University of Nebraska at Omaha DigitalCommons@UNO
Student Work
5-1-2000
A geographic model for urban parks and recreation facility planning: A case study of Omaha, Nebraska
Barbara Daniels University of Nebraska at Omaha
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork
Recommended Citation Daniels, Barbara, "A geographic model for urban parks and recreation facility planning: A case study of Omaha, Nebraska" (2000). Student Work. 613. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork/613
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Work by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A GEOGRAPHIC MODEL
FOR
URBAN PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITY PLANNING:
A CASE STUDY OF OMAHA, NEBRASKA
A THESIS
Presented to the
Department of Geography/Geology
And the
Faculty of the Graduate College
University of Nebraska
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
University of Nebraska at Omaha
By
Barbara Daniels
May 2000 UMI Number: EP73253
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Dlsssftation Publishing
UMI EP73253 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest'
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 THESIS ACCEPTANCE
Acceptance for the faculty of the Graduate College, University of Nebraska, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts, University of Nebraska at Omaha.
Committee
Name ^ Department
Chairperson
oY/U / / *2- QhO Date
ii ABSTRACT
Recreation resources are unevenly distributed and constantly changing in the city. In this case, the structure of parks and recreation resources in Omaha, Nebraska, are of concern. To formulate a more precise and meaningful notion of recreation supply and demand; recreation scarcity, allocation and availability were calculated from a block by block survey of Omaha’s population. Population density was used to determine the distribution of population relative to park acreage. Acres per capita within recreation service areas was considered as a rough estimate of intensity of use at park facilities. Additionally, acres of recreation land relative to acres of non-recreation land was used as a rough measure of land availability. Accessibility has been considered in terms of the distance of the population to existing park opportunities. Standard planning allocation measures were applied as yet another yardstick to measure Omaha’s supply of parks and recreation facilities to the public demand. All of this was done to answer the question “Does Omaha have enough land dedicated to parks and recreation facilities to equitably serve the citizens of Omaha?” The thesis was based on Central Place Theory with attention given to the human and environmental interaction. A geographical classification of Omaha’s parks and recreation system was developed, providing a complete inventory of the park system. Problem solving involved an interactive map layering technique which served as a visual aide offering specific details of the City. An assessment of parks and recreation facilities examined the significance of facility distribution in relation to population. The broad geographic scope of the model best serves planners who use different kinds of information simultaneously. The result is a geographic model prescribing parks and recreation facilities for Omaha. The model indicated that more land needed to be dedicated to parks and recreation facilities in order to equitably serve the population. Following the geographic model are points of concern in Omaha, Nebraska, that are also important to further research of parks and recreation facility planning in the City. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I express my most humble regards to Dr. Charles Gildersleeve and Dr. Jeff Peake for facilitating my geographic education in a manner that allowed knowledge and experience to be applied as I created my own definition of geography. They offered both depth and breadth of geographic understanding to my graduate experience. Without their approval, my understanding of the cultural-physical interface of geography would lack the necessary confidence. These f two individuals have brought balance to the master's program at UNO that satisfied intellectual curiosities, one from a cultural perspective and the other from the physical aspects of geography. Dr. Peter Suzuki's approval had been requested, for h e expressed a genuine interest in this project upon its conception in 1991. His contribution offered greater confidence in the planning model as his work with public administration is both academic and applied. Additionally, I asked Mr. David Thorndike to endorse the historical and philosophical content of my research. To ensure that the maps chosen as examples of my work are not only in keeping with professional standards, but also that their meaning can be interpreted adequately, I thank Dr. Mike Peterson for his direction as well. I would like to mention Mr. Martin Shukert for recognizing m y potential in park planning and sending me to meet Ms. Delores Silkworth, Ms. Karen Klein and Ms. Gail Knapp. They provided many opportunities to participate in the planning process, helped me throughout the internship and during the writing of this thesis. Their professional interaction made this thesis project much more valuable
v than sheer number crunching and rhetoric. Your confidence in me made all the difference in my success as a planning geographer. It is a privilege to have interacted with all the individuals I have come to know while working on the project and writing the thesis. Special thanks to my friends Collin Hollcomb, Bob Watrel, Jeff Simon and Dale Spencer who helped me visit every park in the Omaha vicinity and complete the final stages of the thesis. I’d like to thank my grandmother for her faith in me; my father for his strength and courage; my mother for teaching me patience; my sisters Bonnie and Renee for giving me hope; my brother Rick and step-son Matt for inspiring me through their success and adventures. To my sixth grade science teacher, Mr. Cowan, who said, “Anyone can make a book. It is the contents that made all the difference.” TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page ...... i Thesis Acceptance Page...... ii Abstract...... iii Acknowledgments ...... v Table Of Contents ...... vii List of Figures ...... ix
I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 The Problem...... 3 Definition of Terms ...... 5 Planning Parks and Recreation Facilities ...... 7 Literature Analysis Strategy ...... 20 Assumptions and Justifications ...... 25 The Case Study ...... 28
H. LITERATURE ANALYSIS Developing a Practical Philosophy ...... 30 A Geographic Perspective ...... 30 Spatial Interaction Studies of the City ...... 33 Quantification and Technical Literature ...... 40 A Planning Perspective ...... 46 A Recreation Perspective ...... 56 Recreation Statistics ...... 57 Recreation Philosophy ...... 58 Recreation Facility Planning ...... 60 Conclusions...... 64 m METHODOLOGY...... 66 Inventory ...... 72 Facility Requirements ...... 73 Service Radii Mapping ...... 75 Map Merging and Interactive Map Analysis ...... 77
IV. THE OMAHA CASE STUDY...... 79 Service Radii Mapping Results ...... 80 -Map Merging and Interactive Map Analysis Examples ...... 82 A Geographic Model ...... 92
V. SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS...... 105 Feasibility Considerations ...... 105 Environmental Considerations ...... 106 Maintenance Considerations ...... 108 Political Concerns ...... 109 Needs As Determined by Use ...... I l l Conclusions ...... 113 Further Research...... 116
APPENDICES...... 119 Service Radii Mapping - 1.1-16 ...... 120 Example of Population to Facility Ratios Playgrounds - 2.1-6 ...... 135 Inventory - 3-8 ...... 140 Park Lists - 3...... 140 Site Analysis - 4 ...... 145 Regional Trends - 5 ...... 148 Economic and Employment Characteristics - 6 ...... 148 1991 Budget Summary - 7 ...... 149 1995 “Acres per 1000” Prescriptions - 8 ...... 153
BffiLIOGRAPHY...... 157
viii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.2 - A Geographic Model for Parks and Recreation Facility Planning: Omaha, Nebraska ...... 21
Figure 2.1 - Christaller’s Central Place Theory Model ...... 34 2.2 - Christaller’s Application...... 35 2.3 - Burgess Model ...... 37 2.4 - Generalizations of the Internal Structure of Cities...... 38 2.5 - Location of Various Land Use in an Idealized City...... 40 2.6 - Distance Decay Effect Model ...... 43 2.7 - Human contact in space and time Model ...... 45 2.8 - Major Omaha Parks ...... 55
Figure 3.1 - Facility Planning in Central Place Theory ...... 67 3.2 - Planning Criteria ...... 67 3.3 - Planning Application of Theory ...... 67 3.4 - Combined Model of Theory for Application ...... 67 3.5 - Interactive Geographic Analysis Model...... 68 3.6 - An Applied Model of Theory ...... 69 3.7 - Playgrounds-Service Radii Mapping Example ...... 70
