Amplifying Activated Vacancies: Understanding the Value of Community-Managed Green Space in Park-Poo

James Sharp PLAN 6300 December 8, 2019

Title Amplifying Activated Vacancies: Understanding the Value of Community-Managed Green Space in Park-Poor Neighborhoods

Research Problem Parks, public space, and other green and civic social infrastructures are fundamentally important elements of communities. They provide residents the benefits of civilizing public engagement, community connectivity, structure of place, enhanced aesthetics and safety, recreation, and more (Crompton, 2001).

However, distressed urban neighborhoods are often underserved with less access to parks, green space, and other recreational infrastructure than wealthier neighborhoods (Anguelovski, 2015). Ironically, when cities invest in new public space in poor and working class neighborhoods, nearby property values increase, which can lead to displacement of existing residents (Kwon et al, 2017). For example, between 2003 and 2011, values of property located near the High Line development in New York City increased 103 percent and $2 billion had been invested in related development (Loughran, 2014).

In recent years, a concept known as “just green enough” advocates modest strategies for parks and green space that serve the needs of residents without spurring neighborhood gentrification (Curran & Hamilton, 2012). The just green enough concept suggests that park size contributes to gentrification; the larger the park, the more likely the area will gentrify. However, a new study by Alessandro Rigolon and Jeremy Nemeth suggests that while high-profile greenway projects with a transportation function often spur upgraded development activity, the proximity to the central downtown was also more significant than the size of a park (2019). Rigolon and Nemeth’s green gentrification study examined whether the location, size and function of new parks predict gentrification in adjacent neighborhoods in 10 cities.

1

Final Pre-proposal

They found that new parks, particularly greenway parks, located within a half-mile from of a census tract increases the likelihood of gentrification. Furthermore, their study suggests that new parks located close to downtown are more likely to spur gentrification in adjacent census tracts (Rigolon & Nemeth, 2019).

The following proposed research study is spurred by the problem that while the establishment of new parks and other green infrastructure in central urban areas may improve equitable access, it also threatens to increase property values, potentially pricing out residents and causing gentrification.

Aims & Significance For many underserved urban residents, public parks systems have failed to provide equitable access (Anguelovski, 2015). This research is intended to increase understanding of the potential significance of vacant properties within underserved neighborhoods to serve as community-managed green space in central urban areas to improve access to green space, and that will be less likely to encourage gentrification. The study will focus on select park-poor neighborhoods close to downtown Dallas that have an established community garden.

Although it has codified the allowance of urban gardens in Article Four, Sec. 51A-4.201 of the city code, the City of Dallas lacks defined policies to sanction urban greening programs on city-owned vacant property. Improving city-owned green space permanently using “just green enough” approaches has not been systematically defined or recognized in Dallas. In 2009, residents in East Dallas coordinated an effort to develop a new community garden using a portion of city-owned green space (Schutze, 2009).

According to organizers, city staff were initially supportive of the project. However after failing to receive a grant award that would have funded the costs to regulate sanctioned community gardens, the city pulled back its support, citing a lack of defined policy in the city code (Schutze, 2009). Although the ordinance mentioned above was eventually approved in 2011, there are no formal programs encouraging community gardens on city-owned land nor are community gardens formally recognized as permanent green infrastructure. Indeed, the city’s current neighborhood revitalization plan identifies temporary community

2

Final Pre-proposal

gardens as a viable short-term strategy to improve the appearance of vacant lots to attract new development (City of Dallas, 2015).

Community gardens have been an important factor in U.S. cities for more than a century. The first community gardens were established on vacant lots in Detroit in the 1890’s (“Smithsonian Institution”).

The rise of community grassroots action in urban areas in the 1960s and 1970s brought community gardens back to significance in urban area to promote environmental stewardship and neighborhood enrichment (“Smithsonian Institution”). Although community gardens are valued for providing equitable access to healthy fruits and vegetables and to support community community vitality (Public Health Law Center, 2017), they potentially offer benefits of formal green infrastructure such as neighborhood beautification, access to nature, and outdoor recreation.

