central Los Angeles Area High School #9 for the Visual and Performing Arts: Tel: (213) 241-7000 (Office of the Superintendent) o Directly across from the Catholic Church, the new LAUSD performing arts high school is a gem of modern architecture and a symbol of pride for downtown Los Angeles. Students at the school will undoubtedly benefit from the construction of a park adjacent to the school, but there may be some unanticipated negative consequences as well. Informing the LAUSD school board of our efforts to increase awareness of the lack of green space downtown and the potential Park 101 site will allow us to try to gain support from the school early on, which would be a motivating symbol for the rest of the neighborhood. The “Dream Green” movement is, after all, all about the future of our great city.

Presentation to Community Groups After briefing the abovementioned stakeholders, we are ready to move onto the next step in the outreach process: community group presentations. We have identified key groups to present our program to: the two neighborhood councils that border the section of the 101 Freeway proposed for development and local business groups. We will still target groups in the immediate area (the innermost circle), but by sharing at public meetings we will begin to reach a wider audience. Local Neighborhood Council Meetings We recommend talking to the Neighborhood Council board members and arrange to present information about the issues and the Park 101 proposal at their meeting. This will allow us to discuss issues concerning the lack of park space in Los Angeles, the barrier created by the freeway, how all this may affect our health and the health of our children, and related issues. The use of engaging graphics, such as a video, a good PowerPoint presentation, will help spark their interest. Then, we can present Park 101 as a possible response to those concerns, and invite councilmembers’ input and input from the public. We will explain that we wish to get the conversation started so that the public will be educated about the park issue and, through education, be empowered to initiate or affect change. For collateral, we will prepare informative brochures that are eye-catching but not too flashy: the public could be turned off if it appears we are wasting money, especially at a time of budget cuts and constraints. Because of the rich diversity of area residents, interpreters will be necessary. The Historic Cultural Neighborhood Council encompasses Chinatown and Little Tokyo, so Chinese and Japanese interpreters should be available. In addition, Spanish translators are necessary given the high numbers of Spanish speakers in tracts around the proposed Park 101. Translators may also be necessary at the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council. The brochure should be made available in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese. This will also be a good time to begin collecting names, addresses, and email addresses for people interested in park updates and participation opportunities. Information about regular meetings held by the Downtown and Historical Cultural Neighborhood Councils are shown below: 26

Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council

Meets the 2nd Tuesday of the month, 6:30pm L.A. Theater J. Russel Brown, President Tel: (213) 999-0379

Historic Cultural Neighborhood Council

Meets the 2nd Tuesday of the month, 7:30pm 114 E. Paseo de la Plaza, Los Angeles Kim Benjamin, President Tel: (310) 245-4470

While this sector of the public is important, we need to keep in mind that the Neighborhood Council board members and the participants who regularly attend these meetings only represent a small percentage of total stakeholders (the 10 percent). They are the people who are typically interested and have time to come to meetings. Remember to bring Dream Green paraphernalia to share (wristbands, key chains, T-shirts etc.). Neighborhood Councils are a great place from which to launch the broader public participation campaign. The Private Sector Cooperation and partnership with downtown business is vital to realizing feasible park plans for downtown Los Angeles. Two groups we have identified for Park 101 informative presentations are the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Los Angeles Business Improvement District. Involving them in the process will help build credibility with private sector business interests and demonstrate a commitment to cooperation between the private and public sectors. Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

(213) 580-7500 350 S. Bixel Street Los Angeles, CA 90017

Downtown LA Business Improvement District

(213) 624-2146 626 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90017

Again, we need to be prepared with interpreters and prepare all materials in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese. Also we need to bring items, such as buttons, wristbands, or T-shirts, to share with participants to thank them for their input. The Mobile Mini-Park “Road Show” A.k.a. the “Parkcycle” By taking this park on the road to various community events and spaces, this attentiongrabbing, pedal powered mini-park will reach residents throughout the downtown area. Its surprising presence should spark curiosity and get people thinking about green spaces and how having more park space could transform life in downtown Los Angeles. San Francisco-based Rebar Group has set a precedent for this innovative technique; we believe this model can be highly effective in our Dream Green campaign in Los Angeles. More information and a demonstrative video can be seen online at www.rebargroup.org/projects/parkcycle.

