Atlanta City Parks within the Evolution of Progressive Urbanism by John Hightower

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 PARKS‐ EVOLUTION AND IDEALS 6 THE VALUE OF PARKS 8 PARKS‐ SYSTEMS AND INTERCONNECTIVITY NEEDS 11 URBANISM‐ EVOLUTION AND IDEALS 13 THE VALUE OF URBANISM 17 ATLANTA PARKS AND URBANISM‐ EVOLUTION AND STATUS 19 ATLANTA PARKS AND URBANISM‐ EXAMINATION/METHODS 25 ATLANTA PARKS AND URBANISM‐ RECOMMENDATIONS 29 VISIBILITY AND DIRECT CONNECTIONS SCORE CHART 31 CONNECTIVITY WITHIN ½ MILE NETWORK SCORE CHART 33 EXPERIENCE OF ADJACENT ROUTES SCORE CHART 35 LOCATION MAP‐ CITY LIMITS / HIGHWAYS / BELTLINE 37 LOCATION MAP‐ CITY LIMITS / COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 39 LOCATION MAP‐ COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 / PARKS 41 HALF‐MILE NETWORKS‐ COUNCIL DISTRICT 1 43 BENTEEN PARK STUDY 44 CHENEY STADIUM STUDY 50 CHOSEWOOD PARK STUDY 56 DANIEL STANTON PARK STUDY 62 FOUR CORNERS PARK STUDY 68 GEORGIA‐HILL CENTER STUDY 74 GRANT PARK STUDY 80 HERITAGE PARK STUDY 86 KIMPSON PARK STUDY 92 OAK KNOLL PARK I STUDY 98 OAK KNOLL PARK II STUDY 104 ORMOND‐GRANT PARK STUDY 110 PHOENIX II PARK STUDY 116 PHOENIX III PARK STUDY 122 REBEL VALLEY PARK STUDY 128 SOUTH ATLANTA PARK STUDY 134 SOUTH BEND PARK STUDY 140 THOMASVILLE PARK STUDY 146 TULLWATER PARK STUDY 152 WOODLAND GARDEN PARK STUDY 158 ATLANTA PARKS AND URBANISM‐ CONCLUSION 165 BIBLIOGRAPHY 169

ATLANTA CITY PARKS WITHIN THE EVOLUTION OF PROGRESSIVE URBANISM “Men come together in the city to live; they remain there in order to live the good life.”1 ‐ Aristotle

Without equivocation, the mark of a great city lies in the quality of life it provides daily for its citizens. The physical impression upon the land that one may turn to as a gauge for the city’s attention to said quality of life lies in its park system and the associated standard for urbanism as it relates to this system. As history shows us, even the greatest of civilizations may fall, teaching us that however great a city, it can always be improved upon. Therefore, in an ongoing effort to better the City of Atlanta, we shall investigate both qualitative and quantitative evidence of the City’s systems. We ask the question of whether or not Atlanta’s park system is amply supporting it citizens. We inquire whether or not Atlanta boasts the correct number of parks, with the ever‐important caveat that hard numbers and magic formulas of parkland per city acre or population are subject to an inordinate number of external factors. As the famous New York City Urban Planner Robert Moses noted, “there is no such thing as a fixed percentage of park area to population…. Sensible, practical people know that [it] depends upon the actual problems of the city in question.”2 We ask the question of how well Atlanta’s parks are located, and, correspondingly, if the adjacent street systems are allowing them to perform at their highest potential. In order to examine these inquiries, we may look to evidence found through the evolutions of parks and street systems as generic models with reference to Atlanta’s history, present‐ day status, and future.

1 2

Mumford, Lewis. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961. Print. Harnik, Peter. Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Washington, DC: Island, 2010. Print.

PAGE 5

Parks‐ Evolution and Ideals The wheels of motion in the American park phenomenon were initially mobilized nearing the end of the 1840s. Prior to this era, the notion of the urban park was literally and figuratively a foreign concept to Americans. As New York City continually amassed a seemingly endless onslaught of new citizens, and with pressures of writers such as William Cullen Bryant criticizing the lack of parks in American cities, the City’s leaders realized, and took advantage of, a special opportunity to advance the image of their city in the design of Central Park in 1851, unknowingly sparking a revolution that would serve our country indefinitely.3 Professor of Architecture and Ph.D. sociologist Galen Cranz divides the evolution of American parks into four distinct movements. In the first, the parks were “conceived as great pleasure grounds meant to be pieces of the country, with fresh air, meadows, lakes, and sunshine right in the city.” Her “reform park,” “recreation facility,” and “open‐space system” took the nation through time periods characterized by new ways of looking at the uses in parks; as places for structured activities, leisure and recreation, and the open natural setting in each movement respectively.4 Today, as they have through history, parks take many forms. They are active and passive, at the regional scale and neighborhood scale, built for Mother Nature and for people. We see parks in the forms of skate parks, ball fields, squares, plazas, green malls, open lawns, forest and wetland protection areas, greenways, waterfronts, and many more. Across the broad spectrums of types and designs in parks, success is tough to quantify. Guidelines, standards, and recommendations of those who call themselves professionals, however, can offer convincing support and reasoning for our investigations into what we claim to be a successful place or space. Project for Public Spaces, a non‐profit organization out of Manhattan with a heart for the art of place‐making, lists a compact four‐category approach to successful place‐making.5 Their approach includes Accessibility, Activities, Comfort, and Sociability. The American Planning Association offers eight “characteristics of a ‘Great Public Space:’ 1. Promotes human contact and social activities 2. Is safe, welcoming, and accommodating for all users 3. Has design and architectural features that are visually interesting 4. Promotes community involvement 5. Reflects the local culture or history 6. Relates well to bordering uses 7. Is well maintained 6 8. Has a unique or special character”

Garvin, Alexander, and Ronda Brands. Public Parks: The Key to Livable Communities. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2011. Print. Cranz, Galen. The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1982. Print. 5 Project for Public Spaces. "What Makes a Successful Place?" Project for Public Spaces. N.p., 30 Dec. 2009. Web. 15 June 2013. <http://www.pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/>. 6 American Planning Association. "Characteristics and Guidelines of Great Public Spaces." Characteristics and Guidelines of Great Public Spaces. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2013. <http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/spaces/characteristics.htm>. 4

PAGE 6

Urbanist William H. Whyte, in speaking on the Greek agora, noted its “…centrality, concentration, and mixture…”7 as the main reasons for its success as a space, adding that these characteristics still hold importance in today’s hubs of activity. Each of these sets of essential qualities of spaces lay out, through varied specifications, principally the same ideals. We seek in our places and spaces the ability to arrive without struggle or discomfort, a unique sense of place, diversity and interest that we may not find hidden behind the walls of our homes and offices, and the ability to experience the people and environments around us in a positive light. A park, in whatever type or configuration it may be, should offer all the best the city has for its citizens without conditions of income, age, race, or beliefs of those residents. Project for Public Spaces

American Planning Association

William H. Whyte

1. Acces s i bi l i ty

1. Promotes huma n conta ct a nd s oci a l a cti vi ti es

1. Centra l i ty

2. Acti vi ti es

2. Is s a fe, wel comi ng, a nd a ccommoda ti ng for a l l us ers

2. Concentra ti on

3. Comfort

3. Ha s des i gn a nd a rchi tectura l fea tures tha t a re vi s ua l l y i nteres ti ng 3. Mi xture

4. Soci a bi l i ty

4. Promotes communi ty i nvol vement 5. Refl ects the l oca l cul ture or hi s tory 6. Rel a tes wel l to borderi ng us es 7. Is wel l ma i nta i ned 8. Ha s a uni que or s peci a l cha ra cter

Whyte, William Hollingsworth. City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Doubleday, 1988. Print.

PAGE 7

The Value Of Parks

In his work creating the parks system for Buffalo, New York, journalist and father to the

profession of Landscape Architecture, Frederick Law Olmsted stated “A park exercises a very different and much greater influence upon the progress of a city in its general structure than any other ordinary public work.”8 Olmsted’s astute assessment of the value of parks held and still holds impeccable accuracy. There exists no other public work that can positively affect change with the same magnitude as parks when it comes to a city’s health; including environmental health, physical health, social health, and economic health.

It should not come as news to anyone that parks, especially those designed as nature preserves,

greenways, and the like, provide our ecosystem with the very same breath of fresh air many of us urbanites seek in the city. The trees provide oxygen to restore urban air quality while open, pervious land offers treatment and infiltration of water as well as reductions of erosion, pollution, litter, sedimentation and particulate metals running off of our streets and from our conventional storm drainage infrastructure. These open spaces also supply wildlife with havens and homes from inhabitable stretches of urbanity. As Michael Hough notes in his City Form and Natural Process: Towards a New Urban Vernacular, “an understanding and application of the altered but nonetheless functioning natural processes within cities becomes central to urban design.”9

We have also seen marked changes in the way of life countless Americans lead today, largely

due to our urban forms and systems. The Center for Disease Control estimates that, as of 2011, 34% of American adults were overweight (but not obese) while a staggering 28% were classified as obese.10 These numbers have a noticeable similarity and practically linear correlation to the percentages of adults who are not physically active on a daily basis; 60% “not regularly active,” and 25% “not active at all.”11 We also know that many diseases, illnesses, and conditions come with obesity, not the least of which include depression, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and numerous forms of cancer. Dr. Richard Jackson, Chair of Environmental Health Sciences at the School of Public Health at UCLA, notes that “we must realize that their poor health is not caused only by a lack of discipline but may be the result of the 8

Olmsted, Frederick Law. Letter to William Dorsheimer, Esq. (October 1, 1868), Papers of FLP, sup. Ser., 1:158. Hough, Michael. City Form and Natural Process: Towards a New Urban Vernacular. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1984. Print. 10 Schiller JS, Lucas JW, Peregoy JA. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2011. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10(256). 2012. 11 National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. "Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General." 9

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Nov. 1999. Web. 5 June 2013. <http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/summ.htm>.