Figure 4.1 - Service Radii Mapping Results ...... 81 4.2 - Parks Merged with City Streets ...... 83 4.3 - Natural Resources Merged with Parks ...... 84 4.4 - Parks and Recreation Facility Plan ...... 85 4.5 - Jurisdiction Map Layers ...... 87 4.6 - Sanitary Sewers Map Layers ...... 88 4.7 - Development Criteria Merged with Natural Resource Map Layers ...... 89 4.8 - Population Merged with Parks and Natural Resource Map Layers ...... 90 4.9 - Geographic Model for Parks and Recreation Facility Planning ...... 95
Figure 5.1 - Concept of Flow ...... 117 1
Chapter I INTRODUCTION
Recreation facilities in the city of Omaha are unevenly distributed throughout the city. The spatial distribution of the population to recreation facilities is fundamental in developing an understanding of the situation in Omaha, Nebraska. A geographic model for Omaha’s parks and recreation facilities needs to be tailored to fit the comprehensive plan of the city. Previous studies used census data to estimate people to park ratios as indicators of park needs. A computer assisted map layering and merging technique can be used as a framework for future geographic modeling of the Omaha park and recreation system. The need for a clear and concise parks and recreation facility development plan which can easily be updated and used to predict needs within the system, results in a cartographically designed geographic information system. This thesis represents an evaluation of the handwork used to prepare the geographic model and the degree to which planning professionals were able to use this information as they visualize alternatives. The objectivity of this project should allow planning to create proposals with confidence as it allows for subjectivity within the city administration. Analysis of the location, spatial distribution, population characteristics and spatial relationships of various phenomena were considered as the model developed. The City was able to resolve some of the problems associated with the parks and recreation system simply by obtaining the geographic model with all the details that resulted from the project. A precedent was set, once 2
the model established equitable parks and recreation facility coverage throughout the city (City of Omaha, City Council Meeting, Spring 1992). Central Place Theory’s application in this project became evident during the cartographic process of service radii mapping. In order to help “decision makers” better understand the geography of the parks and recreation system, interactive map analysis was followed by site analysis and information synthesis. In the tradition of applied research, the geographic model was designed to be compatible with the philosophy and tools used in Omaha’s Planning Department. However, the procedure provided a standardized method of analyzing the geography of the City and planning parks and recreation facility development from an equitable perspective. In order to tighten the fit of the model to the city, population statistics need to be updated and demographics recalculated every census year. Longevity of the geographic model will contribute to the evolution of more precise parks and recreation facility need forecasting. The ideal parks and recreation facility plan must b e designed to meet the criteria of a collective decision making body concerned with federal health, safety and accessibility standards. Omaha’s geographic model is based on real population distributions and justified by projected population growth and economic feasibility. The model was not based on actual recreation participation. It was based on the established service area and carrying capacity estimates of Omaha’s parks and recreation planning personnel directives per the recommendations of the National Parks and Recreation Recovery Program in 1991. Securing traditional public 3
parks and recreation facilities for the City ahead of development is the purpose of the plan. The methods used to develop the geographic model for Omaha could be applied to any city. However, a city’s geographic model would need to be designed according to the “language of the landscape” specific to location and desired spatial interaction (Bennett 1999). Though structure of the geographic model for Omaha’s parks and recreation system provides an example for city parks and recreation planning, it is understood that the results in other cities will be unique to the location.
THE PROBLEM The demand for parks and recreation facilities and services far exceeds a city's ability to upgrade facilities according to safety standards that city parks and recreation departments are expected to follow. With a method of targeting the most critical locations for additional facilities and new parks, cities can spend tax dollars and grant money more efficiently. This process of prioritizing and targeting locations serves the greatest number of citizens for the least possible cost. Such a focus is particularly helpful when the park and recreation facility plan is incorporated into the master plan of the city. This thesis attempts to provide computer assisted mapping techniques and statistical analysis that can be updated periodically by planners between census years to keep renovations and development of public space within a more manageable time frame. Unsafe, isolated and inaccessible park facilities are a burden to the Omaha parks and recreation system. The problem was to develop a geographic model of the city’s parks and recreation system that would expose 4
discontinuities in the spatial distribution of facilities. More important was the need to expedite a progressive park planning process of upgrading facilities consistently and objectively citywide. Omaha’s need to integrate parks and recreation facility planning with other city systems is shared by other cities. It is duly noted that any time public space is divided, it is a political issue. Without proper care to assure the public that an equitable distribution of safe facilities and services will be provided, park and recreation facility planning and development can become highly charged with political and socio-economic issues. Consequently, geographic methods were considered the least offensive and most objective way to designate public open space, greenways, parks and recreation facilities within the city. Ideally, planning proposes the best case scenarios to serve people and maintain a healthy parks and recreation facility system. A well crafted model should be structured to solve the universal problem of planning parks and recreation facility development now and in the future. Any city should be able to use this methodology to expose strengths and weaknesses within their city park and recreation system. While the results may be quite different from city to city the method of modeling the geography remains the same. The idea behind the model is to narrow the gap between parks and recreation facility demand and development. The prescriptions made in this study are considered conservative estimates of the City’s growth in relation to the demand for park and recreation facilities. Planning uses the geographic model as a minimum prescription for the City’s overall park and recreation facility developments. Planning can better inform all concerned about 5
the City’s park system progress on an ongoing basis. Treated as a minimum standard of equitable opportunities for parks and recreation within the city, a geographic model could be cross- referenced with other spatial information about the city. Planning professionals can use it in many ways, when setting development priorities, to gain the necessary funding and answer specific questions about parks and recreation facilities by location. If the modeling process is completed every census year, then, the fit of the model can be made closer and closer to reality.
DEFINITION OF TERMS EQUITABLE SERVICE: Terms used by planning professionals as an optimum level of manageable parks and recreation planned throughout the city. Often referred to in terms of the people to park facility ratio of acres per 1000.
COMPARABLE QUALITY: Term referring to the facility itself and its condition in relation to other facilities within the city. Parks and recreation facilities need to offer equitable opportunities for all people.
ADEQUATELY SERVED POPULATION: Terms used by planning professionals to define the targeted ratio of people to facilities as outlined in the methodology. 6
TRADITIONAL RECREATION SERVICES: Basketball, baseball/softball, tennis, football/soccer, playgrounds, open spaces, recreation centers, and golf courses are considered standard offerings of the city of Omaha.
FLOW: A concept in recreation, recognizing the aesthetic impact or perception of particular environmental design that promotes desirable recreation responses and activities in hum ans.
PARK: There are many interpretations of what is included or excluded in a public park. However, in the case study publicly owned land was considered part of the commons. Any m ulti use open space maintained by the city for public use was considered park property.