Figure 17: Parkcycle

The Parkcycle (see Figure 17) is an upbeat way to get the conversation going; passers-by can sit for a while and chat with staff about city parks, while staff can share more information about the Park 101 concept and provide informative fliers in various languages. In the spirit of the low-tech (watching the Parkcycle cruise down the street brings to mind Fred Flintstone’s feet powering his prehistoric car), participants will use pen and paper to respond to a few questions about the need for park space downtown and express their opinion about a park over the 101 freeway. A box will be provided to collect the anonymous votes that staff can use to tally later on. Staff will also invite participants to leave additional comments or concerns if they would like. Figure 18 is the sample questionnaire. All participants will receive some sort of Dream Green paraphernalia for their participation. Staff members should be bilingual Spanish/English at a minimum. The mini-park will spend from one day to one week at each of the following locations: Location

Comments

Union Station

Commuters, residents from across LA metro region

Performing Arts High School (Outside)

Youth and area residents

The Civic Center mall (Starbucks)

Civic employees, people who work downtown

Chinatown, Main Entrance Gate

Ethnic Chinese and Chinese-speaking residents, tourists, area residents

Little Tokyo Branch Library

Ethnic Japanese and Japanese-speaking residents, tourists, area residents

LA Live

Residents from across LA region, nighttime downtown users

El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historic Monument

Local residents, Spanish-speaking employees on Olvera Street, tourists

Dodgers Stadium

Residents from across LA region, young and older sports fans

Downtown Farmers Markets

Wednesdays 11:30am – 3:00pm

Pershing Square

Thursdays 9:00am – 3:00pm

7th & Fig

Fridays 11:00am – 3:00pm

Bank of America Plaza

Note: Some locations may require special permission from the city to park our mini-park (in loading zones or courtyards), and we will be sure to clear it with them first.

Figure 18: Sample Questionnaire Thank you for your participation. Please complete the following questionnaire by circling your response, and then drop this in the comment box. Thank you! 1. Do we need more parks in downtown Los Angeles?

Yes

2. Have you ever heard of a park over a freeway?

Yes

3. Did you enjoy the mobile “mini-park”?

Yes

4. How do you use parks? (Circle all that apply)

A. To play

D. Events / Concerts

B. Leisure

E. Other: ____________

C. Family

Additional comments or concerns?

Traditional Media Despite all the hype about technology and the doomsday reports about the “end of traditional news,” the fact remains that a significant percentage of residents continue to read the newspaper and watch the TV news. Traditional media is an important way to reach the entire circle, from immediate neighbors to the entire Los Angeles metropolitan region. It is also an especially good way to reach older residents who are not as reliant on the Internet for their news. Local traditional media outlets in the downtown area can also get the message to nonEnglish speakers through foreign-language newspapers and radio, including Spanish-language La Opinión, Chinese Sing Tao Daily and The Rafu Shimpo (a Japanese-English language newspaper based in Little Tokyo). Media Kits: Preparing media kits is an essential step. By providing a folder that contains summarized information about the Dream Green movement and the proposed Park 101 project, the reporter or editor will have a condensed and authoritative source of information to help them work under deadline. Our media kit will include scientific and social information about parks and the lack of park space in Los Angeles, and potential effects of that lack of green space on children and residents. Remember, we are sharing information about parks and providing Park 101 as a potential alternative, not advocating for a certain project. We recommend the following traditional media strategies and outline elements of each.

