DOCSLIB.ORG

Minneapolis Parks: Separate but Unequal?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Minneapolis Parks: Separate but Unequal? Minneapolis Parks: Separate but Unequal? THE CREATION & AMPLIFICATION OF INEQUITY IN MINNEAPOLIS URBAN OPEN SPACES BY CORY LEEMON – 3/18/19 Acknowledgements I would like to thank those who made this project possible. I would like to thank my academic advisor and primary review committee member James LaGro, as well as my secondary committee member Samuel Dennis. I am also appreciative of the Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture for the opportunity to present this project to an interdisciplinary audience of planners and landscape architects. This report satisfies part of the Professional Project requirement for the Master’s of Science in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Minneapolis Parks: Separate but Unequal? Page 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. Page 4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... Page 5 Understanding the Problem .............................................................................. Page 6 Topics of Discussion ........................................................................................... Page 6 Research Methodology ...................................................................................................... Page 7 Empirical Data on Park Benefits ........................................................................ Page 7 Rationalizing ‘Unequal Access’ .......................................................................... Page 7 Conflict Resolution ............................................................................................ Page 7 Benefits of Parks & Open Spaces .................................................................................... Page 8 Physical .............................................................................................................. Page 8 Psychological ..................................................................................................... Page 9 Creating Inequity in Minneapolis Parks ........................................................................ Page 10 Design-Side ........................................................................................................ Page 10 Funding .............................................................................................................. Page 13 Representation .................................................................................................. Page 14 City Remediation Efforts .................................................................................................... Page 16 Equity in Representation ................................................................................... Page 16 Reallocated Funding .......................................................................................... Page 16 Cultural Events ................................................................................................... Page 17 Closing Statements .............................................................................................................. Page 18 Citations .................................................................................................................................. Page 19 Articles, Webpages, and Studies ....................................................................... Page 19 Photos ................................................................................................................ Page 21 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ Page 22 Appendix A.1 – MPRB Commissioner Districts Map .......................................... Page 22 Appendix A.2 – MPRB Commissioner District 3 Map ........................................ Page 23 Appendix B – Minneapolis ParkScore Rating ..................................................... Page 24 Minneapolis Parks: Separate but Unequal? Page 3 Executive Summary This report will examine equal access opportunities for minority groups in parks of the Minneapolis metropolitan area. Due to the contentious nature of Minneapolis’s park system over the past years, it became an intriguing topic that would benefit from further study. The thesis for this research prompt will follow how the built environment may encourage unequal opportunities for minority groups in the Minneapolis park system. Additionally the research will detail how and why certain minority groups may be more impacted than others. Simply put, this report is focused on how the built environment of parks may cause unequal access for minority groups in Minneapolis. The goal of the report will firstly be to outline how parks may be beneficial, thereby firmly establishing why all people should have access to parks. Secondly, the report will examine the ways in which Minneapolis as a city may be creating inequity either through the built environment, administration, or community connectivity. Final outcomes will then be assessed via how