RECREATION FACILITY: Is a public property designed for a particular sport, group of sports or set of activities. Examples include ballfields, basketball courts, community centers, swimming pools, etc. A recreation facility can stand alone on public property or be a part of a park. 7
PLANNING PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES An adequate assessment of recreation services within a city is only part of the problem facing park and recreation facilities today. Implementation of park and recreation facility plans are easily set aside when planning priorities are restricted by budget restraints. Even the best park and recreation facility plans can be postponed, sometimes indefinitely, simply because public interest takes another direction. The status of park and recreation departments within the city system often results in facilities that are maintained at minimal levels of effectiveness. A computer assisted geographic analysis of pertinent information concerning Omaha park and recreation facilities was developed using population statistics to identify locations and regions in critical need of attention. Then, a more complete geographic model classified and prioritized needs within parks and recreation systems more precisely. Older areas of the city could then be addressed on the basis of need, just as new areas of development are recognized. The creation of such a paradigm would assist management in the maintenance of park and recreation facilities and services, ultimately benefiting the people of the city. Park and recreation facilities need to provide public services according to governmental guidelines and city standards based on equitable service, population densities and geographic information. I n the 1970s and 1980s city parks and recreation departments faced severe cutbacks in funding. Parks and recreation planning professionals needed to be innovative in order to meet the growing demand for facilities and services in spite of limited funds (Richwine 8
1999). Parks and recreation systems must be recognized within city government as an important element of the planning process in order to acquire, develop and preserve open space for the future (Wicks e t al 1993). In Omaha, Nebraska, progressive-planning strategies established within the City system during the 1990s facilitated the administrative process with objective evidence of need. A geographic approach was the most objective premise for documenting the parks and recreation facilities plan. Place characteristics, population statistics and the demand for parks and recreation facilities were inventoried, analyzed and mapped while developing the geographic model. Documentation to support professional and public responsibilities to reserve land and secure accommodations for future generations was a planning priority (Iglitzin 1995). The directive was to develop a parks and recreation facility plan that would “recognize the importance of a high quality park system and the quality of life offered to its citizens” (City of Omaha, Community Development Plan, Mayor Morgan 1990). The general concept was to define a plan that connected the City’s parks by an extensive open space network which utilized existing boulevards, creeks, and other multi-purpose open space corridors to link existing and proposed parks (City of Omaha, CDP, Mayor Morgan 1990). It was understood that the system was to provide a full range of recreation options and alternatives for all the City’s residents. Developing areas were expected to contain an equivalent level of service as defined by City’s own standards or policies (City of Omaha, Parks and Recreation General Concept Handout 1992). To ensure that all people of Omaha 9
would have equal access to a full range of parks, recreation and open spaces, a set of standards for locating these services was established (Silkworth 1992). By utilizing location standards to identify services needed within an area, basic park locations were determined and the park size set to accommodate those facilities and services (Silkworth, City Master Planning Committee Meeting 1992). Existing natural features and open spaces were targeted on the basis of practicality, feasibility and location near population growth centers. It was understood that ultimately the final size, location and configuration of the park would be established by park planning professionals and other “powers that be” at the actual time of development (Klein, Silkworth, City Master Planning Committee 1992). Physical barriers such as creeks, rail lines, interstates, etc. had to be taken into consideration when determining a service area as indicated by the United States Department of Interior (USDI), National Park Service (NPS), Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPRRP) directives (August 14, 1991). Creating a functional geographic model for Omaha presented an interesting challenge to relate central place theory and define service areas through application of real criteria. The Planners’ version of Omaha’s Parks and Recreation Facility Plan is a geographic model that prescribed parks and recreation facilities and properties needed well into the new millennium. It is also an example of an early geographic information system (GIS), that was developed for a specific purpose, before computer technology was available to adequately address the issue in a form the City could actually use. Case studies indicate innovative land acquisition has the 10
potential to provide exciting opportunities for parks and recreation in the new millennium (Havitz 1995). Several recreation, physical fitness and leisure articles consider urban parks and recreation facilities centers of public activity that need to be managed and maintained for economic reasons (Richwine 1999). As public property, open space managed by parks and recreation department could be considered a park in transition until facilities become feasible. Using park property as “zones of transition” (Burgess in Gould 1985) is a zoning strategy contemporary urban planning literature discusses (Levy 1991). In terms of location, parks and recreation facilities established between work and home encourage routine participation that is in keeping with modem urban recreation lifestyles (Meyers 1995). Flexibility in zoning would allow parks to be “buffer zones” (Shafer 1999) between less compatible land uses or “floating zones” that can change with demand (Platt 1991). In term s of timing, a park property, could be an open space one-day, then a playground with open space, a basketball court or ballfield could be added. Then, depending on the public interest and the facts to substantiate development any facility could be added, given enough space (O’Sullivan 1991). Traditional public recreation facilities in Omaha include open spaces with park benches, picnic tables and shelter houses, playgrounds, basketball and/or tennis courts. Some parks have baseball and softball fields. Larger parks with swimming pools and golf courses require higher maintenance and population densities (City of Omaha, Omaha Master Plan 1992). Newer facilities include soccer fields and community centers built due to recent recreation 11
demand. Recreators have increased participation at community centers that offer activities for the whole family (Silkworth 1999). Opportunities in these facilities can vary from an indoor track, exercise, aerobics, dance and weight training facilities, racketball and basketball courts, to indoor swimming pools with water toys, slides and leisure pools. Most community centers offer meeting rooms scheduled for everything from arts and crafts to family reunions (Foster 1999). Public recreation activities like football, gymnastics and even conventional outdoor swimming pools lost public funding during the 1970s and 1980s (Foster 1999). This is probably due to high liabilities and changes in recreation demand (Foster 1999). The demand for public recreation football has given way to other competitive activities like soccer and volleyball (Recreation Executive Report (RER) 1999). While some recreation activities like hockey and ice skating are expensive to maintain, sponsors and public participation are making the difference in feasibility (RER 1999). Typically, facilities that require a large population to support operations are considered a special opportunity, above and beyond the traditional responsibilities of public parks and recreation. Unless special interest groups and sponsors are abundant enough to finance operations and maintenance costs, these facilities are not developed or adequately maintained (McMahon 1999). At the same time, exercise and fitness programs require very little assistance to be self-perpetuating recreation activities. Still, historically in Omaha sidewalks were often forgotten. Trails and bikeways are even newer innovations (Untermann 1997). Human 12
powered mobility is becoming a greater concern in planning accessible and equitable facilities (Hultsman 1998). As attempts are made to ensure that every segment of the population is properly served, transportion systems are including trails and bikeway plans (Taaffe 1996). Linear parks with trails and green spaces are making use of “eco-logic” and receiving financial support of the federal government through programs like “Rails to Trails” and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) grants (McMahon 1997). Federal funding is including stipulations defining special treatment of “the commons” (Iglitzin 1995). The perpetually changing dynamics of urban demographics require an equally dynamic solution to the prediction of locations suitable for parks and recreation facility planning and development. National Parks and Recreation publications indicate that a balanced park and recreation system provides optimal recreation opportunities which are more self-sufficient, increase in value over time, and operate with fewer liabilities to the municipality (Richwine 1999). This concern of parks and recreation department personnel was understood throughout the course of the project. Feasibility is always an issue, especially in older and lower socio-economic areas with high population concentrations, which have limited space for facilities. At this time, the Committee on Resources, Conservation and Reinvestment is attempting to amend the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARRP), through the United States Congress that would allow them to enhance recreation opportunities as part of a strategic plan to rehabilitate fifty percent of the recreation facilities in these areas of the City that need 13
improvement to meet public health, safety and accessibility standards (March 9, 1999). Unfortunately, long-term or lifetime maintenance of proposed facilities are not getting the same attention. Maintenance standards remain outdated in the literature (NRPA 1986). Following a complete inventory and repeated park site evaluations, maintenance was considered a major problem for Omaha’s park system. For this reason, recommendations were based on minimum requirements for a facility or park designation. For example, a facility could meet spatial requirements because no other facilities of that type existed in the area. However, unless the population growth center near the location met the minimum requirement of two-thirds or sixty-six percent (Silkworth, Klein 1992) of the target population threshold, the facility was not recommended in the geographic model. Both location and population densities became fundamental in prescribing a park or facility. This is where thresholds and carrying capacity were significant (McMahon 1997). Low use presents as much problem as overcrowded or overused facilities. In either case, poor maintenance was a problem (Foster 1999). Stressed recreation facilities seldom provide optimal leisure experiences. For this reason, forecasting usage and predicting growth continues to be a planning concern. Again, while every city has at least one park that showcases a unique natural feature and offers traditional recreation opportunities, cities the size of Omaha need to maintain all their facilities in an equitable manner (Richwine 1999). Guidelines for targeting optimal levels of participation at a given facility were just that: guidelines or 14