PAGE 8

built environments in which we live.”12 The burden of our public’s physical health, then, falls not only on the shoulders of each individual citizen, but on the shoulders of those designing and regulating the world around us. As a tool in our toolkit for healthy cities, we must keep in mind the efficacy of the use of parks in urban design. As Dr. Eve E. Slater, former U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health, observes, the public’s use of parks can not only promote general health and wellness, but “improve our mental health as well.”13

So we see that parks are advantageous to both the ecosystem and to the individuals in our

communities, but what of the direct effects on the communities as a whole? As places of congregation and social gathering, parks, plazas, and squares are hotbeds of social activity. For centuries, these spaces have been the city’s Monday morning water cooler. Gossip, talk of sports, and bantering over stock trades enliven the space and permeate the air with a warm communal atmosphere. It is here, in our broad array of urban systems, that we may find landscape architect Ian McHarg’s “maximum social benefit at the least social cost.”14 As the City of St. Louis Parks Department published in 1915, “The primary purpose of the park system has become the raising of men and women rather than grass or trees.”15

As reassurance to New York City in their process of planning and designing Central Park,

Frederick Law Olmsted was the first to explain a theory that the City would eventually see increased revenue due to the addition of the park that would more than pay for the cost of the park. Olmsted said that the properties nearest the park would be in such high demand in relation to the rest of the City that property values nearest the park would rise, and in turn, the tax revenue the City recouped would rise. In fact, the increase in value and tax revenue surged with such vigor that the City’s return would dwarf the cost of the park itself. Tom Fox documents the increase in his Urban Open Space‐ An Investment That Pays; “Property values in Manhattan doubled during the 15 years after park development began. In the three wards surrounding Central Park, two‐and‐a‐half miles north of most of the city’s real estate activity, values increased nine times.”16 12

Jackson, Richard J. "The Impact of the Built Environment on Health: An Emerging Field." American Journal of Public Health 93.9 (2003): 1382 384. Print. 13 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020. N.p., 2013. Web. 12 June 2013. <http://www.healthypeople.gov/implementation/nrpa>. 14 McHarg, Ian L. Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Published for the American Museum of Natural History [by] the Natural History, 1969. Print. 15 Garvin, Alexander, Gayle Berens, and Christopher B. Leinberger. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington, D.C.: ULI, Urban Land Institute, 1997. Print. 16 Fox, Tom. Urban Open Space: An Investment That Pays : A Monograph Series. New York: Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, 1990. Print.

PAGE 9

Numerous studies and sources have stated evidence to support this same situation that New

York City saw in the 1850s. John Crompton calls the phenomenon the “proximate principle,” in which properties near parks and open spaces are comparatively more apt to bear higher property values. His principle “is substantial up to 500‐600 feet (typically three blocks),” where he notes 75% of the effect takes place, while “the effect may be measurable out to 1500 feet.”17 Sarah Nicholls of Michigan State University notices a similar effect with “the greatest premiums (of 2 to 3 percent of value) [occurring] for homes within 800 feet of a park.”18 Finally, a study of Pennypack Park, outside of Philadelphia, from 1974 assessed that the park’s presence accounted for 33% of the land value within 1,000 feet of the park edge and 4% within 2,500 feet.19 Of course, just as no magic formulas can estimate the needed amount of parkland per city acre or population, no formula can precisely predict property value adjustments due to park adjacency. In some cases, parks may even be harmful to neighboring property values. Due to maintenance issues, Bryant Park in New York City saw local businesses struggling to a point that nearby shop owners banded together in the 1970s to form a Business Improvement District, what we call a Community Improvement District in Atlanta. This is a self‐taxing private entity which the businesses have used and still use to maintain the park, which in turn aids in their business prospects.20 Others, such as MIT’s Andrew Miller, have noted that in some cases, the property values of properties with their backs turned to parks can also be negatively affected due to susceptibility to crime issues. We see multiple parks in Atlanta that see localized decreases in property value, but this is not to say that the reasoning is simply adjacency to a park. Many factors affect these conditions, but with the support of quantifiable research, we may move forward with the notion that a park located, planned, and designed well has the certain capability to improve a community, environmentally, physically, socially, and economically.

Crompton, John L. Impact Of Parks & Open Spaces On Property Values. Rep. N.p.: Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences Texas A&M University, 2007. Print. 18 Nicholls, Sarah, Ph.D. "Measuring the Impact of Parks on Property Values." Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition, n.d. Web. 10 July 2013. <http://www.massland.org/files/MeasuringImpactParksonPropertyValues.pdf>. 19 Hammer, T. R., R. E. Coughlin, and E. T. Horn. "The Effect of a Large Urban Park on Real Estate Value." Journal of the American Institute of Planners 40.4 (1974): 274‐77. Web. 20 Garvin, Alexander, and Ronda Brands. Public Parks: The Key to Livable Communities. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2011. Print.

PAGE 10

Parks‐ Systems and Interconnectivity Needs

With an acute awareness of how a single park affects a community, we may now broaden our

field of vision to investigate the effects upon an entire city. In order to better serve a more geographically dispersed population, one large park will not suffice. We, then, begin to look at the use of a multitude of parks and examine the best ways to locate them. If we assume one park is inherently good, two parks may inherently be twice as favorable. Two parks with a logical connection between the two, then, may be exponentially better. As our park planning evolves throughout a particular city, we must keep in mind this principle to provide a system that equals more than the sum of its parts. We may look to cities today such as Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Boulder as shining examples of well‐ planned park systems. Logical continuous systems such as the ones found in these cities often follow natural connections along streams, along ridgelines, and between lakes. If natural systems do not provide a needed connection due to organic urban structure, a system of parkways may provide another option, as have been used in Chicago, where developer John S. Wright wrote, in 1849, that public parks should be “improved and connected with a wide avenue… surrounding the city with a magnificent chain of parks and parkways.”21 The system we may envision for a city will inevitably have some level of plasticity and flexibility as the needs of a city and its citizens are ever‐changing. Therefore, designers and planners of our systems must be able to not only envision their effects with a wide lens but be able to plan for the unknown. As Olmsted so eloquently phrased it, ““It is a common error to regard a park as something to be produced complete in itself, as a picture to be painted on a canvas. It should rather be planned as one to be done in fresco, with constant consideration of exterior objects, some of them quite at a distance and even existing as yet only in the imagination of the painter.”22 A great park, or even a great park system, in a vacuum is worthless. Our park systems must be integrated, and integrated well, into the fabric of our cities. As Peter Harnik, director of The Trust for Public Land’s Center for City Park Excellence, notes, “Parks add value to neighborhoods, but neighborhoods also add value to parks, so the development of the two must go hand in hand.”23 Harnik’s claim urges us to design our cities with parks and surrounding communities that speak to each other. In order to do so with substantial results, we would do best to incorporate our parks into an urban fabric of highly connected streets. A street network with high connectivity offers two key

Bluestone, Daniel M. Constructing Chicago. New Haven: Yale UP, 1991. Print. Olmsted, Frederick Law. Civilizing American Cities: A Selection of Frederick Law Olmsted's Writings on City Landscapes. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1971. Print. 23 Harnik, Peter. Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Washington, DC: Island, 2010. Print. 22

PAGE 11

benefits: equality for the greater public through increased accessibility, and a higher visibility of the system, leading to greater opportunities for use. We may work from the premise that all citizens in our cities are created equal, have the same rights, and deserve the same advantages. Therefore, everyone should have as great an opportunity to use as possible, with reasonably easy access, our public amenities. In addition, as Jere Stuart French notes, “A park’s very existence depends upon its being used.”24 It is the activity within the park that makes it a special place. Oftentimes, people will use a park simply to watch or be with others in the community. Higher visibility and accessibility are what drive said activity in and around the park. Urban theorist and activist Jane Jacobs, in her Life and Death of Great American Cities, claims “The worst problem parks are located precisely where people do not pass by and likely never will.” It follows, then, that we must both locate our parks in centralized and highly trafficked locations and, more importantly, build our street systems to minimize dead zones of activity.

French, Jere Stuart. Urban Green: City Parks of the Western World. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Pub., 1973. Print.

PAGE 12

Urbanism‐ Evolution and Ideals

For much of history, human scale was the only scale we built our lives around. The world

around man made sense according to the human body. Homes were sized by way of necessity. Streets, or dirt paths, were sized according to the width of a number of human shoulder widths passing through (and later the number of horse‐drawn carriages). And street networks were as extensive as they needed to be for one to walk within his or her community. Then came technology as we know it. The car, specifically, has forever altered the shape of our built environment, in just over a century, more than any other single invention. Not only are streets wider in order to better accommodate increased traffic, but street systems, our urban fabric, and our patterns of civilization have changed according to the capabilities of the car. Former Commissioner of Planning and Community Development for the City of Atlanta Michael Dobbins, in his Urban Design and People, writes “Streets in all their permutations are fundamental shapers of urban form.”25

As an issue of safety for pedestrians and their potential conflicts with cars, German architect

Ludwig Hilberseimer was the first to develop the concept of street hierarchy.26 Smaller residential roads would be safer for the pedestrian, while larger roads would be separated from those on foot and carry heavier vehicular traffic. The idea was well‐accepted and quickly adapted to plans such as planner Clarence Perry’s “neighborhood unit” and planners Clarence Stein and Henry Wright’s Radburn, New Jersey. Both of which would encapsulate a neighborhood of smaller residential roads with larger roads with relatively few access points in order to have fewer conflict points and discourage through traffic. Stein called the gridiron street pattern “obsolete as a fortified town wall” due to the “flood of motors” in contemporary towns.27

In the thick of this growing trend in roadway design, the year 1930 saw the birth of the Institute

of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The Institute defined its new profession of transportation engineering as “…a branch of engineering which is devoted to the study and improvement of the traffic performance of road networks and terminals. Its purpose is to achieve efficient, free, and rapid flow of traffic; yet, at the same time, to prevent traffic accidents and casualties. Its procedures are based on scientific and engineering disciplines. Its methods include regulation and control on one hand, and planning and

Dobbins, Michael. Urban Design and People. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. Print. Carmona, Matthew, Steve Tiesdell, Tim Heath, and Taner Oc. Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford: Architectural, 2003. Print. 27 Stein, Clarence S. Toward New Towns for America. [Liverpool]: University of Liverpool; Agents for the Western Hemisphere: Public Administration Service, Chicago, 1951. Print. 26