Minneapolis has responded to these shortcomings. Minneapolis Parks: Separate but Unequal? Page 4 Introduction The Twin-Cities metropolitan area is informally regarded as a vibrant cultural center. It acts as a Midwestern urban hub that brings together a wide range of people from a multitude of different backgrounds. The parks of Minneapolis in particular garner special attention because of their quality and quantity, and they have been regularly placed as the number one park system on the Trust for Public Land’s 10 highest-ranking park systems in the United States.1 Ranked City ParkScore (Max: 100) 1. Minneapolis, MN 84.2 2. Saint Paul, MN 82.4 3. Washington, DC 81.9 4. Arlington, VA 81.6 5. San Francisco, CA 79.6 6. Portland, OR 78.3 7. Cincinnati, OH 78.2 8. Chicago, IL 76.1 9. New York, NY 74.8 10. Irvine, CA 73.4 Figure 1: The top-rated parks in the United States according to the Trust for Public Land.2 The ParkScore rating system considers several factors in determining a park’s score, including: • Total acreage of the park system. • Amenities. • Access to parks, sorted both demographically and overall. These factors are considered, and then weighted against one another to determine an average final score. For Minneapolis to rank the highest of all park systems in the United States is no small accomplishment, and demonstrates a high degree of quality in the park system as a whole. In spite of such praise, the parks of Minneapolis have some problems that lie just beneath the surface. The parks system enjoyed for its quality has come under scrutiny in recent years for remaining exclusive to certain groups of people, wherein many minority groups feel marginalized by actions taken by the city and the park board. 1 “Minneapolis Repeats as Nation’s Best Park System.” Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. 2 “City Rankings 2018.” ParkScore, The Trust for Public Land, 2018. Minneapolis Parks: Separate but Unequal? Page 5 Understanding the Problem Before a detailed analysis of the Minneapolis park system may occur, it becomes necessary to understand how and why Minneapolis parks may be perceived as inequitable. Is the problem with the Minneapolis park system systematic? Do the parks rely upon a system of regional planning that encourages unequal opportunity of access for minority groups, or a set of design standards that limit some from gaining access to parks at all? Was the City directly attempting to create inequity? Or perhaps the issue is more nuanced, a cause that may be more complex in its origin. Was it caused through an honest mistake, or some form of administrative oversight? An outsider perspective indicates an unclear understanding of what the exact issue with Minneapolis’s parks may be; this study aims to bring clarity to the issue. Topics of Discussion With this understanding in mind, it becomes necessary to analyze a targeted set of questions to understand the full extent of the problem Minneapolis and its parks face. The questions are directed towards developing a critical understanding of the issue: • If unequal park access is indeed a major concern, why are parks so important for physical health and social cohesion? • How can an unequal allocation of policies and resources manifest itself in a racially exclusive park system, and how may this affect the physical environment of a park and its surrounding areas? • How is Minneapolis acting to resolve this conflict? All of these questions will be answered in order to better understand the issue at the heart of Minneapolis’s parks. Minneapolis Parks: Separate but Unequal? Page 6 Research Methodology To ensure validity and professionalism during this analysis, a slew of research materials will be used to assist in their solutions. Empirical Data on Park Benefits Assessment of park benefits shall occur through the use of professional research papers and field work, where the data itself is gathered from several different teams attempting to analyze the benefits of parks and open spaces. The use of research papers will act as an empirical aid to the importance of parks. Many are published in well-established scholarly journals such as Landscape and Urban Planning and Social Science and Medicine. Rationalizing ‘Unequal Access’ Examination of the inequalities present in the park system can be taken from online newspaper articles, where the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MILL RUINS PARK RESEARCH STUDY Expansion of The