Table 6: Traditional Media Strategies Media Type

Circle/Level

Target Audience

Benefits

Costs

L.A. Times Insert

1,2,3

Older residents, professionals

Seen as legitimate

Higher price

Feature Story, Newspaper

1,2,3

Older residents, professionals, younger readers (online)

Human-interest, low cost

Time spent convincing reporter to write story

Radio: NPR and Talk Radio

1,2,3

Drivers, older residents, liberals and conservatives

Wide audience, can call in to comment, low cost

Less control over content or opinions

Local Downtown Newspapers, Non-English papers

1,2

Younger loft-dwellers, NonEnglish-speaking downtown residents

Reach speakers of foreign languages, lower cost

None

Newspaper Editorial

1,2,3

Older residents, professionals

Low cost

Writer may be seen as biased

Public Service Announcement

1,2,3

Older residents, television watchers

Free or low cost

Limited number of viewers

TV News

1,2,3

Older residents, television watchers

Visual, focused on local issues

Declining number of viewers

New Media The term “new media” refers to social networking sites like Facebook, interactive websites and blogs, and new ways to reach wide audiences using telecommunication technologies almost instantly using Twitter. With these new tools you can reach a younger target group with stimulating, engaging, and powerfully visual messages. You can keep an ongoing, visual recording of the public participation program and stakeholders can easily and publicly become a part of the ongoing conversation with Facebook and the interactive Dream Green blog. A powerful tool for “peer marketing,” social media allows you to reach an even broader audience and engage people in the 20 percent group that rarely or never participates—they may not come to a meeting, but they will check out a link on their friend’s Facebook page. By gaining followers and sharing formation about parks and the environment, we will reach not only the three circles of “the public” in the earlier diagram, but can potentially gather support and input from interested people around the globe! We have created a preliminary Facebook page to build upon, which can be found by searching “Dream Green LA” on Facebook. We also created a Twitter account, which is linked to the Facebook page so that every time we post something on Facebook, a “tweet” is sent to all our followers. Table 7 is an outline of each of the new media strategies.

Table 7: New Media Strategies Media Type

Circle /Level

www.Facebook.com http://www.facebook.com/# /pages/Los-AngelesCA/DREAMGREEN/182161587975

1,2,3, 4

www.twitter.com http://twitter.com/DREAM GREEN101

1,2,3, 4

www.blogger.com http://dreamgreen101.blog spot.com

1,2,3, 4

Target Audience •

Younger populations around the globe

•

People who • are “proenvironment”

•

Younger populations around the globe

•

People who are “proenvironment”

•

Younger populations around the globe

•

People who are “proenvironment

•

Academics/ scholars

Benefits •

Convenient to web users to voice their opinion

Costs •

Facebook friends from around the globe will not be a direct stakeholder in the planning process

•

Twitter followers from around the world will not be directly impacted by Park 101 planning process

•

Bloggers from around the world will not be directly impacted by Park 101 planning process

People will be able to view web albums of the Park 101’s public participation initiatives

•

Convenient to web users.

•

Easy to post information to the public about events

•

Convenient for web users.

•

Reaches to the 20% that may not want to participate but would rather read information and updates about Park 101

INREACH Inreach refers to those strategies designed to bring people to the event. Inreach strategies described in this section include: advisory group, workshops, charrettes, and open house. Advisory Group An advisory group is generally defined as a small group of people representing various interests, points of view, or fields of expertise that is set up to advise an organization on its programs or proposed actions (Creighton, p. 103). We propose creating an advisory group that represents the interests of the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed park. This group of individuals will be comprised of community leaders who are active members in neighborhood events. We will work with the field deputies of councilmembers Ed Reyes, Jan Perry, and Jose Huizár to identify these key stakeholders. These stakeholders will make recommendations on a design brief that will be presented in workshops and a charrette. The design brief for a charrette is the set of instructions given to the design team. It details numerical requirements and performance targets for the site (Condon, 2008, p. 35). Workshops Workshops are highly interactive meetings. They are particularly useful when dealing with complex issues because they provide time for detailed consideration and a high level of interaction (Creighton, p. 134). We propose holding a total of three workshops at three different locations around the parameter of the proposed park. Each event will last approximately three hours in length. The first workshop will be held on a Thursday night from 6:00 to 9:00 pm. The second workshop will be held on a Friday night the following week. And the third workshop event will be held one week on the following Saturday in the morning. These open workshops will invite all members of the community to participate in James Rojas’ City Building Participatory interactive model. (Mr. Rojas is a local artist, community advocate, and Metro planner. For the past few years, he has been touring the region and beyond, bringing along an interactive model, and asking the public to invent a vision for their communities.) Staff will be bilingual in English and Spanish, and in English and Chinese. Fliers will also be available in English, Spanish, and Chinese. Workshop Program: Staff will provide: • Light refreshments • Colored name tags Introduction: • Participants will be greeted with light refreshments as they are given a colored name tag to write their name on. 32