PAGE 13

geometric design, on the other.”28 The concept of street hierarchy has led the Institute since its inception, and is the origin of our Functional Classification system for our roads today, including arterials, collectors, and local streets. As the car allowed, and social preferences dictated, the suburban shift was in full force by the 1950s and called for an ever‐expansive system in the Functional Classification road structure to spread through our cities’ hinterlands with aggressive consumption. America was not alone, as the car was creating the same results worldwide. “…Structures created primarily for the car [were resulting] in formless residential environments characterized by a dead –end system of ‘loops and lollipops’”29 as well in Great Britain. A growing problem of tremendous proportions, many were slow to realize the consequences of our construction habits. However, some did understand clearly the situation our nation was facing. In his message to Congress on January 27, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated “The great expansion of our urban area over the last two decades has too frequently been carried out in a sprawling, space‐consuming, unplanned and uneconomic way… If the taxpayer’s dollar is to be wisely used and our communities are to be desirable places in which to live, we must assure ourselves that future growth takes place in a more orderly fashion.”30 America has been slow to act, but is making strides towards a revived sense of urbanity and sustainable patterns of development. A 2010 joint effort publication between ITE and walkability‐ oriented non‐profit Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, shows increasing promise for our future. The publication makes a point to differentiate between and explain pros and cons of both the “conventional street network” that has been put in place ubiquitously throughout the nation and “traditional networks” which “are typically characterized by a less hierarchical pattern of short blocks and straight streets with a high density of intersections.”31 Many believe that the street networks that we have in place never should have been installed in the first place, or at the very least are outdated and due to change. Allan Jacobs et al. contend in The Boulevard Book “…the concern with pedestrian safety is responsible, but it may be overemphasized, and the approach of reducing conflicts by completely separating people and cars may

Matson, Theodore M., and Wilbur Smith. Traffic Engineering. New York: McGraw‐Hill, 1955. Print. Department of Environment, Transport & Regions, and Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment. By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice. Rep. London: DETR, 2000. Print. 30 Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. Open Land/ Regional Problems and Opportunities. Atlanta: n.p., 1964. Print. 31 Institute of Transporatation Engineers, and Congress for the New Urbanism. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Rep. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010. Print. 29

PAGE 14

be counterproductive.”32 America is in desperate need of a return to urbanism, or at least better connected street networks, through a retrofit of “suburban form”33 as architect and urban design professor Ellen Dunham‐Jones terms it; this form not necessarily being in the suburbs, but rather taking the shape of typical sprawling conditions. Architect Demetri Porphyrios names the “human scaled block as ‘the most important typological element in the composition of urban spaces.”34 In order to connect back to our roots of building our environments in the human scale, we must pay attention to block size, as it not only physically breaks up the city, adding more options and increased connectivity, but mentally provides points of relief for the pedestrian. The previously mentioned manual published by ITE and CNU notes “generally, the desirable block length is 200 to 400 feet and should not exceed 600 feet.”35 This smaller block length can be experienced throughout Portland, Oregon, and in smaller pieces of other cities, notably the Fairlie Poplar district in Atlanta. Jane Jacobs notes that small blocks are important to cities due to the “fabric of intricate cross‐use” given by “different people, bent on different purposes, appearing at different times, but using the same streets.”36 This is not to say, however, that there necessarily need be only short streets. Cliff Moughtin proposes, in his Urban Design: Street and Square, “The upper limit for uninterrupted length of street is probably in the order of 1,500 m (1 mile). Beyond this distance human scale is lost.”37 On the contrary, as blocks should be short, street length does not need to be regulated in the same way. Direct connections with length greater than one mile shall be without consequence under two conditions; that they are not treated as unconnected arterials, and that many other options are available in the street network at peak traffic hour. As for the human scale associated with street length, due to topography and direction changes in street design, the length of a street would almost never affect human scale from any one point on said street. Also of great importance in designing our urban block structure is the notion that we must lay out our cities in a fashion that is “able to accommodate futures that [cannot] possibly be expected,”38 as landscape architect Doug Allen has

Jacobs, Allan B., Elizabeth Macdonald, and Yodan Rofé. The Boulevard Book: History, Evolution, Design of Multiway Boulevards. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2002. Print. 33 Dunham‐Jones, Ellen, and June Williamson. Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. 2nd ed. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2011. Print. 34 Krier, Léon, and Demetri Porphyrios. Houses, Palaces, Cities. London: Architectural Design AD Editions, 1984. Print. 35 Institute of Transporatation Engineers, and Congress for the New Urbanism. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Rep. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010. Print. 36 Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. [New York]: Random House, 1961. Print. 37 Moughtin, Cliff. Urban Design: Street and Square. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture, 1992. Print. 38 Allen, Doug. Congress for the New Urbanism Atlanta Chapter Winter Luncheon 2012. The Shed at Glenwood, Atlanta, Georgia. 12 Dec. 2012. Speech.

PAGE 15

commented on in reference to the successes of flexibility in the urban design of the City of Savannah, Georgia.

PAGE 16

The Value of Urbanism It is this use‐malleable human‐scaled block that not only allows, but encourages an active street life and socially engaged citizenry. Planner and architect Ed Bacon, in his Design of Cities, poetically expressed “Life is a continuous flow of experience; each act or moment of time is preceded by a previous experience and becomes the threshold for the experience to come.”39 It is Bacon’s “flow of experience” that leads us to a need for connections, not only in quantity, but in quality of space. It is instructive to design our streets to offer two main experiential qualities; first, that of being in and traveling through the space, and second, of entry into and exit from the street with respect to adjacent uses. Planner and architect Raymond Unwin termed this the “dignity of approach”40 in reference to buildings of importance, where we may add parks and other significant locales. Streets that successfully exhibit these qualities, then, not only tie together adjacencies, but provide for seamless extensions of social space, and allow us to “rediscover the social role of the street.”41 Matthew Carmona et al., in Public Places Urban Spaces, note the contrast between a road and a walkable street, the first of which contains only “movement space,” while the latter offers both “social space and movement space.”42 Today, we are provided with options in our toolkit to address this distinction while providing for multifarious needs with the resurgence of design instruments such as the boulevard street, which may “[maintain] access and multi‐functionality at all street scales.”43 So we see that our streets and street networks can address our communities’ social health needs in a similar fashion to that of our parks and park systems. A closer look at the effects of urbanism will continue to reveal a positive effect on physical, environmental, and economic health as well, as we have noted in our parks. Highly connected street networks, with numerous and convenient points of interest, will, as we have noted encourage walkability and human activity in general. Said activity will work to combat the American sedentary lifestyle as we have come to know it. Furthermore, a dense fabric and amalgamation of uses will allow for preservation of our remaining greenfields and

Bacon, Edmund N. Design of Cities. New York: Viking, 1967. Print. Rybczynski, Witold. City Life: Urban Expectations in a New World. New York: Scribner, 1995. Print. 41 Loukaitou‐Sideris, Anastasia, and Tridib Banerjee. Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of Form. Berkeley: University of California, 1998. Print. 42 Carmona, Matthew, Steve Tiesdell, Tim Heath, and Taner Oc. Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford: Architectural, 2003. Print. 43 Jacobs, Allan B., Elizabeth Macdonald, and Yodan Rofé. The Boulevard Book: History, Evolution, Design of Multiway Boulevards. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2002. Print. 40

PAGE 17

remediation of land already built out, a “re‐greening”44 of natural resources that never should have been disturbed. There is no better way to take care of Mother Nature than to leave her untouched. Architect and urban designer Peter Calthorpe reminds us, in his Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change, that “urbanism offers the most cost effective form of conservation because it is better than free‐ it costs less to build compact walkable communities than to build its alternatives.”45 From the eye of a solitary real estate developer who may be eyeing cheap land in the exurbs for his next big project, this may not be the case. On the whole, though, Calthorpe is absolutely correct in that a community of higher density can provide for its citizens with incredible efficiency and without the extreme costs of extensive and superfluous infrastructure. In seek of a higher quality of life and increased health of all types for all citizens in the City of Atlanta, we may look to a move to urbanism with Atlanta’s park system as a backbone for “the good life.”46 44

Dunham‐Jones, Ellen, and June Williamson. Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. 2nd ed. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2011. Print. 45 Calthorpe, Peter. Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change. Washington, DC: Island, 2011. Print. 46 Mumford, Lewis. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961. Print.

PAGE 18

Atlanta Parks and Urbanism‐ Evolution and Status

Architect and urban designer Rem Koolhaas famously claimed “Atlanta is not a city, it is a

landscape.”47 This landscape, from 30,000 feet, may in fact be a smooth blend of the trees amongst the rolling foothills of the Appalachians and Upper Piedmont as they sweep through our sprawling landscape. Best practices in urban design tell us that Atlanta is a “landscape,” as it were, for all the wrong reasons. What we may look to, however, as a welcomed association with the title, is a well‐ performing park system.

A few short years after New York City unveiled its plans for Central Park, Atlanta followed suit

with a single small public open space. In 1858, this park was “a small path of land located in a public square bordered by Pryor, Decatur and Lloyd (now Central) Streets and a passenger depot.”48 The land was soon destroyed in the war and subsequently sold. The City took a second pass at parks in its construction of Oglethorpe Park in the 1870s, which was, in turn, sold to a cotton manufacturer by 1881. The very next year, Colonel L.P. Grant donated 100 acres of land, which would suitably be entitled Grant Park.49 This donation of land for Grant Park marked the beginnings of a new era and way of city‐building here in Atlanta. The City would continue to acquire, preserve, and manage tracts of land as parkland from this point on, some of the more notable and sizeable of which include Piedmont Park, which the City obtained in 1904, and the Historic Oakland Cemetery.