Another aim of this study is to understand the perceptions neighborhood residents have regarding their community garden as an available green space, and of their perceived involvement in the planning, implementation, and maintenance of the garden. This study will endeavor to develop a more significant understanding of neighbor perceptions of how accessible are these community garden spaces, and how involved neighbors are in the conceptualization and scope of service the community garden provides.

This case study will seek to verify that the space usage reflects the needs and desires of neighborhood residents.

Community gardens are commonly born of a grassroots initiative, often in conflict with codified land use regulations (Holstein, 2016). Activating vacant urban green spaces like community gardens is a strategy most often employed by residents to serve a declining neighborhood. Local governments, however, are viewing community gardens in a more positive light for the benefits they offer citizens such as access to healthier food, environmental awareness and community well-being (Public Health Law Center, 2017). Yet previous studies of community gardens reveal an often uneasy dichotomy of the land perceived as public space on private property; of space that’s idealized as for the community, but that commodifies the right to its use (Van Holstein, 2016).

As solutions to emptiness on vacant urban lots, community gardens are a common strategy in shrinking midwestern cities like Detroit and Cleveland facing urban decay and abandonment (Cumbers et al, 2018). Based on a significant literature review, I believe there are no existing studies of resident

Final Pre-proposal

3

perceptions of neighborhood-managed green spaces programs on vacant properties in central urban Dallas or other major Texas cities. This case study will offer planners and neighborhood advocates further understanding of the effectiveness of community garden development approaches and implications for how these approaches impact resident involvement and input on the design. Furthermore, the study will provide new insight on resident perceptions of their community garden as a community-managed green space offering benefits to physical and mental health, recreation and social networking.

Background As Rigolon and Nemeth’s 2019 study of park location, size and function illustrated, centrally located neighborhoods near downtown are particularly vulnerable to gentrification spurred by even small formal greening initiatives such as new parks and greenways. Post-industrial cities seek to redefine their economies and brand with urban greening initiatives that remediate or otherwise improve on less desirable urban sites (2019). However, there are many cases where neighborhoods experience significant housing price increases as a result of green infrastructure improvements, which can contribute to the displacement of long-term residents, otherwise known as environmental gentrification (2019).

Environmental gentrification is a product of environmental or sustainability initiatives that spur the “exclusion, marginalization, and displacement of economically marginalized residents” (Pearsall & Anguelovski 2016). Environmental gentrification (EG) is a relatively new concept of urban inequity. To counter gentrification threats, EG activists often use similar strategic approaches used in environmental justice (EJ) efforts such as coalition building, community organizing, collective neighborhood action and direct tactics like lawsuits (Pearsall & Anguelovski, 2016).

Curran and Hamilton’s case study of the Greenpoint neighborhood in Brooklyn promotes Curran’s “just green enough” strategy that mitigates detriments like industrial pollution but is inclusive of the blue-collar working class to minimize the threat of displacement caused by environmental gentrification. The environmental clean-up and turnaround for Greenpoint showcases a more democratic approach that preserves the neighborhood’s working class base rather than replacing it with parks, riverwalks and new development (Curran & Hamilton, 2012). Rather than resign to a perceived inevitability of displacement through gentrification, coalitions between Greenpoint’s existing

4

Final Pre-proposal

gentrification population and the longtime working class residents made it possible to construct a more equitable vision for sustainability and prosperity. This alliance established a “just green enough” or “just clean enough” scenario that preserved the neighborhood’s working-class roots (Curran & Hamilton, 2012).

A related but distinct anti-gentrification and equity-bolstering strategy to “just green enough” is the activation of informal green spaces (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2017). Unlike designated green spaces like parks, trails and open spaces, informal green spaces (IGS) occur through a landowner’s discount or neglect of an area of a property that subsequently remains unmanaged and unprogrammed (Rupprecht & Byrne 2017). Examples of IGS include vacant lots, linear verges, power line corridors and brownfields.