vague boundaries. There were no hard, fast, concrete answers for maintenance either. At this time, there are no standard methods of measurement within Federal Agencies analyzing the enhancement of recreation opportunities (USDI 1991, 1998, 1999). Planners have to be aware of the broader ecology of a community (Kaplan 1998). According to comprehensive leisure resource planning literature, “The physical, social and economic aspects of community life must b e viewed as a total organism inseparable from any one aspect of community development” (Bannon 1976). Additionally, federal standards for park and recreation facility safety are on the rise (Hendy 1999). Cities can not afford to build sub-standard public facilities (Allan 1998). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prohibits structure development in high risk flood hazard areas (So 1988). Federal funding is beset with special conditions and stipulations that are set to keep safety and environmental quality in check. FEMA’s directive into the year 2000 is to prevent repetitive losses from environmental hazards (So 1991, FEMA 1999). As new safety regulations come to pass, more explicit detail is added to standards for new facilities, especially playgrounds (Caesar 1999). So many regulations have changed over the last decade that even professionally designed park and recreation facilities developed within the last ten years are now obsolete or even illegal (Caesar 1999). Additional special directives are attached to any funding a city receives (UPARRP 1999). Facilities developed under a particular grant must meet rising safety standards and equal opportunity requirements outlined in the grant (USDI 1991; NPS 1999). If park and recreation departments are expected to keep pace 15
with rising safety standards, an objective, accurate and effective method of analysis must be in effect. The federal, state and local provision of funds for parks and recreation facilities are tied to the demographics of the city. Demographics often justify the need for parks and recreation facilities. According to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, federal and state funds are allocated on the basis of need. Yet, there is no standard to measure quality or quantity of recreation opportunities within these funding agencies (UPARRP 1999). The city’s ability to establish a strong justification for development of certain kinds of park and recreation facilities is important. However, the criteria for establishing a sphere of influence for each park and recreation facility remain interpretive (UPARRP 1999). Interpretation of the guidelines provided for cities becomes the responsibility of city planning personnel. The 1990 Census Data and population densities determined the foundation for the facility plan presented to the Omaha Master Plan Committee. Since the City adopted the plan, planning procedures have been based on the information presented to them in 1992 defining equitable parks and recreation facility coverage. Prior to this time, an academically formalized application for the park and recreation facility planning process had never been devised to standardize park prescriptions for the City. Only recently has consideration extended beyond the ratio of population to park and recreation facilities to include development in terms of environmental impact on the area (McMahon 1997). Though much time is spent preparing proposals for parks and 16
recreation development, only the best plans, illustrating the greatest need, demonstrating economic feasibility and long-term benefits are funded (Silkworth, Klein 1992, 1999). Still after all this planning, playgrounds built to be compliant with the health, safety and accessibility standards; meeting all the necessary guidelines; and proven economically feasible can be unsuccessful because the design has little or no play value (Hendy 1999). Planning in Omaha is needed to embrace the idea of flow to ensure a safe and playful environment in parks and recreation facilities, especially playgrounds. For this reason, playground information was selected as an example to be used throughout the thesis. Though Nebraska is not necessarily considered a “green state”, Omaha’s planning strategies are building livable communities with an appreciation for “greenlogic” (Isaak 1999). A geographic model began with a few key principles set by the City’s representatives. Through a geographic solution, a fuller appreciation of the park and recreation facilities by site and situation resulted in a synthesis that could prescribe parks and recreation facilities with confidence. Connectivity to other phenomena was considered important to maintaining quality facilities and services. The broad geographic scope of this project offered a more fully developed understanding of the problem as each element was analyzed. For example, physical geography of the region influences the availability of outdoor opportunities. Waterways, greenspaces, open space and linear parks are generally accepted as public domain because flood hazard areas have to be managed anyway. They might as well be dotted with recreation facilities near population centers, in residential 17
neighborhoods or between commercial and residential areas that fit into the time-space constructs urbanites live within (Gould 1985). It just makes good sense. Small parks in isolation, separated from population centers, are the most expensive to maintain because of crime and undesirable uses. A three-acre park minimum was set in Omaha during the course of the park and recreation planning committee meetings in 1991. Ten to twelve acre parks with sidewalks and trails leading to other facilities and city activities near population centers were favored (Silkworth 1992, 1999). In addition to place characteristics, a distinct human-environmental interaction that affects development within the park system was recognized (Bennett 1997). Connectivity in and among parks and recreation facilities with facilities designed for people, discouraged crime and undesirable uses (Silkworth, Klein 1992). Understanding Omaha as a dynamic system provided the insight for comprehending its totality. Strengths and weaknesses within its unique park and recreation environment were recognized as elements of a system within a system. City representatives concerned with parks and planning provided the information necessary to create a geographic model that could be applied to any city. The model was designed specifically to help Omaha’s park and recreation facility planning professionals address weaknesses in the system in a timely fashion. It also allows them to answer questions raised by decision-makers concerning the demand for parks and facilities more spontaneously (Silkworth 1999). The structure of the model could be applied to practically any spatial phenomena with a service area and a target population threshold. We 1 8
know that desirable urban park and recreation opportunities need to serve a given population according to the city’s demographic character and unique physical features (Silkworth 1999). Planning needs to be prepared for city growth because open spaces diminish quickly in developing areas and are difficult to acquire in older areas of the city (Gerckens 1998). City planning has a responsibility to the public to ensure that space for the parks and recreation facilities is available. Progressive planning strategies are needed to reserve central locations for parks and recreation facilities before public spaces become obsolete in areas that are developing now. We need only to look at the spatial distribution of existing facilities and population statistics to recognize the uneven distributions of facilities and services that represent served, under-served and unserved populations within the city (Figure 4.1 and Appendix 1.1-15). In locations with high population densities in older areas of the city, parks and facility service areas are heavily overlapping. Some facilities cannot be developed in densely populated areas where they are needed, simply because there is no space. For this reason facilities, neighborhood parks, community parks and district parks were designated to ensure the space would be available in the future. Recreation trends suggest that urban lifestyles will continue to demand not only traditional public recreation opportunities, but also additional recreation facilities and services (RER 1999). Urban lifestyles are also expected to continue to utilize recreation opportunities that fit into the daily routine between home and the workplace (National Parks and Conservation Association 1988, American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration in 19
cooperation with the James Foundation 1985; National Geographic Society 1987; RER 1999). A relationship between home and work adds emphasis on location which is significant to the success of recreation facilities such as community centers, sports complexes and other facilities that are often difficult to finance and maintain. The “distribution of recreation experiences sought on a location, size, social characteristics and psychological needs of the user population” help planners quantify qualitative circumstances involved in determining numerical values (Bannon 1976). Developing a logical system of assessing existing park and recreation facilities that conforms to a real city master plan has proven to be a challenge. Refining the geographic model for planning professionals to use as a basis for analyzing any spatial phenomena the city planners encountered developed into an equally challenging thesis topic. Omaha’s planning professionals needed a computer- assisted model to ensure ongoing parks and recreation facility planning that could continue to facilitate development. This geographic model not only uses population ratios and spatial distribution required by federal standards, as stated before, it also provided a foundation for planning desirable uses of public places in Omaha well into the new millennium. Park and recreation facility planners must create viable solutions from known facts. Proposals are submitted to the city administration, subjected to public scrutiny, changed by a collective decision making process, then accepted as city planning procedures or guidelines. For this reason, this model was designed as equitable and as objective as possible. This approach acknowledged the subjective 20
responsibility of operations to respond to public recreation and facility demand while fulfilling professional obligations of objectivity. It was recognized that special funding, activity fees and donations that influence feasibility often subsidize parks and recreation programs and services. Facility renovations and new park developments often depend on large corporate or private donations, special grants and federal funding as well. Otherwise, as discussed above, improvement progress slowly, occurring where they are most feasible or politically correct. In some cases change occurs when the situation becomes critical to public health and safety. Sometimes facilities are closed simply because they are unsafe or it is not cost effective to maintain them. If the facility is under-used or too expensive to maintain, it is only right that the liability be relinquished (O’Sullivan 1991). Park planning professionals need the flexibility to respond to demographic changes and to eliminate dead-end facilities. In order to improve the effectiveness of costly facility developments, city officials need to know all the facts.