• •

Participants will be seated in tables seating groups of six to eight people. A presentation about the demographics, history, and overview of total parks and open space in the city of Los Angeles.

Break-out Session: • Groups will be asked to break out in tables according to the color of their name tag (see Figure 19). Each place setting will have a 12” x 12” blank white styrofoam board. • The facilitator of the workshop will ask: “If you had to create an open space in your neighborhood, how would you design it?” • Groups will then be presented with found materials located on a central table that they can use to construct their ideas physically on the styrofoam board. The exercise should last 30 minutes. • The facilitator (“F” in Figure 19) will then ask each individual participant to speak about their work and what they envisioned in their open space design. • Designated trained staff will document each individual’s presentation through photography and a video camera. Wrap-up: • Session ends with the opportunity to get more refreshments and ask any questions. • Questions will be recorded on large white blank sheets of paper that are mounted on presentation easels. • Refreshments will be served until the final participants leave the presentation room. • Staff will hand out tote bags to participants as they leave. Figure 19: Workshop Seating Diagram

Charrette A charrette is a “time-limited, multiparty design event organized to generate a collaboratively produced plan for a sustainable community” (Condon, p. 1). We propose holding a charrette at the Conference Center of the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels. It will convene over four consecutive days starting on a Wednesday and culminating in a final event on Saturday night. Staff will be bilingual in English and Spanish, and in English and Chinese. Fliers will also be available in English, Spanish, and Chinese. Each charrette participant will receive his/her own personal binder at the start of the charrette. Each binder will have a legal consent form that informs participants that their notes will be the property of EDAW|AECOM. The binder will have five divided tabs that will be organized according to the following: • • • • •

Tab 1 will have the introduction/background information about Park 101 followed by personal bios of all charrette participants. Tab 2 will have the itinerary of Day 1 of the charrette followed by blank sheets of paper for notes. Tab 3 will have the itinerary of Day 2 of the charrette followed by blank sheets of paper for notes. Tab 4 will have the itinerary of Day 3 of the charrette followed by blank sheets of paper for notes. Tab 5 will have the surveys for participants to complete at the end of each day.

The participants will not be able to see the itinerary for days 2 or 3 in their binders until the start of each new day. The binders will be collected at the end of each day; staff will photocopy notes that were taken by participants and a new itinerary will be printed and inserted for the next day. The purpose of inserting an agenda into the binder is to keep participants engaged and excited about each new day. Participants will be encouraged to take notes throughout the charrette to make the best use of their binders. The binders serve as a written document for each participant, as their notes will show indicators of progress/compromise/insight that occurred throughout their experience. Once the charrette is completed on Day 4, charrette participants will be able to take their binders home. Our proposed charrette schedule is presented below. Day 1: “TALK” Opening Event: This kick-off event will include members from the pre-charrette workshop stakeholders, as well as community members who were not able to attend the previous events. The first half of this event participants will be served a light breakfast consisting of coffee, juice, bagels, and fruit. The attendees will be seated according to a choreographed chart, located at the reception table. Staff will utilize this introductory phase with a presentation about Park 101, regarding design, demographics, history, orientation, and the context for which the idea of this project saw fruition. Principles, goals, and objectives about Park 101 will be identified with clarity during this presentation.