    MILL RUINS PARK RESEARCH STUDY Expansion of the Waterpower Canal (1885) and Rebuilding of Tailrace Canals (1887-1892) Prepared for Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 3800 Bryant Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409-1029 Prepared by Hess, Roise and Company, Historical Consultants Marjorie Pearson, Ph.D., Principal Investigator Penny A. Petersen Nathan Weaver Olson The Foster House, 100 North First Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 With curriculum program by Dawn Peterson Ann Ericson May 2003 Expansion of the Waterpower Canal (1885) and Rebuilding of Tailrace Canals (1887-1892) The Construction of the Expanded Waterpower Canal and Rebuilding of the Tailrace Canals By the mid-1880s, the increasing number of mills and the demand for waterpower was jeopardizing the availability of that power, particularly as the height and flow of the Mississippi fluctuated from season to season. In 1883, the Minneapolis Mill Company hired William de la Barre as an engineer and agent for the waterpower works. A number of the mills had installed auxiliary steam engines to supplement the waterpower. Meanwhile De la Barre proposed to solve the waterpower problem by increasing the head and fall available. Working on the West Side canal (Minnesota Historical Society) According to Kane, “De la Barre undertook to deepen the canal and lower the tailraces under his jurisdiction, while the millers promised to lower their wheel pits, tailraces, and headraces. Before the year ended, De la Barre had deepened the canal from 14 to 20 feet and lengthened it from 600 to 950 feet. The expansion increased its flowage capacity from 30 to 40 per cent and raised the water level to produce more power by bring water to the lessees’ wheels at a greater head.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation on the Minneapolis Riverfront
    RAPIDS, REINS, RAILS: TRANSPORTATION ON THE MINNEAPOLIS RIVERFRONT Mississippi River near Stone Arch Bridge, July 1, 1925 Minnesota Historical Society Collections Prepared by Prepared for The Saint Anthony Falls Marjorie Pearson, Ph.D. Heritage Board Principal Investigator Minnesota Historical Society Penny A. Petersen 704 South Second Street Researcher Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Hess, Roise and Company 100 North First Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 May 2009 612-338-1987 Table of Contents PROJECT BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 1 RAPID, REINS, RAILS: A SUMMARY OF RIVERFRONT TRANSPORTATION ......................................... 3 THE RAPIDS: WATER TRANSPORTATION BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS .............................................. 8 THE REINS: ANIMAL-POWERED TRANSPORTATION BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS ............................ 25 THE RAILS: RAILROADS BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS ..................................................................... 42 The Early Period of Railroads—1850 to 1880 ......................................................................... 42 The First Railroad: the Saint Paul and Pacific ...................................................................... 44 Minnesota Central, later the Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railroad (CM and StP), also called The Milwaukee Road .......................................................................................... 55 Minneapolis and Saint Louis Railway .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Winter/Spring 2020 Northeast/Southeast Service Area
    Activity Guide January - May 2020 Northeast/Southeast Service Area Audubon • Bottineau • Logan • Luxton • Northeast Van Cleve • Waite • Windom Northeast School Release Days: All recreation centers are open noon-9pm: Jan 2-3, Jan 17, Directory Jan 20, Feb 17-18, Mar 27, Mar 30-Apr 3. All recreation centers are closed: Jan 1, May 25. Recreation Centers Building Hours January 1 - June 5 Northeast/Southeast Service Area Audubon Recreation Center Manager 1320 29th Avenue NE, Minneapolis, MN 55418 Monday-Thursday, 3-9 pm 612-370-4910 Friday, 3-6 pm Jerry Peterson [email protected] [email protected] Mitch Waukau 612-499-9306 Bottineau Recreation Center Drop into our Recreation Centers 2000 2nd Street NE, Minneapolis, MN 55418 Monday-Friday, 3-9 pm The Park Board offers drop-in activities or 612-370-4958 Saturday, 9 am-4 pm ActivePass Programs for visitors to [email protected] socialize, have fun on their own schedule. Joe Hazuka Find an activity to suit your style – ping- pong, foosball, games in the gym, board Logan Recreation Center games and much more! Most programs 690 13th Avenue NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413 Monday-Friday, 3-9 pm offered daily, year-round; hours subject to 612-370-4927 Saturday, 9 am-4 pm change. Ask Recreation Center staff about [email protected] drop-in programs offered. Ryan Flanders Recreation Centers Community gathering spaces Luxton Recreation Center 112 Williams Avenue SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414 Monday-Friday, 3-9 pm •Computer labs, gyms, craft rooms, 612-370-4925 Saturday, 9 am-4 pm meeting rooms and community kitchens [email protected] Steve Zimmer •Room rental available for meetings, banquets and birthday parties; for more Northeast Recreation Center information see page 4 1530 Johnson St NE, Minneapolis, MN 55413 Monday-Friday, 3-9 pm MPRB Commissioners Saturday, 9 am-4 pm 612-370-4920 City of Minneapolis voters elect nine Sunday, 12-5 pm [email protected] commissioners every four years: one from Heidi Miller each of the six park districts, and three that serve at-large.