LITERATURE ANALYSIS STRATEGY The strategy outlined in the following diagram illustrates how diverse the literature research needed to be in order to gather pertinent information from several disciplines. Recreation, planning and geography remained the focus. However, the resources became more specialized and applied as the project ensued. The outline represents the strategic plan for this project as it was conceptualized in the beginning (Figure 1.1). 2 1
I Introduction I
I Research 1 lApplication I Historical Background Standards
Spatial Models and Project Criteria Principles Omaha, Nebraska
Parks and Recreation Scientific Geographic Planning Perspective Perspective Perspective Omaha, Nebraska
| Parks and Recreation Facility Inventory
Population Population Needs Statistics Map Assisted Facility Analysis Area Percentages Requirements Environmental Feasibility Considerations City Plan
Nearest Neighbor Analysis
Conclusions
Further Considerations
Figure 1.1: A Geographic Model for Parks and Recreation Facility Planning: Omaha, Nebraska by the author, 1992. 22
The diagram also represents the structure of the research that revealed a wealth of knowledge from many disciplines. This resulted in an interdisciplinary approach to the literature analysis, applied planning experience and developing a practical philosophy that supported the idea of creating a geographic model for the City. The literature analysis focused on a set of historical and contemporary books and periodicals significant to the topic regardless of their discipline. Many case studies were found in government documents, but most were too unique or location specific to be included as examples. However, a few were useful (Colorado State Parks 1995; Havitz 1995). Though these projects are very specific and often the meaning was interpretive, knowing what other planners were doing was helpful (Havitz 1995). Sometimes theory was obviously active in real space, but not recognized in the literature. This information has been included in chapters three and four of the thesis. An extensive analysis of the internal spatial structure of behaviorally interrelated human and physical urban activities was relevant to this research. The significance of spatial structure was pointed out in the case study. Some insight into the spatial structure of the urban landscape came from the details in landscape architecture, environmental management, as well as landscape and urban planning literature. Cultural ecology literature ended the strict adherence to the three disciplines of geography; planning and recreation research because a significant bridge between culture, ecology and communal 23
resources was recognized (Bourassa 1990; Grumbine 1994; Isaak 1999). No one discipline offered a complete definition of an appropriate philosophy from which one should develop a geographic model for parks and recreation facility planning. The philosophical views in the recreation literature were especially helpful when planning was concerned with park and recreation facility location, size and carrying capacities (Bannon 1981; Fine 1991). Several authors writing about urban parks (< biblio >) mentioned the significance of parks and recreation opportunities for leisure time among urban dwellers. Developing a philosophy for urban parks and recreation facility planning limited the literature to authors that demonstrated an ideology paralleling cultural-physical interaction and humans as part of the environment (McAvoy 1990). Interestingly enough, it was the historical remarks of environmentalists that offered depth to park philosophy (Nash 1960). Walter Christaller’s Central Place Theory proved to be the most significant research suitable for application to real spatial problems. Christaller’s applications in cities of Germany in the 1930s accounted for changes from theory to real space (Figure 2.1 Murphy 1974; Figure 2.2 from Gould 1985). Chauncy D. Harris and Edward L. Ullman were the first to consider parks as nodes or central places (Murphy 1974). Model builders following Christaller’s studies of urban geography added information significant to this research were included in the literature analysis. Central places were recognizable in the Omaha landscape, although they were transformed from spherical to hexagonal to irregular polygonal regions as theories were applied to model reality. Central place notions were effective in this 24
application of theory and are explained in the methodology. By the time the service radii mapping was completed, an example of overlapping service areas could be recognized with significance in Omaha’s geography. Urban planning literature included discussions on the history of American city planning as early as Frederick Law Olmsted’s innovations in the late 1880s featuring the “City Beautiful Movement” that was very influential in Omaha’s planning history (Gerckens 1998). Other important topics were environmental land use and design, transportation, regulations, zoning, economic and social aspects, as well as finance and budgeting (So 1988). Economic and human geography also dealt with these topics (Morrill 1974). The academic search for a master plan process that integrated parks and recreation facility planning with other city functions fell short of expectations (Kelsey 1985). It was decided early in the project that integration with other city functions was fundamental in creating a model for the City that would truly be useful. The dissertation cited confirmed Omaha’s balanced contiguous growth policies and was helpful to development of the case study (Englebrecht 1986). Upon mapping the City’s green spaces, parks and recreation facilities with other geographic information the need for a few simplifying assumptions became evident. Some basic mapping techniques changed as the conversion to computer technology took place. For example, map layering initially done with transparencies and overlays had to be redesigned to fit the Macintosh Illustrator Format. In this conversion, map layering did not allow planners to 25
see through several layers at a time. As technology improved, new programs allowed greater flexibility including interactive map layering techniques. Creating a computer assisted model that was specific enough to address any phenomena, but simple enough for people to understand required map layering or merging to get the point across. Statistics were often misleading or even misunderstood without the maps that allowed people to visualize what the statistics mean. The concepts and methodologies included in the literature analysis focuses on classic explanations of spatial interaction and traditional relationships identifiable in any city.
ASSUMPTIONS AND JUSTIFICATIONS It should be recognized that census information was outdated before it was available to use in service radii mapping and calculating population to facility ratios. By the time prescriptions were made for the City’s parks and recreation facilities, changes in population had already occurred. The census data required to complete this type of spatial analysis is only available every ten years. The technician must interpolate all other information. Until the next census year, equitable service coverage and growth factors can be used. The geographic model for planning park and recreation facility improvements provided the much-needed bridge in information that ties the Census information to real locations. The creation of an effective process for evaluating park and recreation facilities in Omaha should be an applicable to any city. Analysis of available literature at this time reveals no previous examples of modeling to solve problems of planning managed growth 26
and development of facilities and parks within a city system in this manner (USDI 1999). While changes in population statistics can happen so rapidly that the time-consuming and tedious responsibility of quantifying spatial statistics follows population changes by years, geography remains static. A perpetually upgradable geographic information system which calculates spatial data, then presents the information in a reproducible interactive mapping format, while remaining compatible with city operations, is being developed in many cities today, including Omaha. The computer assisted model produced for Omaha’s parks and recreation facility planning reduced the time required to synthesize geographic information for public presentation and met the needs of city planning to date (Silkworth, Interview 1999). By calculating projected population densities according to planned development zones and developmental criteria of the city the model remains intact and current (Klein, Interview 1999). The process of collecting data, analyzing statistics and making projections for any city system provides only numerical information that is difficult to share with the many people involved in the comprehensive planning of a city. Additionally, numerical relationships are difficult for people to convert into parks and recreation facility planning and development prescriptions. Maps made the difference in making policy within the administrative process. Desirable park to people ratios for a particular city are subjective. They can be set by a vote among board members taking the recommendations of a citizen's committee who may or may not be 27
park and recreation professionals. Fortunately, the National Recreation and Park Association, National Playground Safety Institute, American Society for testing and Materials, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the International Playground Equipment Manufacturing Association and the Recreation Executive Report offer some information leading a positive direction. A geographic model based on 1990 Census of Population can be updated periodically as development occurs and used as the foundation for planning parks and recreation facilities until the next census is available in 2001. Updating keeps comprehensive planning ahead of development so that the strategy for park and recreation facilities is based on the known information about the city facilities and the people using them. Furthermore, this model keeps the parks and recreation facility master plan in a format, which is interactive with other city functions. Although it is only a model of public properties that are presently available for park and recreation facility usage, new facilities can be added and old facilities removed, changing the statistics. The finer details of the model can change as long as the ratio of people to facilities is acceptable estimates taken from the original statistics. Changes in the spatial model need to coincide with development and land acquisitions to keep the information as close to reality as possible. Inventories need to be perpetual. To assure the completeness of the inventory for the model, site checks were made and aerial photos consulted, verifying individual legal descriptions of each park or public property available for parks and recreation facility development. This is not a popular task, but it is important in 28
order to secure equitable opportunities utilizing properties already owned by the City. Accuracy of the ongoing inventory can affect operations and planning decisions concerning park and recreation development. Effective use of the geographic model proposed here should result in better-informed decision-makers of the City to the benefit of citizens in Omaha, Nebraska.