A second presentation will be given by EDAW, Caltrans, Metro, SCAG, and the representatives from the Mayor’s office and major groups in the greater Los Angeles region, invested in this project. Field Trip: • Participants will be led outside to the corner of Grand Avenue and Temple Street as staff and members of EDAW lead a walking tour of the site of the proposed park. Figure 20 identifies the proposed route of the tour. • This phase should last about two hours. • The participants will then return to the central courtyard in the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. Figure 20: Walking Tour Route

Lunch: Lunch will be served as participants are seated in five round tables, each seating five. Group facilitators will be assigned to dine with each table to help foster a conversation about thoughts and reflections of the fieldtrip. Seating will be engineered to foster a well-rounded conversation, encompassing multiple perspectives. Lunch will be catered by Full House Seafood Restaurant. First Break-Out Session: Participants will be invited back into conference room for the first break-out session. • Participants will be encouraged to go to the table of their choice; stations will be organized by general topics. • Facilitators will discuss local and distant successful precedents of cap park projects across the country. Examples include Seattle’s Freeway Park and Chicago’s Millennium Park. • Facilitators will also introduce a large blank map to each group. Conversations in this phase identify non-negotiable areas in the map. Not a lot of drawing will take place at this time. 35

•

Facilitators will identify the general topics and values that are important within the community on the large maps provided.

Break-out session one ends and groups return to original tables. • Cookies, juice, cheese, crackers, and water will be available. Final Re-cap: • Technical focuses from the design brief will be re-iterated. Questions and comments from all of the tables will be welcomed and recorded on large white blank paper pads, displayed on presentation easels. • Facilitated conversations reflect an overall summation of the events throughout the day.

Day Two: “DOODLE” Opening Session and Breakfast: Participants are welcomed to sit in the large table and are also served breakfast. The first half of this event participants will be served a light breakfast consisting of coffee, juice, bagels, and fruit. The attendees will be seated according to a choreographed chart, located at the reception table. • Facilitators will welcome new revelations and thoughts from the previous day. Second Break-Out Session: Stations will now be organized according to different areas of the site. Participants will be encouraged to think about technical issues within specific areas of the proposed Park 101 as they will select a table that will be organized by geographic location. • Tables will be tailored so that one person from each issue-based table from the first break-out session will be at each of the site specific-based table in this break-out session. • Facilitators will now be specifically skilled designers. • Conversations will be directed toward blank maps and sketching by pencil ensues. Lunch: A buffet will be served outside at the courtyard of the Cathedral overlooking the 101 freeway. Lunch will be catered by Casa Golondrina Mexican Café. • Stakeholders will then be dismissed for the day. • Designers will continue to draw until after hours.

Day Three: “DRAW” Opening Session and Breakfast: • Participants will be welcomed to sit in the large table and will also be served breakfast. Facilitators will welcome new revelations and thoughts about the previous day.

Midcourse Correction: Sketches and diagrams will be displayed on easels for peer review. • Pre-charrette workshop participants, private sector leaders, and public officials will be invited to review and make suggestions. • Facilitators will then ask the charrette groups if they are comfortable to move forward and are pleased with the results. Third Break-Out Session: Participants and facilitators will then be broken up into the previous break-out sessions of the day before, they will be able to work from the designs and suggestions that now serve as more concrete proposals of the dialogue. • The large blank map will now be utilized and permanent markers will be used to identify permanent boundaries. • Key locations will be identified with clarity at this phase. • Designers will refer to the products of the design brief that was presented on day one. • Drawing will become the main activity as designers listen and interpret group suggestions onto the map. Lunch: A buffet will be served outside at the Viewing Foyer of the Cathedral overlooking the 101 freeway. Lunch will be catered by Philippe’s The Original. Third Break-Out Session Continued: Participants will be invited to continue working on their break out session tables. Final Hour Project: Participants will then be tasked with helping to devise a plan to format the final presentation. • Cookies, juice, cheese, crackers, and water will be offered. • They will be given templates to form questions and responses. • Three PowerPoint templates will also be offered to assist group members to format their presentations. • Students and aides will also be present for this last half of the session to assist with technological formatting. • PowerPoint presentations will be produced before participants leave. End of Interactive sessions.