Peter Harnik, in his Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities, notes that Atlanta is one

of many cities in America today “bouncing back from years of decline.”50 He refers to a general shift in the direction of a return to urbanism and the tenets of its supporters. For decades we have been seeing a gradual increase in attention to our urban parks, and, with a push towards urbane lifestyles, the trend is only accelerating. The 1970s saw Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson turn “a municipal expense to a municipal benefit”51 in the restoration of Historic Oakland Cemetery. The very same decade also witnessed the City’s citizens protest and defeat the Department of Transportation in its efforts to construct two new freeways through some of Atlanta’s special urban fabric east of Downtown. By 1990, a new plan was set in place, and the ultimate result of this battle became what is today Freedom

Bernadó, Jordi, Ramon Prat, and Rem Koolhaas. Atlanta. Barcelona: Actar, 1995. Print. City of Atlanta‐ Office of Parks. "History of the Department of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Affairs." City of Atlanta, GA :. N.p., 2013. Web. 5 June 2013. <http://www.atlantaga.gov/index.aspx?page=256>. 49 Ibid. 50 Harnik, Peter. Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Washington, DC: Island, 2010. Print. 51 Ibid. 48

PAGE 19

Parkway, a much‐needed green connection enjoyed by many today by car, bicycle, and on foot. In 1989, due to a need for increased attention and maintenance, the Piedmont Park Conservancy was established, which has, in 25 short years, not only returned the park to its past glory, but brought the park into the new century with a vitality seldom seen in parks nationwide. Due to the Centennial Olympic Games’ presence in Atlanta in 1996, we saw the addition of Centennial Olympic Park, which has “spurred the development of nearby hotels, residences, and cultural institutions.”52 Some of the most recent, significant, and widely‐publicized parks, private or public, in the City of Atlanta include, but are not limited to three small parks in the mixed‐use development Atlantic Station, where Peter Harnik claims “it is obvious planning for the parks came last;”53 the green in mixed‐use development Glenwood Park, which was awarded CNU’s Charter Award in 2003;54 and Old Fourth Ward Park, one of the City’s shining moments, a product of innovative design solutions that stands as a national standard for stormwater parks today.

The Trust for Public Land, a national non‐profit organization “founded in 1972 with goals of

protecting land in and around cities and pioneering new land conservation techniques”55 has recently updated its Park Score rating in which it has ranked 60 American cities according to their park systems. “Median park size and park acres as a percentage of city area” account for one‐third of a city’s score, “playgrounds per resident and total spending per resident” another one‐third, and “the percentage of the population living within a ten‐minute walk of a public park” the final one‐third.56 After improving its score from two to two‐and‐a‐half park benches out of five possible from 2012 to 2013 in TPL’s Park Score rating, Atlanta fell again to two park benches on the TPL scale. Atlanta appears to continue to have a relatively lower‐tier park system with a ranking of 42 out of 60 cities studied. 57 Atlanta is currently home to 7.7 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is “just half the national average…”58 Peter Harnik makes a strong case for his account that “it is much more instructive to compare the

Cherry, Nathan, and Kurt Nagle. Grid/Street/Place: Essential Elements of Sustainable Urban Districts. Chicago: American Planning Association Planners, 2009. Print. 53 Harnik, Peter. Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Washington, DC: Island, 2010. Print. 54 "Congress for the New Urbanism – Charter Award – 2003 | Glenwood Park." Congress for the New Urbanism – Charter Award – 2003 |

Glenwood Park. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2013. <http://www.glenwoodpark.com/info/13858>.

The Trust for Public Land. "Mission & History." Celebrating 40 Years of Conserving Land for People. The Trust for Public Land, 2013. Web. 27 May 2013. <http://www.tpl.org/about/mission/>. 56 The Trust for Public Land. "Methodology." ParkScore. The Trust for Public Land, 2013. Web. 27 May 2013. <http://parkscore.tpl.org/methodology.php>. 57 The Trust for Public Land. "City Profiles: Atlanta, GA." ParkScore. N.p., 2014. Web. 3 June 2014. <http://parkscore.tpl.org/city.php?city=Atlanta>. 58 Half‐Mile Circles. "Are We There Yet? Parks Are Part Of The Answer." Reconnecting America. N.p., 9 July 2013. Web. 10 July 2013.

<http://reconnectingamerica.org/news‐center/half‐mile‐circles/2013/are‐we‐there‐yet‐parks‐are‐part‐of‐the answer/?utm_source=feedburner>.

PAGE 20

amount of park acreage in cities of the same approximate density type.”59 Even in so doing, we find that Atlanta’s 7.7 acres per 1,000 residents measures up poorly to the average 13.9 acres per 1,000 residents out of 28 “intermediate, low density cities”60 that Harnik evaluated. While we may need to keep in mind that there is no magic formula to determine a certain number or percentage of park space needed, we should absolutely believe in the power of a political move and the ferocity with which cities today contend with their sister cities.

As many cities today are strengthening their understanding of the positive effects and need for

highly connected urbanism and park systems, Atlanta included, we are seeing the common goal of providing for every citizen within a city with park access either under a half‐mile reach or a ten‐minute walk, typically approximated at a half‐mile. Atlanta, in particular has a great deal of work to do to meet this goal and enhance its urbane livability in general. Michael Dobbins alludes to this when he notes that “Denver, Charlotte, Houston, Dallas, San Diego, Portland, and others, are… recognizing a wider range of trip types and travel modes, and more interactive links between land use and transportation than the Atlanta approach.”61 He goes on to reference Atlanta’s focus on downtown sidewalks and streetscapes as a result of the 1996 Centennial Olympic Games, stating that “The City, which 25 years earlier had dropped sidewalks off of its list of responsibilities in a cost‐cutting measure, thus gave its citizens confidence that sidewalks were okay places to be.”62

It is important that the public at large realizes the City and its employees cannot, alone, effect

change in a capacity near the efficacy of its work as it is intertwined today with partnerships with locally‐ missioned and ‐operated organizations. Atlanta is fortunate to have a number of said organizations researching and lobbying for best practices in urbanism, environmental awareness, walkability, multi‐ modality, and parks. As an example, the Atlanta Regional Commission’s Livable Centers Initiative (LCI) program works to reinvigorate our centers and corridors through a responsible focus on development, transit, and the pedestrian experience. The Georgia Conservancy’s work towards “clean air and water, land conservation, coastal protection and sustainable growth”63 continues to positively influence our communities and their development patterns. Organizations such as PEDS and PATH Foundation are continually working to better provide for the pedestrian and the bicyclist in our auto‐centric city. In

Harnik, Peter. Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Washington, DC: Island, 2010. Print. Ibid. 61 Dobbins, Michael. Urban Design and People. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. Print. 62 Ibid. 63 Georgia Conservancy. "Georgia Conservancy ‐ Overview." Georgia Conservancy ‐ Overview. N.p., 2013. Web. 25 May 2013. <http://www.georgiaconservancy.org/about‐us/overview.html>. 60

PAGE 21

addition, we see organizations, not only in the Piedmont Park and Grant Park conservancies, and Friends of the Park programs, but in Trees Atlanta and Park Pride guiding and supporting the needs of our parks and parkways.

The efforts being put forth in organizations such as these are only becoming more and more

important to Atlanta and other cities as we begin to see the population’s urban shift. In 2014, we are in the midst of a movement, an urban renaissance. We are witnessing a reversal of ideals on lifestyle choices from the urban exodus we saw half a century ago, and in turn, a growing movement of people back into our city cores. Author Stewart Brand remarks that “every week there are 1.3 million new people in cities”64 today. Aging baby boomers no longer want to be dependent upon their cars. Immigrants are seeking the best opportunities for work. Lower income urbanites are experiencing unslumming and staying where there are. Millenials, also referred to as Generation Y, those born from the early 1980s to the early 2000s, are seeking in droves to live in vibrant and diverse urban cultures. The shift is on. One of the strongest driving forces in said shift is the attention that developers are paying to the market trends as Generation Y seeks employment out of college. Carmona et al. maintain that, even in the technologically advanced society we find ourselves in, the option for telecommunication as the modern workplace does not push people out to a country cottage with a laptop, but rather “presents a greater choice of where one wants to live,”65 allowing social preferences to dictate where the millenials, a relatively large generation, will land. This then, leads modern businesses to locate their offices according to these trends as they chase the “technologically savvy Generation Y”66 as employees in the modern marketplace. The weight of this shift is heavy indeed, and assuredly emphasizes the significance of our attention to urbanism and the associated park systems. The time is now for Atlanta to push forward with its adaptation to the trends and needs of society today.

We may use the information at hand in order to best plan for Atlanta’s future. Without

knowledge of the existing conditions, needs, and plans for the City, suggestions on imminent procedures would be in vein. We must first, with background knowledge of general histories and ideals, examine the particular deficiencies of our systems. Through our investigations, it would be useful to take into

Brand, Stewart. Whole Earth Discipline: Why Dense Cities, Nuclear Power, Transgenic Crops, Restored Wildlands and Geoengineering Are Necessary. New York: Penguin, 2010. Print. 65 Carmona, Matthew, Steve Tiesdell, Tim Heath, and Taner Oc. Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford: Architectural, 2003. Print. 66 Dunham‐Jones, Ellen. "Urban Design Theory and Practice: Challenges in North America." ARCH 6151: Theories of Urban Design‐ Week 14 Class. Georgia Institute of Technology‐ Architecture West, Atlanta, Georgia. 20 Nov. 2012. Lecture.

PAGE 22

account common issues with urban systems, as TPL listed in 1993 on “public parks and open space: inadequate maintenance…; safety concerns…; difficult access due to remoteness, inadequate public transportation, physical barriers, or limited hours of operation…; deficient recreation programs…; and design that does not serve current user needs…”67

The preponderant efforts today in Atlanta’s existing plans for its parks system focus on the

Beltline project, one of the most innovative and potentially radically transformative greenbelt and transit projects in the nation. The 22‐mile green network surrounding the core of the City, the product of a 1999 master’s thesis by urban designer Ryan Gravel at Georgia Institute of Technology, “will cost about $2.5 billion and is expected to create as much as $20 billion in new value from the dwellings, office parks, and commercial establishments that are springing up because of it.”68 According to Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, the project will “increase Atlanta’s green space by 40 percent and add 1,300 acres of new parks…”69 In 2004, Alex Garvin & Associates submitted their plans for the Beltline with additional incorporation of new and renovated parks to the park system. With glimpses of success and visions of our future, we have begun to see the East Side trail built, acquired land for parks such as Westside Reservoir Park in 2006 and Boulevard Crossing in 2007, and extensive renovations of existing parks such as Daniel Stanton Park in 2012. Westside Reservoir Park, formerly the Bellwood Quarry, is an addition of special importance as the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission’s Atlanta Region Comprehensive Plan: Open Land in 1964 noted “…when the time finally comes for the quarry to cease operations, there is left a large hole in the ground, which may have a residual scenic or recreational value; it is sometimes possible to develop an attractive and useful lake, as the central feature of a park or of a subdivision.”70 Although the July 2012 TSPLOST vote failed to pass, which would have allocated $602 million to the Beltline, the City remains steadfast in its plans to better our communities and the quality of life for our residents.71 As recently as September 2013, the federal government allocated $18 million in grant funding to help Atlanta build a 2.5‐mile section of the BeltLine’s southwest corridor. 72

Garvin, Alexander, Gayle Berens, and Christopher B. Leinberger. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington, D.C.: ULI, Urban Land Institute, 1997. Print. 68 Harnik, Peter. Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Washington, DC: Island, 2010. Print. 69 Saporta, Maria. "City of Atlanta Ranks 26th out of Top 40 Cities in Trust for Public Land’s Inaugural Park Rating System." SaportaReport. N.p.,

23 June 2012. Web. 5 June 2013. <http://saportareport.com/blog/2012/05/city‐of‐atlanta‐ranks 26th‐out‐of‐top‐40‐cities‐in‐trust for‐public‐lands‐inaugural‐park‐rating‐system/>. 70 Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. Open Land/ Regional Problems and Opportunities. Atlanta: n.p., 1964. Print. 71

City of Atlanta, Georgia. "Mayor Kasim Reed ‐ State of the City 2012." City of Atlanta, GA. N.p., 19 Jan. 2012. Web. 27 June 2013. <http://www.atlantaga.gov/index.aspx?page=803>. 72 Lorinc, John. "Atlanta BeltLine Gets Financial Boost." WABE 90.1 FM. N.p., 3 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Sept. 2013. <http://wabe.org/post/atlanta beltline‐gets‐financial‐boost>.