THE CASE STUDY Recreation in Omaha is primarily located on the flood plain. The scenic valley, bluff, river terraces and rolling hills comprise the west bank of the Missouri River, which forms the eastern boundary of the state of Nebraska. Omaha has a twin cities’ function with Council Bluffs, Iowa. This urban area represents the highest population density between Lincoln, Nebraska to the west; Sioux Falls, South Dakota to the north; Des Moines, Iowa to the east; and south to Kansas City, Missouri. This centralized location in the nation’s heartland and Omaha’s functions as the source of metropolitan amenities impact growth and development to a greater degree than many other comparable sized cities in the United States (City of Omaha 1981). The seasonal extremes of the continental, hot summer climate are significant to public utilization of the urban park system. For this reason, the peak activity period in city parks is from April to October (City of Omaha 1981). In the spring, tornadoes may occur along with Omaha’s strong winds, severe storms and hail. Summer dust storms and winter blizzards may follow tornado season. Yet, the sunny to partly sunny days of spring, summer, and autumn outnumber the less desirable weather conditions for outdoor recreation in Omaha’s parks. 29
The annual rainfall of about twenty-eight inches and snowfall estimated at thirty-two inches supports a wide variety of natural ground cover. Natural vegetation and topographical features provide the basic physical foundation for the development of the city’s park and recreation system. When Omaha was originally settled only about three percent of the area supported tree growth. The naturally occurring trees were found in the ravines cutting into the uplands from the Missouri River, along the streambeds of the Papillion Creek tributaries, and at the base of valley bluffs along the Missouri River flood plain. The remainder of greater Omaha was prairie with diverse wildlife and rolling hills. They provided scenic value to the ridgelines, which played an integral role in the establishment and growth of Omaha’s park system. Over time, city dwellers have introduced a wide variety of trees, shrubs, plants and flowers that add to the natural beauty of various areas in Omaha. Areas devoted to parks and recreation resources have been landscaped with the purpose of creating a positive visual impact on people. Environmental aesthetics is an issue with planning professionals who appreciate the value of desirable public places in Omaha. The study continues with a literature analysis, followed by the methodology for the planning model in chapters two and three. This study then presents the model for its application to Omaha in Chapter four. The synthesis and conclusions in Chapter five summarize the concerns of applied planning from a geographic perspective. 30
Chapter II LITERATURE ANALYSIS: DEVELOPING A PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY
An interdisciplinary approach had to be taken after discovery of all the literature available on cities. By recognizing significant historical urban research, a foundation for the methodology can be substantiated. Developing a practical philosophy required focusing on geography as the method, recreation as the phenomena and how they can be integrated into the planning process of city administration (Figure 1.2). Out of this focus, the literature took many forms, the design and format changed with technology, but the research began with the historical, philosophical, ethical, environmental and cultural aspects. Technological, statistical and analytical methodologies were then, researched in an attempt to resolve the problem. Finally, feasibility issues lead to comparison research, case studies, examples, assessments, and other evaluations of these particular phenomena.
A GEOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE Geographers’ contributions to the study of cities by developing spatial relationships are fundamental in the analysis of commonality and difference between urban places (Morrill 1974). Understanding geography as a professional can be all encompassing. Geographic studies include spatial structure, location analysis, cultural-physical interaction, environmental issues; even topics as specific as parks and recreation facility planning are of interest. The range of geographic 3 1
study is both broad and specific. This research needed to examine the big picture as well as all the little details that the planning process required to gain collective approvals from decision-makers within the city administration. City planning professionals must produce hard evidence in well thought out proposals for planning and development. Geographers can provide synthesis of many geographic variables with geographic information systems (Ross 1994; Wicks 1993; Myers 1997). The case study allowed the model to develop from within the City’s administrative process and has proven useful to parks and recreation facility planning over time. As a case study, the geography of Omaha has common elements of structure; constraints and social issues evident in other cities as well (Keil 1990; Kaplan 1998). Urban sprawl, uncontrollable cycles of development and growth contrasted by socio-economic decline exist in different areas of the city. The geography of Omaha possesses segments of Burgess’s concentric ring model published as early as 1925. However, most significant to this research were many variations on central place notions Christaller and researchers after him verified in historical case studies (Murphy 1965; Ullman 1945; Nelson 1955; Morrill 1974; Ley 1989; Platt 1991). Social geographic research attempts to define cities like Omaha in terms of their unique personality or human-environmental interaction, assessing the quality of life in urban places (Ley 1983; Gerckens 1998). Many disciplines are working with the human- ecosystem within the greater city system and attempting to resolve problems of the city (Hartshorne 1980; Munn 1989; Muntemba 1989; Nissan 1989; Bennett 1997). We should learn from cultural and 32
environmental history to be enthusiastic about cultural differences, collectively willing to see that our own society represents just one way of doing things among a wide range of possibilities. Geography is not merely incidental to cultural variation or relevant only to the explanation of diversity. It is fundamental to understanding the constitution of culture. Geographers ask the questions and most fully describe geographic conditions of a political phenomenon (Krackhardt 1990). Contemporary applied geography deals with more than land use, economic, behavior and social patterns. The sustainability of common environments that connect the component parts within a city is also of concern (Hartshorn 1980). If we want to have a positive impact on the future, we need to take spatial structure seriously and be willing to solve problems collectively. Until recently spatial structure was limited to the interpretation of historical, rural and relict landscapes, to static mapping of the distribution of culture traits. Environmental specialists are required to provide graphic evidence of exactly what is needed and how the city administration plans to use funding. The significance of culture as it relates to this project is in reference to the way a collective decision making body handles the raw material of their social and material existence. Dominant views are most effective if they become naturalized as part of everyday common sense. Planning for urban parks and recreation facilities requires tracing the material circumstances in which transformation of a property can occur. Before development is planned, there is the task of objectively defining desirable cultural and physical interaction while remaining consistent with the demands of government 33
specification. Culture is not only socially constructed and geographically expressed, it is also spatially constituted in the city. Therefore, cultural geography must be contemporary as well as historical; theoretically informed yet grounded in empirical work; sympathetic to other conceptions of human geography rather than focused exclusively on landscape; and concerned with the range of cultures and cultural politics that this implies. Cultural geography can no longer be dismissed as a narrow scope of observations of the bizarre, unique or different. In this case, the cultural geography was considered terms of a complete understanding of the organization of people in space and time. For this reason, a comprehensive approach to problem solving was essential to the geographic perspective.