    [Show full text]
  • MILL RUINS PARK RESEARCH STUDY West Side Waterpower
    MILL RUINS PARK RESEARCH STUDY West Side Waterpower Canal Era (1857-1858) Prepared for Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 3800 Bryant Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409-1029 Prepared by Hess, Roise and Company, Historical Consultants Marjorie Pearson, Ph.D., Principal Investigator Penny A. Petersen Nathan Weaver Olson The Foster House, 100 North First Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 With curriculum program by Dawn Peterson Ann Ericson May 2003 West Side Waterpower Canal Era (1857-1858) The Construction of the West Side Waterpower Canal When construction began on the West Side Waterpower Canal in 1857, Minneapolis, on the west bank of the Mississippi River, had been legally opened to settlement only two years earlier. The village of Saint Anthony on the east bank was a separate entity. While Charles Christmas, under the aegis of John Stevens, had laid out the streets of the new village, only about one hundred buildings had been constructed, and these were scattered close to the riverfront. By 1857 the population was calculated at 2,000, an increase of 1,800 in two years.1 Saint Anthony Falls as seen by the early settlers (Minnesota Historical Society) The leaders of the new municipality knew that future prosperity lay in harnessing the power of Saint Anthony Falls. The most expeditious way to do that was to dig a canal adjacent to the falls on the west bank, divert some of the water from the river and the falls to the canal, then run the water from the canal through turbines connected to main line shafts that could power the adjacent Cataract Flour Mill and nearby sawmills.
    [Show full text]
  • A-Mill Artist Lofts Hydroelectric Project Environmental Assessment
    A-MILL ARTIST LOFTS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC No. 14628) MINNEAPOLIS LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES IV, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for MINNEAPOLIS LEASED HOUSING ASSOCIATES IV, Limited Partnership Minneapolis, Minnesota Prepared by: HDR ENGINEERING March 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Application ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of Action and Need for Power ............................................................................ 2 1.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements .......................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Federal Power Act..................................................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................ 4 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act ........................................................................................... 4 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ................................................................................. 5 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ........................................................................... 5 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 7 2.1 No-action Alternative ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minneapolis Public Works Department Minneapolis Park & Recreation
    NPDES MS4 Phase I Permit No. MN0061018 Annual Report for 2014 Activities City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board, Co-Permittees Prepared by: Minneapolis Public Works Department in conjunction with Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board July 31, 2015 NPDES MS4 PHASE I PERMIT ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2014 ACTIVITIES Acknowledgements Public Works-Surface Water & Sewers Paul Chellsen Lane Christianson Kevin Danen Lois Eberhart Paul Hudalla Kelly Moriarity Matt Stonich Jeremy Strehlo John Studtmann Dick Thornbloom Karl Westermeyer Public Works - Transportation Maintenance & Repair Steve Collin Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Rachael Crabb Michael Perniel Debra Pilger MaryLynn Pulscher Health Department - Environmental Services Tom Frame Patrick Hanlon Regulatory Services Steve Kennedy Source: Minneapolis Public Works – Surface Water and Sewers ii Table of Contents Cover Page ...................................................................................................................................................... Signature Page ............................................................................................................................................... Certification and Resolution 2015R-303…………………………………………………………………... Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation Document Overview, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, Minnesota
    R u m G 35 re a t R R i iv v e RAMSEY e r r R o a d 880 North US 10 Wayside Riverside NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Park 10 C oo 0 5 Kilometers n Creek Mississippi West Regional Park 0 5 Miles Cloquet 875 Mississippi River Community Park City, county, and state parks City park Lock and dam Visitor Canoe access Overlook information Park within Mississippi National River and Recreation Area are partners helping visitors Boat launch County park 845 River milepost Marina iver experience the Mississippi R Donie Galloway Park ANOKA River. Akin Riverside Park Peninsula Point Two Rivers Historical Park State managed Mississippi National DAYTON Mississippi River and Recreation Point Park Area authorized Foundation Document Overview boundary 870 M i s COON RAPIDS s is w CHAMPLIN s ro ip C p Mississippi National River and Recreation Area i Coon Rapids Dam Rush Creek 169 Regional Park (Anoka Co.) Coon Rapids Dam Overlook 610 Missouri 1 Coon Rapids Dam 94 865 10 Regional Park 35W (Three Rivers Park District) R i v e 252 r BROOKLYN PARK Riverview Heights Park River Park 10 35E Manomin Park MINNESOTA FRIDLEY WISCONISN 694 Islands of Peace Park White Bear Lake 494 BROOKLYN CENTER 860 694 Vadnais Lake Anoka County North Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park Regional Park 35W MINNESOTA Marshall Terrace Park Upstream limit of 9 foot navigation channel Gluek Park er iv R Boom Island 94 35E 694 Riverboat tours and public boat dock MAPLEWOOD w lo il W Central Mississippi Riverfront Regional Park Upper St.