PAGE 23

As many of the plans in place stand to incite positive transformations in our systems, we may look to further investigate the realities on the ground and possibilities for additional enhancements.

PAGE 24

Atlanta Parks and Urbanism‐ Examination/ Methods

And so we ask, “How can we move to further improve our system past the existing plans?” To

find our answer, we must observe and investigate not only the existing problems of our city, as Robert Moses would encourage, but also the existing opportunities. Naturally, Atlanta does lack some of the advantages that other cities have in large, centralized bodies of water, allowing for logical and natural extensions of park systems. The City, is, however, still rich in opportunity, via both its natural environment, with rolling topography and streams radiating from the City’s core, and its man‐made environment and infrastructure such as our roads and rail beds. We must examine the current conditions of Atlanta’s parks and associated street networks with a fine‐toothed comb to understand the problems and opportunities at hand. In this particular study, we will hone in on the conditions of Atlanta’s Council District 1, one of twelve Council Districts within the City, in which we find 56.12% of the District with half‐mile walkable access to parks.

Credit is due to efforts of organizations such as The Trust for Public Land and Walk Score for

their input and on‐going influences on the conversation of walkability and access to amenities and various developments. Evidence from our study on successful public spaces and places supports that, in order to be successful, a park must address five key characteristics. These are high visibility, high connectivity, an enjoyable experience along the approach, a positive experience of the park and unique sense of place, and evidence of on‐going maintenance, care, and policing. Any park that allows for implementation of these essential qualities inherently lends itself to a trend of welcomed activity and success. While the experience of a park and its current status due to maintenance and policing, both by law and local citizens, are of great importance, this study focuses on the environment of the associated conditions outside of the respective edges of each park. We

5 KEY CHARACTERISTICS LEADING TO A SUCCESSFUL PARK 1. Hi gh Vi s i bi l i ty*

then, investigate the existing circumstances of visibility, connectivity, and the experience of routes adjacent to each park.

2. Hi gh Connecti vi ty* 3. Enjoya bl e Experi ence Al ong Approa ch* 4. Pos i ti ve Experi ence of Pa rk & Uni que Sens e of Pl a ce 5. Evi dence of On‐Goi ng Ma i ntenence, Ca re, & Pol i ci ng *Foci of this study

In order to study visibility of each park, statistics have been gathered on the length of the extent of the public right‐of‐way, the length of the park’s perimeter, the park’s acreage, the number of parcels facing the park, the number of residential parcels facing the park, the number of streets fronting the park’s right‐of‐way, and the number of formal entrances. These data are then modified per each park’s

PAGE 25

percentage of street frontage along its perimeter. Each of the resulting quantities is given a score of one through eight, according to the Visibility and Direct Connections Score Chart (See Page 31). In an effort to mitigate the effect of larger parks inherently having substantial amounts of parkland and, therefore, typically street frontage, a second section underneath the Visibility and Direct Connections section, entitled Effective Service per Park Acre, breaks out the same original statistics gathered contingent upon a division by respective park acreage rather than by percent of street frontage. Each item in this section is then given a score of one through four according to the Visibility and Direct Connections Score Chart (See Page 31).

The next section of analysis is Connectivity within ½ Mile Network. It provides for a detailed

survey and dissection of the conditions of connectivity within a one‐half mile street network of each park. It is of weighted importance to note that the information gathered is not within one‐half mile as the crow flies to all park edges, which would result in the oft‐used half‐mile circle. Analysis using circles such as these are often used in error as they do not truly reflect the conditions on the ground. For instance, one may live only a block away from a particular park, but be denied access due to a poorly planned dendritic street network or possibly a physical obstacle such as a railroad. Our evidence, therefore, is observed solely along accessible routes. With half‐mile street networks delineated for each park, statistics on the number of parcels, the number of residents, the number of intersections, the number of jobs, the number of bus stops, and the total length of streets have been gathered for each respective designated area. These numbers, then, are observed with respect to a division by acreage within each network, excluding parkland itself. Each set of data, including numbers both raw and per network acre, is then given a score of one through four according to the Connectivity within ½ Mile Network Score Chart (See Page 33). In addition, data have been collected on the average distance between intersections, average number of parcels per intersection, and number of schools within the one‐half mile networks. These are each then awarded a score of one through eight according to the Connectivity within ½ Mile Network Score Chart (See Page 33).

The final section studied in each park’s setting is the Experience of Adjacent Routes. Although

much of the information related to one’s experience of a place is not only personal, but subjective, the importance of the topic remains high. The aforementioned 2010 ITE/CNU manual notes “A person’s decision to walk is influenced by many factors, including distance, perceived safety and comfort,

PAGE 26

convenience and visual interest of the route.”73 In this section, we take into account statistics associated with the adjacent routes to each park on typical vehicle speed, presence of on‐street parking along the right‐of‐way, approximate sidewalk accessibility, and approximate shade cover. The statistics of each item are then categorized and given a score according to the Experience of Adjacent Routes Score Chart (See Page 35).

The Visibility and Direct Connections section awards each park a Visibility Grade of zero to forty‐

eight and a Calibrated Service Grade of zero to twenty (See Page 31). The Connectivity within ½ Mile Network section gives a Connectivity Grade of zero to seventy two (See Page 33). Finally, the Experience of Adjacent Routes section assigns an Experience Grade of zero to thirty two (See Page 35). Each park’s final Overall Park Grade is then figured by addition, giving a total possible score of 172. Parks which reach a grade of 86 or above (50% of total possible points) are given a passing grade, and deemed to be in a better than average situation per the study’s results. Any parks below a score of 86 are subject to suggestions on possible improvements.

Ten parks of twenty in Atlanta’s Council District

1 are awarded a score of 86 or higher. These parks are

EXISTING PARK GRADE RANKINGS 1. Georgi a Hi l l Center

138

2. Gra nt Pa rk

131

3. Cheney Sta di um

126

Stadium (126), Phoenix III Park (125), Phoenix II Park

4. Phoeni x III Pa rk

125

(113), Heritage Park (113), Ormond‐Grant Park (108),

5. Phoeni x II Pa rk

113

6. Heri ta ge Pa rk

113

7. Ormond‐Gra nt Pa rk

108

Georgia‐Hill Center (138), Grant Park (131), Cheney

Four Corners Park (97), South Atlanta Park (95), and Kimpson Park (93). The remaining ten are given an

8. Four Corners Pa rk

existing park grade of 85 or lower, and are subject to

9. South Atl a nta Pa rk

10. Ki mps on Pa rk

11. Woodl a nd Ga rden Pa rk

These parks are Woodland Garden Park (81), Oak Knoll

12. Oa k Knol l Pa rk II

Park II (76), Daniel Stanton Park (73), Oak Knoll Park I

13. Da ni el Sta nton Pa rk

14. Oa k Knol l Pa rk I

15. South Bend Pa rk

Chosewood Park (40), Benteen Park (39), Rebel Valley

16. Thoma s vi l l e Pa rk

Park (37), and Tullwater Park (30). With regard to the

17. Chos ewood Pa rk

18. Benteen Pa rk

19. Rebel Va l l ey Pa rk

20. Tul l wa ter Pa rk

improvements, some minimal, others more substantial.

(71), South Bend Park (60), Thomasville Park (57),

fact that Oak Knoll Park I and Oak Knoll Park II are deemed Conservation Parks by the City of Atlanta, it is

Institute of Transporatation Engineers, and Congress for the New Urbanism. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Rep. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010. Print.

PAGE 27

understood that their needs are different and these parks provide different services for the community and environment in which they are housed, and therefore escape proposals for localized change. The remaining eight parks have been given individual suggestions per their individual needs.

PAGE 28

Atlanta Parks and Urbanism‐ Recommendations

With theoretical research, statistical data, and detailed analysis in hand, we move to consider

our options and begin to lay out prescriptive moves and plans for bettering our parks, park systems, and associated urban structures. At the most basic level, our possibilities include addition of parks, deletions of parks, and updates to existing parks. The first option provides for the opportunity to take advantage of properties that stand in optimal conditions within street networks, or could be used efficaciously to connect existing parks, through green streets and greenways. The second option, deletions of parks, is of course, a delicate issue, and apt to receive high public resistance, but may indeed be the answer is some cases. Finally, the third option, updates to our existing parks, just as effective as the others, is in many cases the most economical route for bettering our park system. Specific suggestions offered due to the needs of each individual park in need in this study include new residential locations, new parkland additions, new park entry points, new road additions, new sidewalk additions, new transit additions, and new greenway additions. The next section will take the reader through the full process of park evaluation and suggestions determined for each individual park in Council District One of the City of Atlanta.

