Report Measures the State of Parks in Brooklyn

P a g e | 1 Table of Contents Introduction Page 2 Methodology Page 2 Park Breakdown Page 5 Multiple/No Community District Jurisdictions Page 5 Brooklyn Community District 1 Page 6 Brooklyn Community District 2 Page 12 Brooklyn Community District 3 Page 18 Brooklyn Community District 4 Page 23 Brooklyn Community District 5 Page 26 Brooklyn Community District 6 Page 30 Brooklyn Community District 7 Page 34 Brooklyn Community District 8 Page 36 Brooklyn Community District 9 Page 38 Brooklyn Community District 10 Page 39 Brooklyn Community District 11 Page 42 Brooklyn Community District 12 Page 43 Brooklyn Community District 13 Page 45 Brooklyn Community District 14 Page 49 Brooklyn Community District 15 Page 50 Brooklyn Community District 16 Page 53 Brooklyn Community District 17 Page 57 Brooklyn Community District 18 Page 59 Assessment Outcomes Page 62 Summary Recommendations Page 63 Appendix 1: Survey Questions Page 64 P a g e | 2 Introduction There are 877 parks in Brooklyn, of varying sizes and amenities. This report measures the state of parks in Brooklyn. There are many different kinds of parks — active, passive, and pocket — and this report focuses on active parks that have a mix of amenities and uses. It is important for Brooklynites to have a pleasant park in their neighborhood to enjoy open space, meet their neighbors, play, and relax. While park equity is integral to creating One Brooklyn — a place where all residents can enjoy outdoor recreation and relaxation — fulfilling the vision of community parks first depends on measuring our current state of parks. This report will be used as a tool to guide my parks capital allocations and recommendations to the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks), as well as to identify recommendations to improve advocacy for parks at the community and grassroots level in order to improve neighborhoods across the borough. Methodology Baseline criteria The baseline criteria measured was developed through conversations with parks advocates, as well as existing research on parks, to establish what my administration believe to be a “more complete” park. The five criterions measured were: Access to fresh water for consumption (e.g. drinking fountains) Existence of a friends-of group, a nonprofit partner organization or programming within the park Access to a comfort station on the park premises Existence of Wi-Fi within the park Support for a multitude of uses within the park (e.g. two or more active uses) Many stakeholders agreed that comfort stations and drinking fountains were essential to ensuring that parks were accessible to all members of the community, especially for children, parents, and seniors who might have to cut their trip to the park short without these resources. In addition, research by New Yorkers for Parks and The Trust for Public Land both measured activities such as basketball hoops, dog parks, and playgrounds because they viewed those resources as basic park amenities.1,2 Wi-Fi was included as a baseline criteria because people demand internet connectivity in their public spaces along with the fact that people like to share the experiences they are having online in the hope that it will encourage others to explore their local parks.3 In addition, expanding access to Wi-Fi to all Brooklynites is a core goal of mine and we should leverage public spaces to achieve this goal. Including the measurement of friends-of groups, or a nonprofit partner organization formally affiliated with the park, was considered as a baseline criteria due to the reality that NYC Parks operates on a limited budget. Spread across all the parks in the city, this has resulted in many park facilities and infrastructure requiring additional resources for regular maintenance and beautification. In many instances, a friends-of groups or 1 The Trust for Public Land (2016). Methodology. Retrieved from parkscore.tpl.org/methodology.php 2 New Yorkers for Parks (2015). City Council district profiles:2015. Retrieved from .ny4p.org/research/ccd-profiles 3 Plautz, J (2014, November 3). Do national parks need Wi-Fi to stay relevant? Mashable. Retrieved from mashable.com/2014/11/03/national-parks-wifi/#YqFnHLEXOuqp P a g e | 3 nonprofit partner organization step in to complement existing funding efforts, serve as advocates for parks, foster community, organize volunteer cleanups, and ensure that parks run efficiently.4 Programming was measured as a criterion to also capture those parks that have institutional support if they did not have a friends-of group or nonprofit partner organization. What parks were measured? The 270 parks that were surveyed are all located in Brooklyn and are more than one-half acre in size. The size requirement was selected to ensure that the survey was capturing data around more active parks in the borough. Active parks are usually