    [Show full text]
  • Business Directory
    Business Directory 7 Steakhouse & Sushi 700 Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: 612.238.7777 Fax: 612-746.1607 Website: http://7mpls.net/ We will provide a truly memorable dining experience through serving fresh, innovative, healthy foods using only the finest ingredients paired with professional and friendly service. Seven Steakhouse embodies the classic American steakhouse with a renewed elegance. Guests delight in our careful selection of choice steak, fresh seafood, and the near intimidating selection of wine from our two-story cellar. Seven Sushi is well known for imaginative creations as well as classic favorites, contemporary sushi with new wave Asian inspired dishes. With a modern warm atmosphere, Seven is perfect for special occasions, business affairs, or just a night out. 8th Street Grill 800 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612.349.5717 Fax: 612.349.5727 Website: www.8thstreetgrillmn.com Lunch and dinner served daily. Full bar, patio seating and free Wi-Fi available to guests. Kitchen open until 1:00am Monday through Saturday and 10:00pm Sundays. Breakfast served Saturday and Sunday mornings. Above The Falls Sports 120 North 3rd Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612.825.8983 Fax: 612.822.5352 Website: www.abovethefallssports.com Mississippi Adventures with ATFS Group Kayak Tours. Daytime, evening, night time, luncheon, supper and fireworks options available. Don't miss this opportunity to experience Mark Twain's Mississippi River, one of the world's great waterways! Paddling the river you'll take away a whole new perspective of Minneapolis, its natural and historical significance. Wonderful way to learn about the City by Nature! AC Hotel by Marriott 401 Hennepin Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • MILL RUINS PARK RESEARCH STUDY West Side Waterpower Canal Expansion
    MILL RUINS PARK RESEARCH STUDY West Side Waterpower Canal Expansion (1866-1867) Prepared for Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 3800 Bryant Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409-1029 Prepared by Hess, Roise and Company, Historical Consultants Marjorie Pearson, Ph.D., Principal Investigator Penny A. Petersen Nathan Weaver Olson The Foster House, 100 North First Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 With curriculum program by Dawn Peterson Ann Ericson May 2003 West Side Waterpower Canal Expansion (1866-1867) The Construction of the Expanded West Side Waterpower Canal The initial success of the waterpower canal led to increased demands for water power. But the canal also started eroding the falls and the riverbank itself. Consequently, the Minneapolis Mill Company embarked on two related projects in 1866. Saint Anthony Falls ca. 1865 (Charles Alfred Zimmerman, Minnesota Historical Society) Lucile Kane described the work: In 1866 it moved to halt the erosion, engaging Franklin Cook, a civil engineer, to construct over the falls in the west channel a timbered water slide, called an ‘apron.’ This inclined plane was designed to ease the river’s flow to a point below the caldron where its force would be harmless. As dozens of workmen hammered timbers into place, spectators realized that the mammoth apron would further tame the cataract.1 The impact of the work was lamented in the Saint Paul Press: “Pay your respects soon to old St. Anthony: Part of his rock sides are as dry as a drum head. Soon the heavy plunge of the amber Mississippi will be heard no more around the mills. Frank Cook and his assistant engineers will 1 Lucile M.