Applying IGS as a greenspace alternative, the authors posit that many needs of urban residents can be fulfilled more equitably while avoiding the costs and management demands of formal green spaces (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2017). The authors’ study of IGS sites adopted by neighbors for gardening and recreation in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. The study indicates awareness among residents of the practices of managed green spaces that are perceived to limit, control and even discriminate (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2017). Planners should consider how IGS may be co-created and managed by residents to provide green space access to underserved areas without a substantial financial investment, while decreasing the possibility of gentrification (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2017).

Park planners are often constrained within the silo of parks land use, unable to spur meaningful change to systematic injustices of their communities. Furthermore, local political priorities often favor economic development over social equity (Rigolon & Nemeth, 2012). Planners should be agents for meaningful engagement with underserved communities. Planning policies should reduce the barriers between other land use planning efforts within the city to co-produce more efficient, impactful and equitable initiatives. Creative strategies utilizing previously under appreciated assets can contribute to building more equitable communities. Rigolon and Nemeth highlight the establishment of linear parks along waterways and utility corridors, repurposing underutilized green spaces like golf courses, and engaging in tactical urbanism approaches like creating pocket parks by closing intersections and within oversized right of way spaces (2012).

5

Final Pre-proposal

Understanding resident perceptions of their access to quality parks and open space should be an important factor in qualifying the spectrum of environmental justice and equity. The mixed methods study of an underserved Korean neighborhood illustrates the implications of resident perception and potential health benefits urban green spaces provide. In spite of a relatively severe lack of community green space, the green space available to neighborhood residents was overwhelmingly cherished and highly impactful to residents (Lee et al, 2017). The perceived value of the green space varied according to sociodemographic levels within the neighborhood, but generally the poorer residents valued public green space the most (Lee et al, 2017). Furthermore, residents who valued their green space the most also recognized the potential of abandoned or unmanaged vacant spaces to provide green space benefits. However, these active residents also prioritized the social value of the designated green space in addition to the benefits to individual health (Lee et al, 2017). This study underscores the influence green space has on neighborhood residents and the potential revitalizing benefits these spaces offer.

Neoliberal urban growth policies often pursue environmental sustainability objectives that minimize or ignore social justice (Curran, 2012). Sustainability outcomes are commonly valued and measured by economic development, “obscuring the social dimension” (Curran, 2012).

Although changes may not be immediately perceptible, privatization of public space invokes fundamental changes in production, distribution and use (Cooke, 2007). A public park, for instance, has an inherent use value. If privatized, a public good like a park is commodified as part of a capitalist class process rather than a good or service provided to citizens by a regulatory entity (Cooke, 2007). Cooke argues that capitalist processes adopted through privatization are undemocratic, excluding productive workers from participating in decisions regarding any surplus realized from their work. Privatized parks, like New York City’s Central Park Conservancy, must produce commodities if they are to survive. The decision process is generally left to a private board of directors, and programming is commonly shaped by the priorities of private donors (2007). Cooke contends that although almost all privatizations support or generate new capitalist class processes, it’s important to consider the potential of approaching privatizations as a democratic enterprise, supported by the considerable funds available through public unions (2007).

6

Final Pre-proposal

As cities tend to have a neoliberal economic development objective focus on land use, an alternative strategy to providing greater access is community-managed green spaces of publicly or privately owned vacant land. Practically all urban communities have an inventory of vacant properties, with an average of 16.7 percent of large cities’ land area designated as vacant (Newman et al, 2016).

Many cities allow use of public land for community gardens (Public Health Law Center, 2017), while, in other cities, neighborhoods establish agreements with private landowners with use agreements, usufructs, or leases (Rupprecht & Byrne, 2017).

A community garden is “any piece of land where plants are grown and maintained by a group of individuals from the community” (Public Health Law Center, 2017). Community gardens may produce food for individual consumption or for sale, may be designed for beautification of the community, and The paradoxic role of community gardens both bestows at least some power and control to residents of marginalized communities, but they also underscore neoliberal inspired projects of “welfare retrenchment and property driven regeneration” (Cumbers et al, 2018, p. 134). As the role of the public realm contracts in many cities—especially in poorer, blighted neighborhoods—the upkeep of neighborhood green spaces like community gardens are increasingly replaced by volunteer labor (Cumbers et al, 2018).