Day Four Final Presentation: The closing event will be held at the Kyoto Grand Hotel rooftop garden in Little Tokyo. • Presentation event will be held the following Saturday evening.

Open House An open house is an event to which the public is invited (Creighton, p. 123). There will be four open house events held within the next month to present the outcome of the charrette, along with other features that were introduced in the initial presentation. The first workshop will be presented two weeks from the last day of the charrette. These events will be held to present the current status of the project through the implementation of strategies designed to involve the community through many participatory models. Staff present will be bilingual in English and Spanish, and in English and Chinese. Fliers will also be available in English, Spanish, and Chinese. • • •

•

Cookies, juice, cheese, crackers, and water will be offered. The event will be held in a publicly accessible room in three venues located near the site. There will presentation boards lining the room. These boards will be organized according to specific events that were held during the Outreach and Inreach process. One facilitator from each event (the Advisory Group meeting, a workshop, the charrette, the public official briefings, neighborhood council briefings, and the Park Cycle events) will be present to answer verbal questions and record comments on large white blank sheets that will be located near each facilitator’s station. There will also be six “comment boxes” located in front of each station. Facilitators will provide paper and encourage participants to provide written feedback (such as questions and comments) and to deposit these slips of paper into the boxes.

Venues for the open house are: • Little Tokyo Branch Library (203 S. Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012) • Central Los Angeles Area High School #9 for the Visual and Performing Arts (450 N. Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90012) • Pico House (430 N. Main Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012)

RESULTS In his book, The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement, James L. Creighton (2005) said â&#x20AC;&#x153;there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all to [sic] public participationâ&#x20AC;? (p. 2). To the extent that this is true, there can be no such thing as a onesize-fits-all approach to public participation planning. Our firm established a rather ambitious objective designed to maximize legitimacy, credibility, and public participation. Our firm believes strongly that the objective of our Park 101 public participation program - upon full implementation of the strategies contained herein - will be achieved. The design/presentation methodology followed six simple steps: Introduction/Context, Demographics and Stakeholder Identification, Branding/Marketing, Outreach Strategies, Inreach Strategies, and Results. Each of these steps is described below in further detail. The Introduction/Context served as the first step and foundation of our public participation program. The other five steps built upon the information provided in the Introduction/Context. The Introduction stated the purpose and scope of our public participation program, and described the proposed Park 101. The Context section detailed the existing conditions and issues related to the proposed project and its location. We believe that properly identifying the target audience enhances the legitimacy, credibility, and integrity of the public participation process. Consequently, a thorough demographic/stakeholder analysis was performed with one simple goal: everyone who wants to participate will be afforded the opportunity to do so. We concluded early in the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development stage that the program objectives could become more meaningful if the project accepted a unique brand. Such a brand, it was believed, would assist program sponsors raise awareness to the proposed Park 101 project. As a result, an aggressive branding strategy has been incorporated into the program to provide a sense of excitement to the process. The firm is of the belief that there is a significant distinction between outreach and inreach. Outreach represents the most fundamental of the public participation strategies. It is also conducted at the earliest stages of the program. Outreach refers to efforts that take information to the people. Examples may include flyers, newsletters, and similar instruments. But what if the public is now motivated to take their level of participation to the next step? Inreach refers to those strategies designed to bring people to the event. Examples include hearings, meetings, and similar gatherings.

