Comparing Three Elevated Parks—The High Line, 606, and High Bridge

sustainability Article What Park Visitors Survey Tells Us: Comparing Three Elevated Parks—The High Line, 606, and High Bridge Jisoo Sim 1,* , Cermetrius Lynell Bohannon 1 and Patrick Miller 1 Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA; [email protected] (C.L.B.); [email protected] (P.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-540-449-5143 Received: 3 November 2019; Accepted: 10 December 2019; Published: 22 December 2019 Abstract: Many cities have replaced abandoned transportation infrastructure with an elevated park to gain increased economic benefits by developing old fabric. By following this trend, most studies to this point have only focused on the economic rewards from the replacement rather than its uses in the real world. This study aims to understand how park visitors use elevated parks through a park visitors’ survey. The authors selected three representative elevated parks—the High Line in New York City, the 606 in Chicago, and the High Bridge in Farmville—for the study and asked visitors about their activities, perceived benefits, and satisfaction. Results indicate that the 606, a mixed-use elevated park, allows visitors to engage in high-intensity activity, the High Line as an elevated urban park provides visitors public arts and gardens, and the High Bridge as an elevated green park provided visitors with a connection to unique natural scenery. This study, as the first to compare three different elevated parks, contributes to an understanding of who uses elevated parks and how they use elevated parks. Keywords: elevated park; park visitor survey; High Line; 606; Bloomingdale Trail; High Bridge 1. Introduction Due to the changes in modes of transportation [1,2] and the phenomena of shrinking cities [3,4], transportation infrastructure in many places have become obsolete and are becoming brownfields [5]. Recently, several cities, such as New York City, Chicago, and Seoul, have replaced abandoned transportation infrastructure with a park to serve the recreation needs of the citizens. After the High Line, built on an abandoned railroad, was seen to have achieved significant economic returns [6–9], dozens of cities completed or proposed to replace abandoned transportation infrastructure with parks in the US [10] and around the globe. While replacing old infrastructure with a park has become a trend, there is still a need for research on how this should be done. Most studies about parks built over or on transportation infrastructure have only focused on the economic impacts to adjacent areas [11–15]. Cities use these conversions from transportation infrastructure to a park as a tool for urban regeneration. Studies on recent projects such as the Big-dig in Boston [16,17], the High Line in New York [7,18], and the Cheonggyecheon restoration project in Seoul, Korea [12,19], have attempted to determine the economic benefits of these new parks, mainly focused on tax revenues and property value. Based on these economic studies, many cities are now looking to develop elevated parks. However, these previous studies did not specify who visits elevated parks, how the parks are used, and user satisfaction with elevated parks. This study investigates three different elevated parks and compares visitor activities, perceived benefits, and perceived satisfaction. The objective of this study is to (1) identify elevated park visitor characteristics, (2) illustrate differences between three different types of elevated parks, and (3) provide design implications for future elevated parks. To answer these questions, the authors selected three Sustainability 2020, 12, 121; doi:10.3390/su12010121 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 17 Sustainability 2020, 12, 121 2 of 16 design implications for future elevated parks. To answer these questions, the authors selected three elevatedelevated parks parks that that represented represented three three types types of of elevated elevated parks parks and and conduct conducteded an an on on-site-site survey survey to to determinedetermine who who are are park park visi visitorstors and their behavior. The The authors authors have have examine examinedd the the relationship relationship betweenbetween activities, activities, perceived perceived benefits, benefits, and perceived satisfaction. 