larger and host activities and programming. Passive parks usually have fewer amenities, allowing visitors to have a quiet place to relax.5 The one-half acre benchmark was used in order to filter out smaller passive parks and to ensure as close to an equitable comparison as possible. How was the information gathered? The information for the friends-of groups was gathered from the New Yorkers for Parks City Council District Profiles, as well as through conversations with Partnership for Parks and the United States Forest Service STEW-MAP database. The information on parks’ programming was taken from the friends-of groups’ Facebook pages and websites. Additional programming information was researched from NYC Parks’ events page. Research about existing basketball courts, comfort stations, dog-friendly parks, playgrounds, and Wi-Fi was also collected by reviewing data on NYC Parks’ website. The list of Brooklyn parks that have drinking fountains was provided by NYC Parks staff. In addition, legal fellows at the Office of the Brooklyn Borough President reviewed data sets to ensure accuracy in reporting. Finally, staff and volunteers at the Office of the Brooklyn Borough President visited each park to ‘ground truth’ the research by conducting a sight survey. (Appendix 1.) How were the parks evaluated? In order to highlight the results of the analysis, my administration created a color-coded leaf system, with parks able to amass a total of six leaves with each leaf color indicating a specific criteria being measured (see below). A park that has a friends-of group, nonprofit partner organization or park programming counts for one leaf. If parks have both a friends-of group and identifiable parks programming, the leaf is split green and orange. If the park has just a friends-of group, that park would receive a solid green leaf. If the park only has identifiable programming, then it is a solid orange leaf. If a park has Wi-Fi, it receives a silver leaf. If a park has comfort stations, it receives a red leaf. Uses of parks are broken down into courts/fields, dog-friendly parks, and playgrounds. If a park has one out of the three uses, it receives half a yellow leaf. If the park accommodates at least two of the uses, it receives a whole yellow leaf. If a park 4Harnkik, P and Marin, A (2015, February). Public space/private money: The triumps and pitfalls of urban park conservancies. Retrieved from tpl.org/sites/default/files/files_upload/ccpe-Parks-Conservancy-Report.pdf 5 Windsor Castle Park (n.d.). People are talking about “passive” vs. “active” park features. What exactly does that mean? Retrieved from windsorcastlepark.com/question-3.html P a g e | 4 has a drinking fountain, it receives a blue leaf. While many of the parks offer additional amenities, this survey looked to identify basic amenities of active parks. Key: = Drinking Fountain = Friends-of Group = Friends-of Group and Programming = Programming = Comfort Station = Wi-Fi = Two or more active uses = One active use Summary Analysis Results Results from the survey provided numerous takeaways on the state of parks and the need for more equitable attention. Notwithstanding parks that fall in overlapping community district designations or in no community district at all, an average of only 27 percent of parks were affiliated with a non-profit or formal community group. On average, 89 percent of parks had access to a drinking fountain, while 60 percent of parks housed a comfort station. Only 12 percent of parks on average had access to publicly available Wi-Fi, but 81 percent of parks had more than one active uses within their borders. P a g e | 5 Park Breakdown Multiple Community District Jurisdictions Brooklyn Bridge Park – 2 and 6 Brooklyn Bridge Park is located in Brooklyn Heights, which has a median household income of $107,969.6 The park is 85 acres and dog-friendly, and contains basketball courts, comfort stations, drinking fountains, a nonprofit partner organization, playgrounds, and Wi-Fi, as well as hosts a variety of programming. Leif Ericson Drive – 10, 11, 13, and 15 Leif Ericson Drive borders the Belt Parkway. The park is 760.43 acres and is dog-friendly, and contains drinking fountains and a playground. No Community District Jurisdiction Bartel-Pritchard Square Bartel-Pritchard Square is located in South Slope, which has a median household income of $90,010. The park is 1.711 acres, and has programming, which includes a Greenmarket farmers market. Mount Prospect Park Mount Prospect Park is located in Prospect Heights, which has a median household income of $89,917. The park is 7.79 acres and dog-friendly, and contains comfort stations, a drinking fountain, and a playground. 6 Median Household Income 2016. city-data.com P a g e | 6 Prospect Park Prospect Park borders the neighborhoods of Park Slope, Prospect Lefferts Garden, Prospect Park South, and Windsor Terrace.

Load more