Now that the group has described how the public participation program was constructed, is there a way(s) to determine conclusively if the process - upon full implementation of the strategies contained herein â&#x20AC;&#x201C; resulted in successful outcomes? Our firm believes there are four specific ways to measure success. The first way the firm can measure success of their public participation program is by measuring the extent to which the need for outreach decreases and the need to accommodate inreach increases. Outreach is without question a very time intensive, labor intensive activity. It is, however, unquestionably a fundamental step during the initial stage(s) of any successful public participation process. During this stage, significant outreach is necessary because awareness of the issue is usually low. As a result, attendance at forums or other public meetings is equally low. As outreach strategies achieve incremental successes, the public invariably becomes more comfortable with both the issue and the process. As a result, outreach activities may be tailored (and scaled back, but never eliminated) to suit this emerging phenomena. In its place, inreach strategies become more prevalent for three fundamental reasons: 1) greater awareness to the issue and greater comfort with the process; 2) cultural barriers are shattered, leaving the public more inclined to participate; and, 3) it becomes easier to generate greater attendance. As a result, outreach strategies may become less frequent and less time/labor intensive, and are replaced by higher awareness/higher attendance inreach events. This is illustrated below in Figure 21. Figure 21: Changes in Outreach and Inreach

Just who, then, are these participants? For convenience, they can be divided into four distinct categories as shown in Figure 22. (Representation in each of the four categories is NOT equally divided.) Figure 22: Four Categories of Participants

The first of the four groups is the low awareness/low attendance group. When this group, for whatever reason, appears to be the predominant group, serious consideration should be given to significant course corrections in the overall public participation process. To retain the status quo will only jeopardize the legitimacy and credibility of the entire process. The second group is the low awareness/high attendance group. This group is characterized by membership which represents the 10 percent (Perez, personal communication, September 2, 2009). This group is most commonly identified as individuals who are known for attending meetings of this type without consideration for the event involved. Little effort is needed to attract (and/or retain) the attention of this group. The third of the four groups is high awareness/low attendance group. This group is characterized by membership which represents the 70 percent (Perez, personal communication, September 2, 2009). This group represents applicants, core stakeholders, and other individuals who need only participate in modest numbers for maximum results. They are are motivated to participate at a â&#x20AC;&#x153;valuesâ&#x20AC;? level (Perez, personal communication, September 2, 2009). The fourth and final group is the high awareness/high attendance group. When membership in this group grows, even the most ambitious of public participation program objectives has probably been realized: the identification of, and participation from, the 20 percent (Perez, personal contact, September 2, 2009). This group is comprised of the underserved, underrepresented, and/or apathetic members of the public.

The second way in which sponsors of a public participation program can define a successful outcome is to poll the participants. Just ask them! Formal and informal surveys can be done in either one (or both!) of two ways. Mid-course evaluations are particularly helpful in that they assist program sponsors make course corrections (even the best public participation plan can be improved upon). This can easily be accomplished when event sponsors have used sign-in sheets at every event. Comprehensive evaluations, completed by process participants at the conclusion of the program, are useful in crafting more successful plans in the future, but are of no value to participants during the current process. Consequently, our firm recommends regular evaluations conducted periodically through the process. Those who facilitated a public meeting, series of meetings, or comprehensive public participation process wherein public participation was a fundamental element of the process may oftentimes fail to communicate the resolution. Consequently, following a meeting or process, it is absolutely essential to communicate the results of the public event to all stakeholders, not just to those who participated. Communicating with all stakeholders after an event (regardless of the level of participation) not only “closes the communication loop” and leads to their participation in future events, but also sends a clear message to the public that their participation was meaningful and led to a more collaborative result. Finally, the fourth way in which sponsors of a public participation program can define a successful outcome is the extent to which their program represents a “sum of the parts.” Every stage of a successful public participation process must be integrated. In other words, every stage of the process is not independent of the other, but rather interdependent as illustrated in Figure 23. A flaw in any stage of the integrated process can be fatal and jeopardize the legitimacy and credibility of the entire process. Figure 23: Integrated Public Participation Process

In the words of Lao Tzu: The best leaders are those the people hardly know exist. The next best is a leader who is loved and praised. Next comes the one who is feared. The worst one is the leader who is despised. If you don’t trust the people, they will become untrustworthy. 42