Rigid delineation of land use establishes tendencies that lead to empty and dead spaces. Empty spaces can accommodate different types of use and are not ‘blank spaces’ as sometimes represented on land-use maps. Case studies of creative uses of vacant space in London underscore that the “discovery, reclamation and use of empty space for community activities has a significant influence on the community itself” (Krystallia & Milne, 2019, p. 175). Cumbers’ investigative team acknowledged that the community gardens studied tended to align with two contrasting perceptions that influenced the design and management approaches. There were gardens designed within a framework that the effort was founded by a small group of people to serve a small group of people. The other mindset was more ambitious, with the aim to providing the community with recreational, occupational, and educational opportunities (Cumbers et al, 2018). Through the social links developed in the process of resident collaboration to improve a vacant space, the rapport is established to work together further to address other neighborhoods issues such as housing, schools, unemployment, skills-training, crime and so forth.

7

Final Pre-proposal

The authors conclude that giving people a level of agency and autonomy in relation to the land they occupy, can lead to “better environments, more socially integrated communities and less cost for the public sector” (Krystallia & Milne, 2019, p. 176).

The Vacant to Vibrant project is exploring the effectiveness of small green infrastructure parcels embedded in urban residential neighborhoods to stabilize neighborhoods and improve quality of life (Albro, 2019). Developed by researchers at the Cleveland Botanical Garden, Vacant to Vibrant has conducted vacant parcel turnarounds in select neighborhoods in Gary, Indiana; Cleveland, Ohio, and Buffalo, New York. These cities face significant vacancy issues, population shrinkage and economic decline. The neighborhoods were selected primarily because they comprise historically segregated minority, low income communities with significant health issues including high rates of asthma and heart disease, and lower life expectancies than other communities in the city. Furthermore, these neighborhoods subsist with fewer amenities like parks and with aging, low quality infrastructure (Albro, 2019).

Addressing the priorities of storm water management, water quality protection for the Great Lakes, and improving the tree canopies of these communities, the program analyzed all vacant parcels in the neighborhoods and assessed their potential to mitigate the effects of these environmental priorities.

The project also designed the vacant lots to provide community-defined recreational amenities and social space for neighbors. As a result, several select vacant lots in the study areas were improved to serve as part of the green infrastructure network in the form of bio-swales, nature gardens, and recreational park spaces. The social benefits of these managed vacant lots was beautification of the land, stabilizing neighborhood property values and providing safe green space (Albro, 2019).

Research Questions The study will test the hypothesis that community-managed green spaces like community gardens can provide residents health, social, and psychological benefits similar to parks and other formal green infrastructure if the space is planned, designed, and maintained inclusively for all neighborhood residents.

Furthermore, community-managed green spaces will have a stabilizing effect on the values of neighborhood properties if they are well maintained and inclusive for all neighborhood residents.

8

Final Pre-proposal

The study will have descriptive and explanatory purposes, which are structured by three research questions: • Does the use of vacant and inactive green spaces for community gardens increase green space equity in central urban neighborhoods? (i.e. the potential green space benefits that can be offered at the site) • Are such community gardens planned with inclusive involvement of residents to ensure the green space fulfills the needs and desires of neighborhood residents? (i.e. the involvement and influence of residents) • Do community-managed spaces like community gardens impact values of nearby properties? (i.e. the impact of the use-value asset)

Tentative Research Strategy & References to Theory The study will apply an inductive research strategy, using qualitative data garnered from participants to challenge a generalizable hypothesis. The primary data collection methods will be structured resident interviews and a visual preference survey. The study will blend several constructivist epistemological approaches including interpretive, critical, and intuitive in pursuit of representations of perspective and belief among neighborhood residents with community garden access.