SPATIAL INTERACTION STUDIES OF THE CITY Ratzel and F. von Richton defined the city for contemporary urban geography (Kaing 1964). Their early definitions scientifically set in motion applications of the geographic perspective to common elements, including growth, function, location and population (Kaing 1964). Basic classifications of land uses simplify the real environment into its fundamental elements, offering an understandable view of the geographic site and situation. The central place concept of the 1930’s contributed by Walter Christaller is perhaps the most useful tool for studying and analyzing the location of urban phenomena. Walter Christaller's Die Zentralen Orte in Suddeutschland (The Central Places of Southern Germany) focuses upon regional patterns of central place cities (Murphy 1974). However, his work has a wider application in systematic urban 34
analysis because of the pervasive need of central locations for economic activity (Levy 1991). His research also recognizes linkages between central places. Modern models of ideal spatial arrangements applied to the real city stress connectivity (Taafe 1996). Christaller based his study upon simplifying assumptions such as an isotropic plain which holds all physical and human phenomena constant, behaviorally equal and self-sufficient.
Small State Capital District City
© County Seat Q Township Center
Figure 2. 1: Christaller’s Central Place Theory Model from Murphy 1974. Central place concepts are basic principles on which this thesis methodology rests. These assumptions were important steps away from reality because they allowed the analyst to determine the factor or factors that most strongly influence spatial interaction. The isotropic plain concept effectively removes the constraints to transportation (Johnson 1972). As stated earlier, Christaller recognized that applications in cities of Germany in the 1930s changed form through the application of the model to real space. 35
Figure 2.2: Christaller's Application from Gould 1985. Notice the distortion of the model, the gaps between circles and their irregular form. There are simplifying assumptions in this research, however, geography is not held constant as in Christaller’s study. The geographic model accounted for major transportation routes, railways and waterways. They were considered boundaries for service radii mapping depending on the site and situation in real space. Population densities are factors of spatial interaction Christaller did consider. Christaller’s market principle model, the complementary K-3 system clearly illustrates three important concepts that have application in the case study of Omaha, Nebraska: threshold population, range of a good, and central places. Christaller's models are also based upon a hierarchy of functions, cities, and complementary areas from low order to high order which result in the hexagonal division of complementary areas (Figure 2.1; Murphy 1974). Omaha’s model parallels Christaller’s line of reasoning as the 36
criteria considers population thresholds and maps the service area of a facility which is considered a central location resulting in the equitable division of space. As the urban environment is quite complex, defining a hierarchy of regional, metro, community and neighborhood parks was necessary in the Omaha case study. Simplifying assumptions provided a reasonable method of classification necessary in order to focus on one detail at a time. The geographic model goes farther as it allows planners to isolate, merge, shuffle, and analyze information interactively. Additionally, the infrastructure maps can be updated and restructured as a city changes. This is in keeping with the rich tradition from which urban research has evolved. German geographers such as A. Hettner, GJH. Kohl, A. Weber and O. Schluter, introduced various aspects of the aims, contents and methods used in urban geography (Murphy 1974). They provided a framework based on empirical analysis as a primary data gathering and evaluative tool used as reference to justify the need for the inventory process. We can turn to Hettner's work which stressed the need for classifying and mapping the functions of towns in a historical context to reaffirm the classification and mapping of facilities by function and the historical significance of physical location and regional characteristics. Historical examples of urban research mark the beginnings of economic and cultural applications based on cities. This includes the studies of cities that began in the early 1900’s such as Grenoble by Blancard, Rouen by J. Levainville, Duluth by E. van Cleef, New Orleans by E. Campbell and Great Cities and Capitals by M. Jefferson and V. Cornish (Kaing 1964). 37
ZONE OF WORKINGMENS H O M ES/ ZONE OF INDEPENDENT WORKING MEN S HOMES/ZONE OF SECOND- GENERATION IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT
2E ZONE IN TRANSITION (Area of first immigrant sattlam ent I
X LOOP/C.B.D. DEUT LAND
\ \ JSL RESIDENTIAL ZONE/ ZONE OF BETTER BRIGHT LIGHT % \ ar'ea'*"' residences/middle-class R e s t r i c t e d . ^ ^ RESIDENT,AL ^ s t r i c t '^ O E N T lA L d is COMMUTERS' ZONE/ b u n g a l ' HIGHER-CLASS SECT'® RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Figure 2.3: Burgess's Model of the social geography of the American C ity, showing the various names used for different zones; Berry in Bourne 1971. Other avenues of urban research emerged out of this same era, some focusing on function, morphology and internal structure. This literature includes a 1925 classic study, Concentric Zones, b y sociologists, R. Park, E. Burgess and R. McKenzie, who identified successive rings of varying urban functions. Notice the “zone in transition”, a physical feature cuts the spherical shape of the zones. The rings are recognizable in many cities when we generalize, including Omaha, Nebraska. When we generalize spatial data, the model shows an interactive "flow" of activity between functions and a sphere of influence around each location. Other types of spatial data presented in the case study capture the essence of the sector model, presented by H. Hoyt in 19 3 9 (Murphy 1974) and expanded by C. Harris who applied concentric 38
rings (Murphy 1974). Harris tried to explain aberrations from the over simplification of reality found in earlier studies. Harris and Ullman’s multiple nuclei model added another dimension of understanding to urban structure in 1945.
3/
Figure 2.4: Three Generalizations of the Internal Structure of Cities, Murphy 1974. Notice the changes made as models were applied and new cities were studied. Literature in geography takes a broader approach and studies the regional trade area and hinterlands of cities in works such as Salt Lake City by C. Harris and M obile by E. Ullman in the 1940’s. Harris also defined urban functions in 1943, which was reconfirmed by H. Nelson in 1955 (Murphy 1974). Chauncy Harris, a continuing contributor to urban geography literature since his 1940 tributary area study of Salt Lake City, recognized that cities serve a variety of functions in the human landscape. The functions reflecting the interactive complexity of urban life included retailing, manufacturing, wholesaling, transportation, mining, education, recreation and 39
retirement, diversified and public administration (Harris 1986). Finally, we have historical analysis of recreation as a function within a City's hierarchy. The results of spatial analysis applied to the city are confirmed by planning in real cities. Successive studies followed that either attempted application or refinements of the Harris's hierarchical list of functions. Urban functions discussed by these authors are recognized as part of the unique dynamics of Omaha. Brian J. L. Berry and Walter Garrison recognized the rank sizes of cities and threshold values of tertiary urban functions in their 195 8 Snohomish County study. This study empirically classified five city sizes and estimated the threshold sizes of nine centralizing functions (Yeates 1974). A continuing interest in rank-size hierarchies and distributions ensued by such scholars as H. Beguin in 1979, M. Bechman in 1970, M. Dacey in 1966, G. Malligan in 1980 and D. Vining in 1977. J.H. von Thunen’s The Isolated State, represents a classic beginning effort to include human activity in applied research. In. spite of over simplifications, von Thunen’s work provided the basis for land use theory and established the importance of economic rent as a determinant of land use. By comparing agricultural land uses, he identified three principles in his conceptualization of the general and predictable land use patterns around cities: (1) distance to the market, (2) selling prices of the product at the market and (3) land rent (Hartshorn 1980). The significance of von Thunen’s contribution to urban land use theory is that even as cities change, evidence of these principles remains the same (Hartshorn 1980). 40
Intensively used k commercial stores and offices Intensively used residential land (high income high rises SSts. and low income slums and apartments) Medium \ I'^s^M iddle to high income residential land - \ ! (more intensive to less intensive use)
Agricultural land
Figure 2.5: The Location of Various Land Uses in an Idealized City from Gould 1985. Figure 2.5 is a more recent model of these concepts was used as a guide to understanding their relationship to designating locations for parks and recreation facilities. Notice the decrease in land value and increase in space with distance from the city center. This model was the basic premise from which the relationship between population centers and park and recreation facility locations were established and designated.