The best leaders value their words, and use them sparingly. When she has accomplished her task, The people say, “Amazing: We did it ourselves.” The most successful public participation process is one where the public and the event sponsors view each others as partners. At its highest level, the most successful process enables participants to follow a prescribed, legitimate, credible plan without knowing they have been led. Creighton’s assertion (2005) that “there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all to [sic] public participation” would appear to be true. Indeed, as we have seen, there can be no universal public participation process. And, in fact, this program has been designed to achieve a specific objective: implement a legitimate and credible public participation program designed to enhance public awareness to the Park 101 vision. Those who plan, develop, and execute public meetings should design an individualized format that will enable event sponsors to meet their objectives while anticipating and meeting every conceivable (and reasonable) public need. Maximum public engagement should be an overriding goal. The result will serve the organization, the process – and, ultimately, the public – well and establishes the foundation for future successes. Leaders of highly successful public participation programs necessarily view the process from an entirely different paradigm. Instead of considering that they have all the right answers, they ask themselves if they know the appropriate questions to ask. Writing for the Harvard Business Review, author Rob Markey said, “Give customers a voice in running your business.” This is sound advice for the operator of a retail establishment or wholesale operation, but can this concept be transferred to public participation programs? The answer is yes. If every public participation program architect viewed the public more like a customer and less like an inconvenience, his or her program will flourish.

REFERENCES Condon, P.M. (2008). Design Charrettes for Sustainable Communities. Washington: Island Press. Creighton, J. L. (2005). The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Crompton, J.L. (2001). Parks and economic development. Chicago: American Planning Association. Davies, V. (2008, August). A “Central Park” for Los Angeles? Urban Land, 67(8), 42-45. Markey, Rob. (2009). “Closing the Customer Feedback Loop.” Harvard Business Review, 87(12), pp. 43-47. Di Rado, A. (2005, September 21). Childhood asthma linked to freeway pollution. USC News. Retrieved October 4, 2008, from http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/11614.html EDAW/AECOM. (2008, October). Hollywood Freeway Central Park Feasibility Report. Retrieved November 23, 2008, from http://www.hollywoodchamber.net/business/HFCP_ Feasibility_Report_20081008.pdf García, R. & White, A. (2006). Healthy Parks, Schools, and Communities: Mapping Green Access and Equity for Los Angeles Region. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://www.cityprojectca.org/ourwork/mappinggreenaccess/documents/Healthy_Parks_Scho ols_Communities_textonly.pdf Gauderman, W. J., Vora, H., McConnell, R., Berhane, K., Gilliland, F., Thomas, D., Lurmann, F., Avol, E., Kunzli, N., Jerrett, M., & Peters, J. (2007, February). Effect of exposure to traffic on lung development from 10 to 18 years of age: a cohort study. The Lancet, 368, 535-537. Gies, E. (2006). The Health Benefits of Parks. San Francisco: Trust for Public Land. Harnik, P. (2000). Inside City Parks. Washington, DC: Urban land Institute. Harnik, P. & Welle, B. (2007, April). Nature over traffic. Urban Land, 66(4), 102-105. Hise, G. & Deverell, W. (2000). Eden by Design: the 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan for the Los Angeles Region. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. (2007). Fact Sheet: Hollywood Freeway Central Park. Retrieved October 4, 2008, from http://www.hollywoodfreewaycentralpark.org/ docs/ HFCP_FactSheet.pdf Persico, M. (2008). A “Great Park” for Pasadena. West Pasadena Residents’ Association News, 10-11. Pool, B. (2008, November 19). Plan for park atop Hollywood Freeway is praised. Los Angeles Times, p. B3. Trust for Public Land. (2004, November). No place to play: a comparative analysis of park access in seven major cities. Retrieved October 4, 2008, from http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=14565&folder_id=266 Yañez, E. & Muzzy, W. (2005, October). Heathy Parks, Healthy Communities: Addressing Health Disparities and Park Inequities through Public Financing of Parks, Playgrounds, and Other Physical Activity Settings. San Francisco: Trust for Public Land.