PAGE 29

PAGE 31

PAGE 33

PAGE 35

PAGE 37

PAGE 39

PAGE 41

PAGE 43

‐BENTEEN PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Benteen Park, at almost 10 acres of land, is the fifth largest park in this study. It has a high number of parcels facing the park, and even more meaningful, a high number of residential units. It is a beautiful rolling plot of land, a hidden gem in the City with a great connection to Benteen Elementary. So why the low ranking? There is one entrance. And it’s tough to find. With incredibly little connectivity and visibility, the park is not living up to its full potential. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ Although residential units do technically back up to the park today, they do so through thick woods, and have no real connection to the park. It is suggested that new residentially‐lined streets be added along the exterior edges of the existing park, providing for three new visible and well‐trafficked entrances. The park would be smaller than it is today, but it would turn into the centerpiece of the community rather than remaining a forgotten piece of beautiful rolling topography.

PAGE 44

PAGE 45

PAGE 46

PAGE 47

PAGE 48

PAGE 49

‐CHENEY STADIUM‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Cheney Stadium, once used as a practice facility for the 1996 Summer Olympics, is on a plot park planners and designers dream of. It is highly visible and placed prominently in a dense street network with high connectivity and a high number of residences not only adjacent to the park, but facing toward it. Subjectively, a couple of improvements that could be made could include removal of the perimeter fence to allow for greater access and implementation of a more diverse set of space types in the park. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received a passing Overall Park Grade of 126 out of 172 and, per criteria of this study, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 50

PAGE 51

PAGE 52

PAGE 53

PAGE 54

PAGE 55

‐CHOSEWOOD PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Chosewood Park is a great neighborhood park; a gathering place for many for organized and unorganized recreation. Although there is not a great deal of residences immediately adjacent to the park, many are in the neighborhood. Only two entrances exist though; one of which seemingly added for a small number of residences on one adjacent street. The neighborhood, homes, and community are subjectively beautiful and comfortable. The park, hard to find. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ In order to make the park easier to find and see, it is suggested that new streets be added to provide new access points and two new entrances to the park. Much like the case of Benteen Park, it is suggested that a piece of land at the northern edge of the park be used to place new residences that would face the park, allowing eyes to be on the land and providing a community feel. In addition, the expected addition of the BeltLine transit and multi‐use trail system would provide the community with a greater activity zone in the walkable vicinity.

PAGE 56

PAGE 57

PAGE 58

PAGE 59

PAGE 60

PAGE 61

‐DANIEL STANTON PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Freshly renovated, Daniel Stanton is a beautiful park with numerous uses. It has one main entrance and two secondary entry points, one of which added in recent years as part of the renovation. Well‐used and enjoyable, the park has low visibility, but decent connectivity on its northern side. With the old railroad tracks along its southern edge, and daunting topography, the park is cut off from access to the south, where mostly industrial uses lie. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ With knowledge of the impending implementation of the Atlanta BeltLine along the southern edge of the park, Daniel Stanton Park is poised well to have much higher visibility to many that go by on foot and bicycle, and eventually transit. This will also provide for an addition of a couple new logical entry points for the park. It is also suggested that adjacent industrial land be repurposed for residential use in order to provide a higher number of park users at the front door of the park.

PAGE 62

PAGE 63

PAGE 64

PAGE 65

PAGE 66

PAGE 67

‐FOUR CORNERS PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Four Corners Park is placed in a gridded network of local residential streets. Its connectivity is great to its north, less so to its south in the industrial area made up of collector streets in a more dendritic pattern. Its visibility is good with the sides fully open on two sides and its location upon a hill. The recreation center provides a welcomed space for children to play as the outdoor space provides a walkable respite for adults. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received a passing Overall Park Grade of 97 out of 172 and, per criteria of this study, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 68

PAGE 69

PAGE 70

PAGE 71

PAGE 72

PAGE 73

‐GEORGIA‐HILL CENTER‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Georgia‐Hill Center, host to the Georgia Hill Community Center and library, is built for community‐ building. The center also offers a playground space for the neighborhood’s children. The park, laid in a dense gridded street network, has great connectivity and visibility from all sides. The gridded pattern reaches through residential streets in all directions, just a few blocks away from the much larger Grant Park. Subjectively, the approach from all sides seems enjoyable, being shaded with sidewalk access. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received a passing Overall Park Grade of 138 out of 172 and, per criteria of this study, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 74

PAGE 75

PAGE 76

PAGE 77

PAGE 78

PAGE 79

‐GRANT PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Grant Park, home to the Atlanta Zoo and Atlanta Cyclorama is the fourth‐largest park in Atlanta. Atlanta’s oldest existing city park, a pleasant and peaceful Olmsted Brothers design, rests amidst a tight grid of residential streets. Its sheer size, with its sides open to street frontage, allows for great visibility, while the far‐reaching network of gridded streets allows for great connectivity to a great number of nearby homes. The number of amenities and varied types of spaces make the space enjoyable while the experience along the street serves well to enhance the approach. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received a passing Overall Park Grade of 131 out of 172 and, per criteria of this study, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 80

PAGE 81

PAGE 82

PAGE 83

PAGE 84

PAGE 85

‐HERITAGE PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Small, but beautiful. It doesn’t take much to make a centerpiece to a neighborhood and Heritage Park is proof of that. Heritage Park, at 0.67 acres is clearly meant for the surrounding neighbors to enjoy, not the public passing by on nearby I‐20 or I‐75/I‐85. The park and its small memorial and green space provide a nice respite for those nearby in the dense network of residences. The park has a prominent position across from existing parking for the current Braves stadium and deserves to be protected as new development will be moving in in the near future. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received a passing Overall Park Grade of 113 out of 172 and, per criteria of this study, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 86

PAGE 87

PAGE 88

PAGE 89

PAGE 90

PAGE 91

‐KIMPSON PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Every neighborhood needs a park like Kimpson Park. It’s as simple as a park can be. The park consists of a few benches, and lawn and a few saplings. It stands as a hidden gem, a surprising find, among rows of residential streets. Through great connectivity of adjacent streets, and unique placement, the park allows for a great number of nearby residents to have a park to walk to where they previously did not. Its size may not be overwhelming, but its value in its community‐building potential and social capital is larger than its acreage. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received a passing Overall Park Grade of 93 out of 172 and, per criteria of this study, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 92

PAGE 93

PAGE 94

PAGE 95

PAGE 96

PAGE 97

‐OAK KNOLL PARK I‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Oak Knoll Park I is a conservation park for the City of Atlanta, providing much‐needed ecological services. The land is easily accessible from its western side, but less so from its east side, as it rests along an industrial‐use dendritic patterned street network. The land is beautiful, but because it is hidden and densely forested, has low visibility. The park serves its purpose well and is a strong piece to a great neighborhood. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received an Overall Park Grade of 81 out of 172, not a passing grade, but due to its use as a Conservation Park, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 98

PAGE 99

PAGE 100

PAGE 101

PAGE 102

PAGE 103

‐OAK KNOLL PARK II‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Oak Knoll Park II, much like Oak Knoll Park I is a conservation park a mere five lots away from its sister park. The land has been set aside and serves its purpose well. Although smaller than Oak Knoll Park I, it ranks a little higher on visibility, and subjectively so because a street divides it, lending to a higher number of people possibly being able to see it more often. Like Oak Knoll Park I, it is well‐connected by streets on its western side, but not on its eastern side. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received an Overall Park Grade of 76 out of 172, not a passing grade, but due to its use as a Conservation Park, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 104

PAGE 105

PAGE 106

PAGE 107

PAGE 108

PAGE 109

‐ORMOND‐GRANT PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Ormond‐Grant Park is an asset to its community. It is a great space for passive recreation for the citizens in the neighborhood, and offers a great space for children to play at the playground. The park has a strong community presence, notably with signage for the Friends of Ormond‐Grant Park group. It is fairly visible, being open view from three sides, and easy to access for many through a dense network of highly connected streets. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received a passing Overall Park Grade of 108 out of 172 and, per criteria of this study, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 110

PAGE 111

PAGE 112

PAGE 113

PAGE 114

PAGE 115

‐PHOENIX II PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Phoenix II Park is a highly visible and highly accessible park. It has a wide variety of uses, both passive and active, including fields and courts for baseball, basketball, and tennis, as well as pavilions and a playground. The park is seemingly well‐used and taken care of. Its Calibrated Service Grade is low, but the park does well to make up for that through its size and street frontage. As with multiple other parks nearby, Phoenix II Park is highly accessible due to its placement in a gridded street network. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received a passing Overall Park Grade of 113 out of 172 and, per criteria of this study, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 116

PAGE 117

PAGE 118

PAGE 119

PAGE 120

PAGE 121

‐PHOENIX III PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Phoenix III Park has the heart of a true urban park. The lively art that stands front and center in the lawn of the park sets it apart from others around. The park is highly visible along a main corridor, as well as along its other three sides. It is not a large park, but serves its community well as a walkable urban park. Its accessibility is driven by sidewalk access along comfortable and connected streets. Rather than being simply a leftover open space, the park’s design gives a sense of community pride. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received a passing Overall Park Grade of 125 out of 172 and, per criteria of this study, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 122

PAGE 123

PAGE 124

PAGE 125

PAGE 126

PAGE 127

‐REBEL VALLEY PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Rebel Valley Park, at 1.37 acres, is a fairly small park with a lot more to offer than it is currently providing. The park has a number of uses, both active and passive, but because of its placement and lack of street frontage, is not especially visible. The park is tucked away at the convergence of two streams with its short amount of street frontage along its northern edge. Due to an inability to easily cross the streams, the park is currently cut off from a direct connection to the south. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ It is suggested that the City take advantage of the streams and look into the possibility of a greenway addition along the trail, opening up access to many through new routes previously unused. In addition, there looks to be a great opportunity to connect adjacent streets across the convergence of the streams to provide a grand entrance to the park at its southern end.

PAGE 128

PAGE 129

PAGE 130

PAGE 131

PAGE 132

PAGE 133

‐SOUTH ATLANTA PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ South Atlanta Park has been placed very well, directly next to three different schools. The 5.53 acre park is host to both active and passive uses. It has relatively little street frontage, but multiple logical entry points. These entry points provide for extensive connectivity into the surrounding neighborhood, which is largely made up of gridded residential streets, allowing for access by many along comfortable shaded streets with sidewalks. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ This park received a passing Overall Park Grade of 95 out of 172 and, per criteria of this study, escapes suggested prescriptive physical urban design moves.