2.2. Emerging Emerging an an Elevated Elevated Park Park 2.1.2.1. Elevated Elevated Park Park TTherehere are are several several terms terms to to describe describe anan elevated elevated park park such such as aas skywalk, a skywalk, skyway, skyway, sky garden, sky garden, and skyand park. sky park. This study This study defines defines an elevated an elevated park parkbased based on its on conceptual its conceptual origin, origin, physical physical attributes, attributes, and functionsand functions (Figure (Figure 1). Conceptually,1). Conceptually, an anelevated elevated park park as asa agreen green corridor corridor th thatat links links destinations. Greenways,Greenways, large large system systemss for for connecting connecting parks parks [20 [20––22]22],, are are also also sometimes sometimes referred referred to to as as thin thin parks parks oror thick thick edge edge-spaces-spaces to to connect connect dominantly urban urban contexts [23] [23].. Connectivity Connectivity is is also also an an important important characteristiccharacteristic of of elevated elevated parks. parks. This This comes comes from from the the fact fact that that connectivity connectivity is a isbasic a basic function function of the of transportationthe transportation infrastructure infrastructure being being replaced. replaced. Connectivity Connectivity is the degree is the degreeto which to an which elevated an elevated park is connectpark ised connected to various to domains various domainsin a city. inTwo a city.important Twoimportant physical attributes physical of attributes an eleva ofted an park elevated are a liparknear areform a linearand an form elevated and level an elevated. In terms level. of linear In terms spaces of in linear urban spaces areas, inKullmann urban areas, (2011) Kullmann explains elevated(2011) explains parks as elevated a by-product parks asof aa by-productplethora of ofcultural a plethora processes of cultural such processesas changing such transportation as changing modestransportation from railways modes to from freeways. railways In term to freeways.s of function, In terms an elevated of function, park an serves elevated as a parkconduit serves for asthe a physicalconduit foractivity the physical of neighborhoods, activity of neighborhoods,such as with trails, such which as with allow trails, visitors which to access allow visitorslocal landscapes to access [2local4] and landscapes promote [24 physical] and promote exercise physical [25]. Based exercise on [25these]. Based conceptual on these origins, conceptual this origins,study defines this study an elevateddefines anpark elevated as an open park space as an that open connects space thatmultiple connects areas multiple of a city areasor neighborhood of a city or neighborhoodthat was built abovethat was the builtground above level, the which ground facilitates level, which physical facilitates and social physical activities, and social and provides activities, environmental and provides services.environmental services. FigureFigure 1. 1. ConceptualConceptual diagram diagram of of an an elevated elevated park park.. TheThe construction construction of of e elevatedlevated parks parks on on abandoned abandoned railways railways or or freeways freeways serves serves several several purposes purposes.. First,First, developingdeveloping aa park park on on a vacant a vacant field field such assuch an oldas an railway old railway can save can maintenance save maintenance costs abandoned costs abandonedinfrastructure, infrastructure as well as the, as costswell toas purchasing the costs to land purchasing parks in otherland locations.parks in other It is estimated locations. that It is it estimatedwould take that over it would $170 billion take over USD $170 to restore billion the USD condition to restore of thethe UScondition transportation of the US system transportation [26]. This systemis hard [2 to6]. justify This is when hard the to justify per capita when vehicle the per miles capita traveled vehicle has miles declined traveled over has the declined last decade over [the27]. lastRenting decade unused [27]. Renting transportation unused sites transportation for the long sites term for is the one long way term to save is one costs. way Also, to save the purchasecosts. Also, of theparcels purchase for parks of parcels in city for centers parks isin very city centers expensive. is very Finally, expensive replacing. Finally the, transportationreplacing the tran infrastructuresportation infrastructurewith an elevated with park an elevated can trigger park economic can trigger vitality economic in adjacent vitality areas. in adjacent Many studiesareas. Many have verifiedstudies havethe economic verified benefitsthe economic to urban benefits areas thatto urban can be area accrueds that by can promoting be accrued tourism, by promoting increasing tourism property, increasingvalues, and property generating values increased, and generating tax revenues. increased This has tax occurred revenues with. This the has Big-dig occurred inBoston with the [16 Big,17-], digthe in Highline Boston in[16,17] New, Yorkthe Highline [7,18], and in New the Cheonggyecheon

Load more