The selection of the proposed study areas will rely on data from The Trust for Public Land’s (TPL) Parkscore index; specifically, the areas of Dallas illustrated as underserved, having high and very high needs for additional parks and greenspaces. As Rigolon and Nemeth’s study indicates that new parks established closer to downtowns are more likely to spur gentrification, community-managed spaces like community gardens may be an alternative green space resource that mitigates the risk of gentrification in neighborhoods near the downtown to protect poor and working class residents. Thus, the proposed case studies will comprise a comparative analysis of two community gardens located in neighborhoods of high or very high need for additional parks resources located in close proximity to downtown, which will be defined as areas within a radius of less than the median distance from downtown. TPL’s Parkscore index identifies neighborhoods as park poor if they are located farther than a 10-minute walk to a park or green space. TPL’s 10-minute walkable service area variable was formulated using a nationwide walkable road network dataset provided by Esri (TPL, 2019).

9

Final Pre-proposal

The interview questions will address several topics regarding perceived involvement and value of the community garden, including: • Involvement and inclusion in the planning and design of the community garden • Individual priorities the community garden should serve and how effectively the space serves those priorities • Green space needs that persist for the neighborhood • Perception of the management hierarchy and resident inclusion in maintaining the garden The study will employ a coding approach to identify categorical themes among interview participants.

In addition to the interview, participants will complete a visual preference survey of green space development enhancement scenarios that accommodate the community garden’s size and primary function as a garden. The enhancements would include visual depictions of demonstration gardens, flower gardens, space programmed for social engagement, recreation, and fitness. The survey’s purpose is to better understand the elements that could make the garden even more valuable as a green space resource in addition to the space used for growing food.

Finally, to confirm the possibility that activated vacant green spaces like a community garden may impact nearby property values, the study will conduct a simple longitudinal analysis of property value change over time for properties located within one-quarter mile of the community garden relative to median property value change for the entire neighborhood.

This study’s theoretical references encompass anti-neoliberalism, anti-gentrification and antigrowth machine as contrary concepts to the capitalistic and political motivations that commonly steer urban infrastructure development including parks and green space. In contrast to the signature parks in Dallas such as Klyde Warren Park, Main Street Garden, and the Dallas Arboretum that generate new development and maximize adjacent property values, the use of vacant property for community-managed green space in underserved neighborhoods is tailored to to cultivate co-production and coalition among residents, expanding the sense of ownership and accountability beyond a resident’s personal property. As a result, neighborhood blight becomes an asset designed for residents rather than to prospective gentrifiers.

10

Final Pre-proposal

The need for community gardens is a result of a social failure of equity. Making a virtue out of this failing, these community gardens can act as an instrument of change that endeavors to pivot the community toward the just city concept (Fainstein, 2010), contributing to Fainstein’s three just city pillars: democracy, diversity, and equity. Such a program supports democracy as it gives residents agency to improve their environment and secure their community. It supports the diversity of central urban areas, protecting poor and working class residents from the likelihood of gentrification. Lastly, community gardens exist to support the equitable distribution of benefits.

Finally, engaging underserved residents to collaborate for change speaks to Lefebvre’s “right to the city” concept that calls for transformation and access to urban life. David Harvey summarized the right to the city as “far more than the individual liberty to access urban resources: it is a right to change ourselves by changing the city. It is, moreover, a common rather than an individual right since this transformation inevitably depends upon the exercise of a collective power to reshape the processes of urbanization. The freedom to make and remake our cities and ourselves is, I want to argue, one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights.” (Harvey, 2006, p.23)

Expected Outcomes The inductive study will document impacts that undeveloped vacant properties can have on central urban neighborhoods to improve parks and green space equity. It is intended to test a hypothesis for the purpose of developing a model that will contribute to improving understanding of how effectively an activated vacant space like a community garden serves the green space needs of nearby residents.

Further, it explores the perceptions of involvement and influence of residents in park-poor neighborhoods regarding the planning and development of the community garden. Lastly, it should produce further evidence of the impact activated vacant green spaces have on nearby property values.

11

Final Pre-proposal

REFERENCES CITED Albro, S. (2019, October 23 Vacant to vibrant: Creating Successful Green Infrastructure Networks. Presented as part of the Island Press & Security and Sustainability Forum webinar.