PAGE 134

PAGE 135

PAGE 136

PAGE 137

PAGE 138

PAGE 139

‐SOUTH BEND PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ South Bend Park, at 65.22 acres, is the second largest park in this study. It is host to many uses, active and passive. It is a great place for baseball, basketball, tennis, a picnic, a family reunion under the large pavilion, or a bike ride along the multi‐use trail. The park’s visibility is decent due to its size, but percentage‐wise, not particularly impressive. It has great connectivity to many possible users mostly to its north and east due to multiple entrances and highly connected streets. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ In order to further enhance the visibility of the park and connectivity to and around the park, it is suggested that a few measures be taken. First of all, the possibility of a greenway could be assessed through and around the park as two streams flow through the park. Pieces of the multi‐use trail existing in the park already partially serve this purpose. Also it is suggested that streets and associated residences be added to the southern side of the park in order to provide better connectivity and a greater number of local park users.

PAGE 140

PAGE 141

PAGE 142

PAGE 143

PAGE 144

PAGE 145

‐THOMASVILLE PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Thomasville Park is the third largest park in this study at 16.81 acres. It subjectively seems to be highly used and well‐loved by the neighborhood’s citizens. It is full of opportunity, however, to better support the community. It has relatively low street frontage by percentage, and offers a fairly low level of connectivity, especially to residents. The best street connectivity lies to the south of the park, whereas a more dendritic street pattern lies to the north of the park. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ It is suggested that an existing baseball field be incorporated into the park boundaries. This addition will allow a park extension to the street to the north of the park. This new street frontage could be in addition to the added street frontage provided by placing new streets along the edges of the proposed parkland. It is also suggested that these new streets connect to an existing cul‐de‐sac to the southeast of the park to provide for connectivity to an existing residential neighborhood while new residences would be placed along the new streets. In effect, two new entrances would be added to the existing parkland, while two more would be added to the new parkland.

PAGE 146

PAGE 147

PAGE 148

PAGE 149

PAGE 150

PAGE 151

‐TULLWATER PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Tullwater Park, subjectively, is absolutely beautiful. The land is slightly sloping with a dense canopy to shade citizens from the hot summer sun. It is a great place to relax, and it placed well with a school directly next door. The park, however, could use better visibility and connectivity. With one main entrance, and only a few parcels facing the park, it has low visibility to the community. In addition, the street network surrounding the park is fairly loose, and reaches relatively few residents within a comfortable walking distance. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ It is suggested that the parkland be added on to so that it reaches north and northeast to the adjacent street, which would offer one or two new logical entry points. In addition, a road could easily be cut in along the western side of Tullwater Park to better connect adjacent streets north and south of the park. These lands to the north and south could then be dotted with new homes. The land to the south is already seeing such redevelopment, and the parcel to the north seems to have previously had a residential use.

PAGE 152

PAGE 153

PAGE 154

PAGE 155

PAGE 156

PAGE 157

‐WOODLAND GARDEN PARK‐ ‐CONDITION‐ Woodland Garden Park, subjectively, is a spectacular little spot for the local community. The park is comfortable, relaxing, and a great spot to bring the kids for a break at the playground. It is a great place to get away from the sun. At 0.40 acres, it is the second smallest park in this study. Due to its size, it received a poor Visibility Grade, but its Calibrated Service Grade shows that this is simply because of its size. The street network immediately surrounding the park is highly connected, but quickly becomes more dendritic. ‐SUGGESTED PRESCRIPTIVE MOVES‐ Due to its small size, few options, and decent Overall Score, only two suggestions have been made for Woodland Garden Park. First of all, a sidewalk running immediately south of the park would go a long way to provide for better connectivity for pedestrians in the neighborhood. Also, the addition of the future BeltLine project will surely positively affect the park and its visibility by passersby.

PAGE 158

PAGE 159

PAGE 160

PAGE 161

PAGE 162

PAGE 163

Atlanta Parks and Urbanism‐ Conclusion

This research expresses a wide variety of situations and conditions for the parks of Council

District One in Atlanta, Georgia. With half of the parks given a Passing Grade, and half falling short, it may be fair to say that half of the parks have been initially been placed and designed well for connectivity and visibility. This, in most cases, can be seen as proactive park placement. Today we may take the information gathered in this study as reactionary to existing conditions, but we may still offer proactive solutions for the future of our park system. Where deficiencies exist, opportunities do as well.

Through the progress of continuous research into various parks, trends in situational

inefficiencies in need of attention tend to appear. Many may immediately and inherently see large parks as more valuable than small parks, but it is important to keep in mind that small parks serve different purposes than their larger counterparts and are needed just the same. It is, however, important that, no matter what the size of the park, the public can easily and often see and visit the park. Therefore, where low visibility and connectivity reign, we see need for change. Low visibility is often caused by a low percentage of street frontage along the park’s perimeter, a low number of parcels, especially residential, along the park, a low quantity of streets along the public right‐of‐way at the edge of the park, and a low number of formal entrances to the park. This is all to say that it is important that as many people as possible see the park often, and are fully aware of its existence. Low connectivity, on the other hand, is caused by inefficiencies in a street network surrounding a particular park. The measure of total length of streets within a ½ mile walkable network as well as this length divided by the acreage of said network is very telling of the street connectivity. Other ways to see this low street connectivity include a notably low average distance between intersections or average number of parcels per intersection. Of course, the goal of connectivity, for the purposes of the network around a park, is to reach people more than streets themselves, so we also note inefficiencies where one may find low numbers of parcels, residents, intersections, jobs, bus stops, and schools within the ½ mile walkable network. Finally, we may note deficiencies where subjective, although often agreed upon, measures are low which may keep the public from enjoying the experience along adjacent routes. These measures include high vehicular speeds, little to no on‐street parking, little to no sidewalk accessibility, and little to no shade cover.

Seven different strategies for remediation to possible deficiencies were used as options in this

study for the parks which were deemed to be in need of such aid. The first option goes back to our previously mentioned possibilities at the most basic level. This is the addition of parkland. Additional

PAGE 165

parkland can be used to either place a new park in a prime location, or simply add to an existing park where the addition may better set it up for a greater physical position in the community. In the same vein, the second option offered is the possible addition of new residential land immediately adjacent to a park. This option would bring the community to the park, rather than bringing the park to the community. It is important that there be a close connection between the two, and that there remain eyes on the park as often as possible. Strategically placed new roads, sidewalks, transit, and greenways can do wonders in providing for both better connectivity in a community surrounding a park, possibly directly linking parks, and better visibility along the perimeter or through existing or proposed parks. Finally, the seventh type of recommendation used in this study is the addition of park entrances to existing parks. This cost‐effective method can be, when used with calculated planning, one of the most functionally significant moves in providing for better visibility and connectivity to a park. See the chart below for strategies used in the eight parks given physical urban design move recommendations.

New Greenway

New Transit

New Sidewalks

New Roads

New Park Entry Points

New Parkland

New Residential

URBAN DESIGN MOVE RECOMMENDATIONS

Benteen Pa rk Chos ewood Pa rk Da ni el Sta nton Pa rk Rebel Va l l ey Pa rk South Bend Pa rk Thoma s vi l l e Pa rk Tul l wa ter Pa rk

Woodl a nd Ga rden Pa rk

It is of great importance that we remember the five previously mentioned main characteristics of a successful park: high visibility, high connectivity, an enjoyable experience along the approach, a positive experience of the park and unique sense of place, and evidence of on‐going maintenance, care, and policing. While the first three, the foci of this study, can be addressed through tangible, physical prescriptive urban design moves, as shown through the recommendations offered, the last two characteristics of a park can be addressed in other ways. In order to better provide for our community

PAGE 166

and its parks and park systems, we can aim to enhance the essence of our community through means outside of physical construction. In order to increase welcomed activity in local parks by way of a positive experience in the parks and unique sense of place we may move to increase programmed events, a tactic which Garvin et al. claim “increases potential users’ awareness of and interest in the park, increases overall use of the park, and can help to create the kind of community gathering places that can have other social ramifications in building stronger neighborhoods.”74 We may also encourage higher levels of crime prevention, including both police and neighborhood watches. Oscar Newman expounds on Jane Jacobs’ idea of having “eyes on the street,”75 in his Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City, saying that our urban environments should be structured “…so that they can again become livable and controlled not by police but by a community of people sharing a common terrain.”76

Parks and their associated standard for urbanism stand together as the centerpieces of the

public realm and have been and will continue to be the foundation on which we build our cities. City builders and designers alike need to pay attention, now more than ever, to the exponential effects of wise park planning and street network planning. The task of building a complete and well‐connected park system is a noble one and will provide for the quality of life that we know all citizens deserve. In some situations, bold and memorable urban design moves are necessary in order to rectify poorly planned conditions. However, there is no reason for alarm. There are many economical routes that the City of Atlanta and other government entities may use in order to capitalize on opportunities to improve their parks and urban design standards. We must always remember to leverage what already exists and creatively reimagine existing conditions. Smaller moves, in which the City can wisely and efficiently allocate its funds, could include streetscape projects, introductions of new park entrances, and changes to zoning codes in order to allow welcomed development. In some cases, tactical urbanism may even be used in order to temporarily envision a physical implementation of the community’s future. It is of the utmost importance that we use the knowledge that we have at hand and take lessons learned to heart as we move to offer improved urban systems for our citizens.

Changing social trends, efforts to increase city health in the forms of social, physical,

environmental, and economic health, and provisions for a high quality of life implore us to pay strict 74

Garvin, Alexander, Gayle Berens, and Christopher B. Leinberger. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington, D.C.: ULI, Urban Land Institute, 1997. Print. 75 Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. [New York]: Random House, 1961. Print. 76 Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City. London: Architectural, 1973. Print.

PAGE 167

attention to the value of parks and associated urbanism today. An influx of urbanites into the City of Atlanta, as well as many other cities, and the needs their lifestyles demand call for planning and implementation of responsible solutions to the conditions we face today. As our lessons from District One apply to all of Atlanta, so too do they apply to communities and cities all over the state, region, country, and world as a whole. It is imperative that we act on opportunities at hand to improve the quality of life of all of the citizens of the City of Atlanta and elsewhere at scales both large and small. As Frederick Law Olmsted, the driving force behind the American park phenomenon, remarked, “…wealth cannot purchase lost opportunity.”77

Cleveland, H. W. S. Suggestions for a System of Parks and Parkways for the City of Minneapolis. Minneapolis: Johnson, Smith, and Harrison, 1883. Print.