    [Show full text]
  • Minneapolis, Minnesota Minneapolis Waters: Elizabeth Umbanhowar Life of the City
    Minneapolis, Minnesota Minneapolis Waters: Elizabeth Umbanhowar Life of the City Lake Harriet Source: Photopixels.com “In all my life, I never saw or dreamed of so beautiful a sight as the rolling prairies. Nothing can equal the surpassing beauty of the rounded swells and the sunny hollows, the brilliant green of the grass, the number less varieties and splendid hues of multitudes of flowers. I gazed in admiration too strong for words.” (Ellen Big- elow, 1835, in Sullivan, p.14) The Minneapolis Park system has been held up as a paragon of design innovation, community involvement and administrative efficacy by users and professionals alike. In a land of 10,000 waters, Minneapolis is bejewelled with a ring of streams, rivers and over 20 lakes, including lakes Brownie, Calhoun, Cedar, Diamond, Harriet, Hiawatha, Mother, Nokomis, Sweeney, Twin, Wirth and host of smaller “puddles”. Although pres- ently faced with budget shortfalls, Minneapolis parks and open spaces continue to enjoy ongoing public support and heavy use by residents and visitors alike. Conceived in the early 1880s by a forward-thinking board of trade, the Minneapolis park system was established by legislative mandate in 1883. The Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board (MPRB) system retains much of its original character, including an independently elected park board, as well as the authority to levy taxes. As Alexan- der Garvin notes, “...Minneapolis park officials [have] more autonomy and accountabil- ity than their peers in every other big city in the country.” The first board hired Horace W.S. Cleveland, a landscape architect and protégé of city planner Frederick Law Olmsted, whose work included New York’s Prospect Park and Chicago’s South Park Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Minneapolis Riverfront History: Map and Self-Guided Tour (PDF)
    The story of Minneapolis begins at the Falls of MEET MINNEAPOLIS MAP & SELF-GUIDED TOUR St. Anthony, the only major waterfall on the VISITOR CENTER Mississippi River. Owamniyomni (the falls) has 505 Nicollet Mall, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-397-9278 • minneapolis.org been a sacred site and a gathering place for the Minneapolis Dakota people for many centuries. Beginning in Meet Minneapolis staff are available in-person or over the phone at 612-397-9278 to answer questions from visitors, the 19th century the falls attracted businessmen Riverfront share visitor maps, and help with suggestions about who used its waterpower for sawmills and flour things to do in Minneapolis and the surrounding area. mills that built the city and made it the flour The Minnesota Makers retail store features work from History more than 100 Minnesota artists. milling capital of the world from 1880-1930. The riverfront today is home to parks, residences, arts Mon–Fri 10 am–6 pm Sat 10 am–5 pm and entertainment, museums, and visitor centers. Sun 10 am–6 pm Explore the birthplace of Minneapolis with this UPPER ST. ANTHONY FALLS self-guided tour along the Mississippi River, LOCK AND DAM with stops at the Upper St. Anthony Falls 1 Portland Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55401 Lock and Dam and Mill City Museum. 651-293-0200 • nps.gov/miss/planyourvisit/uppestan.htm St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam provides panoramic 1 NICOLLET MALL - HEART OF DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS views of the lock and dam, St. Anthony Falls, and the Meet Minneapolis Visitor Center surrounding mill district.
    [Show full text]
  • Junior Ranger Program, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area
    Mississippi National River National Park Service and Recreation Area U.S. Dept. of Interior Mississippi National River and Recreation Area www.nps.gov/miss Name Age www.livetheriver.org 651-293-0200 ing! Keep Go Junior Ranger Complete all the other Junior Ranger workbooks! Program Mill Ruins Park The Mississippi River Visitor Center (in the Science Museum of Minnesota) North Mississippi Regional Park National Parks! Mill City Museum is part of a National Park called the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. Over 390 National Parks all over the United States protect areas that are important to the entire country. They keep historic buildings and fields preserved, natural areas healthy for animals and plants, and preserve and tell stories that otherwise might be forgotten. What about Mill City Museum is important to the entire country? Welcome to Mill City Museum! Welcome The fun activities in this book lead you though the free spaces of the museum and will introduce you to some of the exciting history of the Mill District of Minneapolis! Use this museum map to figure out where If you need to go to complete each activity. you need help, you can ask anyone who works at the Museum. What about the Mississippi River is important to the entire country? 17 This mill had many floors of machinery. The third floor (where you Logging! picked up this book) was the The Mississippi River’s power was used for logging ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____, in addition to milling. 3 where workers put flour into barrels and sacks.
    [Show full text]