Anguelovsk,i I., Connolly, J., Masip, L., & Pearsall, H. (2018). Assessing green gentrification in historically disenfranchised neighborhoods: a longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona. Urban Geography, 39, 3, 458-491.

Cooke, O. (2007). A Class Approach to Municipal Privatization: The Privatization of New York City's Central Park. International Labour and Working-Class History, 71, Perspectives on the Privatization of Public Workers, Land, and Services, 112-132.

Crompton, John. (2001). The Impact of Parks on Property Values: A Review of the Empirical Evidence. Journal of Leisure Research. 33. 1-31.

Cumbers, A., Shaw, D., & Crossan, J. (2018). The Work of Community Gardens: Reclaiming Place for Community in the City. Work, Employment and Society, 32, 1, 133-149 Curran, W., & Hamilton, T. (2012). Just green enough: Contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Local Environment, 17, 9, 1027-1042.

Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Harvey, David (2006). The Right to the City. In Richard Scholar (ed.), _Divided Cities: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 2003_. Oxford University Press.

Kamvasinou, K., & Milne, S. (2019). Surveying the creative use of vacant space in London, c. 1945–95. Empty Spaces: Perspectives on emptiness in modern history, University of London Press.

Kwon, Y., Joo, S., Han, S, & Park, C. (2017). Mapping the distribution pattern of gentrification near urban parks in the case of Gyeongui Line Forest Park, Seoul, Korea.

Sustainability, 9 (231), 1-17.

Lee, Y., Gu, N., & An, S. (2017). Residents’ perception and use of green space: Results

12

Final Pre-proposal

from a mixed method study in a deprived neighborhood in Korea. Indoor and Built Environment, 26 (6), 855-871.

Loughran, K. (2014). Parks for profit: The high line, growth machines, and the uneven development of urban public spaces. City and Community, 13, 1, 49-68.

Németh, J. (2009). Defining a public: The management of privately owned public space. Urban Studies, 46, 11, 2463-2490.

Németh, J., & Schmidt, S. (2011). The privatization of public space: Modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38, 1, 5-23.

Newman, G., Ann, O., Bowman, M., Ryun, J. & Boah Kim (2016) A current inventory of vacant urban land in America, Journal of Urban Design, 21:3, 302-319 Pearsall, H., & Anguelovski, I. (2016). Contesting and resisting environmental gentrification: Responses to new paradoxes and challenges for urban environmental justice.

Sociological Research Online, 21, 3, 1-7.

Rigolon, A., Browning, M., & Jennings, V. (2018). Inequities in the quality of urban park systems: An environmental justice investigation of cities in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning. 178. 156-169.

Rigolon, A., & Németh, J. (2019). Green gentrification or ‘just green enough’: Do park location, size and function affect whether a place gentrifies or not? Urban Studies, 0, 00, 1-19.

Rigolon, A., & Németh, J. (2018). What Shapes Uneven Access to Urban Amenities?

Thick Injustice and the Legacy of Racial Discrimination in Denver’s Parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0, 00, 1-14.

Rupprecht, C. & Byrne, J. (2017). Informal urban green space as anti-gentrification strategy? Just Green Enough: Urban development and environmental gentrification. Routledge.

Schutze, J. (2009, October 10). Dallas has a dirty secret: it acts as if supports community gardens movement, but that’s not the real truth. Dallas Observer. Retrieved from dallasobserver.com/news.

Smithsonian Gardens. (n.d.) Grown from the Past: A Short History of Community Gardening in

13

Final Pre-proposal

the United States. Smithsonian Institution. Retrieved from communityofgardens.si.edu.

The Trust for Public Land. (n.d.) The Trust for Public Land Parkscore Index. Retrieved from https://www.tpl.org/parkscore.

Van Holstein, E. (2016). Transplanting, plotting, fencing: relational property practices in community gardens. Environment and Planning, 48, 11, 2239-2255.

14

Final Pre-proposal