PAGE 168

Bibliography American Planning Association. "Characteristics and Guidelines of Great Public Spaces." Characteristics and Guidelines of Great Public Spaces. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 June 2013. <http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/spaces/characteristics.htm>. Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission. Open Land/ Regional Problems and Opportunities. Atlanta: n.p., 1964. Print. Bacon, Edmund N. Design of Cities. New York: Viking, 1967. Print. Bernadó, Jordi, Ramon Prat, and Rem Koolhaas. Atlanta. Barcelona: Actar, 1995. Print. Bluestone, Daniel M. Constructing Chicago. New Haven: Yale UP, 1991. Print. Bohl, Charles C. Place Making: Developing Town Centers, Main Streets, and Urban Villages. 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 2008. Print. Brand, Stewart. Whole Earth Discipline: Why Dense Cities, Nuclear Power, Transgenic Crops, Restored Wildlands and Geoengineering Are Necessary. New York: Penguin, 2010. Print. Calthorpe, Peter. Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change. Washington, DC: Island, 2011. Print. Carmona, Matthew, Steve Tiesdell, Tim Heath, and Taner Oc. Public Places, Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design. Oxford: Architectural, 2003. Print. Cherry, Nathan, and Kurt Nagle. Grid/Street/Place: Essential Elements of Sustainable Urban Districts. Chicago: American Planning Association Planners, 2009. Print. City of Atlanta, Georgia. "City of Atlanta, GA : Home." City of Atlanta, GA : Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2013. <http://www.atlantaga.gov/>. City of Atlanta, Georgia. "City of Atlanta Summary of Park Amenities." N.p., 2013. Web. 5 June 2013. <http://www.atlantaga.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=936>. City of Atlanta, Georgia. "Mayor Kasim Reed ‐ State of the City 2012." City of Atlanta, GA. N.p., 19 Jan. 2012. Web. 27 June 2013. <http://www.atlantaga.gov/index.aspx?page=803>. City of Atlanta‐ Office of Parks. "History of the Department of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Affairs." City of Atlanta, GA :. N.p., 2013. Web. 5 June 2013. <http://www.atlantaga.gov/index.aspx?page=256>. City of Atlanta‐ Office of Parks. "List of Parks, Alphabetical." City of Atlanta, GA :. N.p., 2013. Web. 5 June 2013. <http://www.atlantaga.gov/index.aspx?page=258>. Cleveland, H. W. S. Suggestions for a System of Parks and Parkways for the City of Minneapolis. Minneapolis: Johnson, Smith, and Harrison, 1883. Print. "Congress for the New Urbanism – Charter Award – 2003 | Glenwood Park." Congress for the New Urbanism – Charter Award 2003 | Glenwood Park. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2013. <http://www.glenwoodpark.com/info/13858>. Cranz, Galen. The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1982. Print.

PAGE 169

Crompton, John L. Impact Of Parks & Open Spaces On Property Values. Rep. N.p.: Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences‐ Texas A&M University, 2007. Print. Department of Environment, Transport & Regions, and Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment. By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice. Rep. London: DETR, 2000. Print. Dobbins, Michael. Urban Design and People. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009. Print. Dunham‐Jones, Ellen, and June Williamson. Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs. 2nd ed. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2011. Print. Dunham‐Jones, Ellen. "Urban Design Theory and Practice: Challenges in North America." ARCH 6151: Theories of Urban Design Week 14 Class. Georgia Institute of Technology‐ Architecture West, Atlanta, Georgia. 20 Nov. 2012. Lecture. Fox, Tom. Urban Open Space: An Investment That Pays : A Monograph Series. New York: Neighborhood Open Space Coalition, 1990. Print. Francis, Mark. Urban Open Space: Designing for User Needs. Washington: Island, 2003. Print. French, Jere Stuart. Urban Green: City Parks of the Western World. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Pub., 1973. Print. Garvin, Alexander, and Ronda Brands. Public Parks: The Key to Livable Communities. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2011. Print. Garvin, Alexander, Gayle Berens, and Christopher B. Leinberger. Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington, D.C.: ULI, Urban Land Institute, 1997. Print. Georgia Conservancy. "Georgia Conservancy ‐ Overview." Georgia Conservancy ‐ Overview. N.p., 2013. Web. 25 May 2013. <http://www.georgiaconservancy.org/about‐us/overview.html>. Half‐Mile Circles. "Are We There Yet? Parks Are Part Of The Answer." Reconnecting America. N.p., 9 July 2013. Web. 10 July 2013. <http://reconnectingamerica.org/news‐center/half‐mile‐circles/2013/are‐we‐there‐yet‐parks‐are‐part‐of‐the answer/?utm_source=feedburner>. Hammer, T. R., R. E. Coughlin, and E. T. Horn. "The Effect of a Large Urban Park on Real Estate Value." Journal of the American Institute of Planners 40.4 (1974): 274‐77. Web. Harnik, Peter. Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Washington, DC: Island, 2010. Print. Institute of Transporatation Engineers, and Congress for the New Urbanism. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Rep. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010. Print. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. New Haven: Yale UP, 1984. Print. Jackson, Richard J. "The Impact of the Built Environment on Health: An Emerging Field." American Journal of Public Health 93.9 (2003): 1382‐384. Print. Jacobs, Allan B., Elizabeth Macdonald, and Yodan Rofé. The Boulevard Book: History, Evolution, Design of Multiway Boulevards. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2002. Print. Jacobs, Allan B. Great Streets. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1993. Print.

PAGE 170

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. [New York]: Random House, 1961. Print. Krier, Léon, and Demetri Porphyrios. Houses, Palaces, Cities. London: Architectural Design AD Editions, 1984. Print. Lorinc, John. "Atlanta BeltLine Gets Financial Boost." WABE 90.1 FM. N.p., 3 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Sept. 2013. <http://wabe.org/post/atlantabeltline‐gets‐financial‐boost>. Loukaitou‐Sideris, Anastasia, and Tridib Banerjee. Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of Form. Berkeley: University of California, 1998. Print. Marshall, Stephen. Streets & Patterns. London: Spon, 2005. Print. Matson, Theodore M., and Wilbur Smith. Traffic Engineering. New York: McGraw‐Hill, 1955. Print. McHarg, Ian L. Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Published for the American Museum of Natural History [by] the Natural History, 1969. Print. Miller, Andrew R. Valuing Open Space: Land Economics and Neighborhood Parks. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001. Cambridge: MIT, 2001. Print. Moughtin, Cliff. Urban Design: Street and Square. Oxford: Butterworth Architecture, 1992. Print. Mumford, Lewis. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961. Print. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. "Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Nov. 1999. Web. 5 June 2013. <http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/summ.htm>. Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space: People and Design in the Violent City. London: Architectural, 1973. Print. Nicholls, Sarah, Ph.D. "Measuring the Impact of Parks on Property Values." Massachusetts Land Trust Coalition, n.d. Web. 10 July 2013. <http://www.massland.org/files/MeasuringImpactParksonPropertyValues.pdf>. Olmsted, Frederick Law. Letter to William Dorsheimer, Esq. (October 1, 1868), Papers of FLP, sup. Ser., 1:158. Olmsted, Frederick Law. Civilizing American Cities: A Selection of Frederick Law Olmsted's Writings on City Landscapes. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1971. Print. Price, Maribeth. Mastering ArcGIS. 5th ed. Dubuque, IA: McGraw‐Hill, 2012. Print. Project for Public Spaces. "What Makes a Successful Place?" Project for Public Spaces. N.p., 30 Dec. 2009. Web. 15 June 2013. <http://www.pps.org/reference/grplacefeat/>. Rybczynski, Witold. City Life: Urban Expectations in a New World. New York: Scribner, 1995. Print. Saporta, Maria. "Atlanta Improves Its ‘ParkScore’ Rank, but Still in Bottom Half of U.S. Cities." SaportaReport. N.p., 5 June 2013. Web. 5 June 2013. <http://saportareport.com/blog/2013/06/atlanta‐improves‐in‐national‐parkscore‐rating‐but‐still in‐bottom‐half‐of‐u‐s‐cities/>.

PAGE 171

Saporta, Maria. "City of Atlanta Ranks 26th out of Top 40 Cities in Trust for Public Land’s Inaugural Park Rating System." SaportaReport. N.p., 23 June 2012. Web. 5 June 2013. <http://saportareport.com/blog/2012/05/city‐of‐atlanta‐ranks 26th‐out‐of‐top‐40‐cities‐in‐trust‐for‐public‐lands‐inaugural‐park‐rating‐system/>. Schiller JS, Lucas JW, Peregoy JA. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2011. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 10(256). 2012. Southworth, Michael, and Eran Ben‐Joseph. Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. New York: McGraw‐Hill, 1997. Print. Stein, Clarence S. Toward New Towns for America. [Liverpool]: University of Liverpool; Agents for the Western Hemisphere: Public Administration Service, Chicago, 1951. Print. The Trust for Public Land. "City Profiles: Atlanta, GA." ParkScore. N.p., 2013. Web. 5 June 2013. <http://parkscore.tpl.org/city.php?city=Atlanta>. The Trust for Public Land. "City Profiles: Atlanta, GA." ParkScore. N.p., 2014. Web. 3 June 2014. <http://parkscore.tpl.org/city.php?city=Atlanta>. The Trust for Public Land. "Methodology." ParkScore. The Trust for Public Land, 2013. Web. 27 May 2013. <http://parkscore.tpl.org/methodology.php>. The Trust for Public Land. "Mission & History." Celebrating 40 Years of Conserving Land for People. The Trust for Public Land, 2013. Web. 27 May 2013. <http://www.tpl.org/about/mission/>. The Trust for Public Land. "ParkScore." ParkScore. N.p., 2013. Web. 5 June 2013. <http://parkscore.tpl.org/>. U.S.Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies. "OnTheMap." OnTheMap. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 May 2013. <http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/>. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020. N.p., 2013. Web. 12 June 2013. <http://www.healthypeople.gov/implementation/nrpa>. Whyte, William Hollingsworth. City: Rediscovering the Center. New York: Doubleday, 1988. Print. Young, Terence G. . Building San Francisco's Parks 1850‐1930. Baltimore: J. Hopkins UP, 2004. Print.

PAGE 172