QUANTIFICATION AND TECHNICAL LITERATURE Howard Nelson used a simple standard deviation statistic in 1955 that provided greater understanding of the roles that cities play in economic geography. Harris and Nelson were criticized for their arbitrary categories and use of basic statistics (Hartshorn 1980). However, as measurement techniques and computer technology improved, multivariate studies of urban functions followed. Brian Berry’s City Classification Handbook provides an example of study methods with improved scientific precision. These basic classification methods are used in land use planning. By the 1950's and 1960's empirical research was enhanced by an emphasis on quantification, allowing the gathering and analysis of information relative to multiple locations, in succession, from project to project and with objective criteria. This line of reasoning is in essence the beginnings of a greater behavioral geographical thought simultaneously emerging with statistical and computer technology. Statistically precise measures along with traditional theory and concepts provided researchers with interactive technology and refined understanding. Computer technology also resulted in faster calculation and distribution of new information. The use of maps, graphs, tables and figures increased access to readable, applicable geographic information and represents earlier recognition of the need for broader based interactive studies. In the 1960's, William Alonzo added "interaction of land values and land uses" to the traditional explanatory concepts of spatial organization in the city (Alonzo 1960). Alonzo simulates a process whereby potential users bid for land and the owners sell or rent the land to the highest bidder. Application of Alonzo's formula over time explains the relationship between preferences of demand and the supply of land and location opportunities (Chapin 1979). 42
Understanding land rent was significant to providing technical support for planning, especially in dealing with private development that by ordinance or developmental agreement must dedicate land to the city. Omaha’s geographic model contains all the elements of inventory, classification, analysis, assessment, synthesis and prescription (Wicks 1993). The model uses interactive computer technology as an adequate system of evaluation that can be used as a problem-solving tool for most spatial phenomenon repetitively. This work also required an interdisciplinary approach to the literature research because the idea was an original application of theory and methods. For this reason, government documents such as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBM), U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, and soil maps from the Soil Conservation Service were used when creating the environmental inventory map layers. Urban geography is a systematic application in the broader field of human geography where physical systems are normally used only in a cultural ecology context. Because the wide range of human geographic principles, ideas, relations, patterns and methods are being applied in the investigative city’s site and/or situation, significance has grown as the number of study samples have increased (Johnston 1972). Most of the traditional contributions have survived the test of application and reassessment, reallocation following urbanization. The synthesis of ideas and observing them over time is to further geographic understanding. Larry Bourne's Internal Structure of the City, a compilation of research was dealing with urban phenomena in 4 3
an inter-disciplinary study of theory, education and planning (1971). This book clearly demonstrates the eclectic nature of geography and the relationship to applied social research. A variety of social scientists find the city to be a workshop of information and activities where theories, principles and concepts can be developed and tested. Numerous products of this quantification of typical characteristics of cities, such as the distance minimization concept have found a welcome home in the analytic toolbox of the applied geographer working with central place notions.
2000km THE VAST WORLD I OF FOREIGN LANDS 200km The Region My Country Camping
Touring Weekend 0 2000m Supermarket
Neighborhood Shopping
Daily Weakly Monthly Exceptionally (Annually?) Approximate Frequencies
Figure 2.6: Distance Decay Effect Model from Gould 1985; Berry 1987. Notice the distance in comparison to frequency of travel approximated in this model. Applying theoretical ideas and recognizing the real implications of distance minimization was essential to compiling logical data sets for mapping and map layering techniques. In order to justify one method or another one must have sound logic, analyzing the city 44
system as a whole as well as all the details at work within the city. There are numerous other urban scientists who have developed theories and methods for studying urban areas. However, the work of the urban specialists included in the literature analysis was considered most applicable. It is recognized that research continues to add or borrow from earlier studies which are then modified and applied by urban planners in the field for land use development (Kaing 1964). A significant bridge exists between disciplines which offer different perspectives on new technology which provide many workable methodologies. The literature providing the best ideas for solving problems in recreation planning are geography, planning, recreation, human ecology, landscape architecture and land use policy (Gutkind 1953; McCay 1987; Zube 1990). The academic literature has scientists "agreeing to disagree" on the methods and policies that best solve a particular problem in planning. The legal literature analyzing the responsibility of the federal government to the state has been more abundant in recent years (USDI 1998; Shafer 1999). In turn, the state to city responsibility has been present in the literature as well (Havitz 1995). As a result, the city’s responsibility to the public has become a legal issue (USDI 1998). Building livable communities and sustainable environments according to federal standards has been the thrust of planning in the 1990s (Suzuki 1998). In 1991, the federal government instituted more regulations on safety standards for children, handicapped and aged people (USDI). City policies are influenced by federal minimum requirements and state guidelines that often determine the quality of 45
parks and recreation facilities in major cities like Omaha. The human perspective comes full circle with studies representing the debates of environmental ethics, preservation, conservation and exploitation (Caneday 1991; Fitsimmons 1991; Chakrovorty 1996; Grumbine 1999). However, interaction theory has brought both deductive and inductive reasoning to public administration and academia which provides an asymmetrical balance in contemporary applications as reviewed in the literature (Fine 1991; Colorado State Parks 1995; Iglitzin 1995; Fantino 1999; Foster 1999). Applying spatial understandings to various phenomena is a human- ecosystem design method in practice today that discusses social issues that affect the planning process. An applicable example was the “human contact in space and time model”.
Tim e
Car Walk Car
S p a c e
Figure 2.7: Human contact in space and time Model from Gould 1985. Figure 2.7 defines human reach in space and time depending on the mode of transportation. This model illustrates the distinct difference between walking, bicycling and car travel over space and time. This is significant to parks and recreation facility planning as part of the equation for equitable service, adequate maintenance and usage. 46
A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE Larry Gerckens article in the Planning Commissioners Journal on “Ten Events that Shaped the 20th Century American City” (1999) referred to Frederick Law Olmsted, the elder, was a landscape architect from Cambridge, Massachusetts, who undertook the construction of the “Emerald Necklace” park system in Boston in the late 1880s. His plan preserved Back Bay Fens as an urban open space, linking a number of green areas in a lineal pattern of parkland that “draped” like a necklace around the City. Gerckens also wrote of a landscape architect, George Kessler of Kansas City, Missouri, who suggested a metro park plan for the City extending well into the surrounding countryside. Kessler argued that acquisition of parkland strips in remote farmland prior to development would be less expensive than acquiring land after the land had developed. The interconnected greenways would assure provision of open space for future generations, be excellent for roadways, lend access through green areas to future neighborhoods, while bringing the natural environment back to the daily experience of the urbanite. The greenway was a method for preserving stream beds and river bottoms from development. They assured the continued experience of greenspaces, trees and fields in the daily travel patterns of urbanites and provided safe, limited access travel. Connecting the far reaches of a megalopolis. By the turn of the century, the greenway based city was leading the way into the 20th century. Greenways lent an appearance of “naturalness” to an industrialized 47
America, provided recreation open space close to urbanized districts and softened the industrialized city (Greckens 1999). Historical Omaha followed the greenway concept very well (Larsen 1982). Omaha has a significant urban parks and recreation facility development history. A few boulevard streets were acquired by the board of park commissioners who wrote of the city beautiful movement in an 1898 report. The park commissioners summarized, that those who opposed their endeavors “are those who have the most need for the revivifying influence of a day in the parks” (Larsen 1982). Though Omaha did not have a comprehensive beautification plan, historically, people financed and dedicated to Omaha’s parks and boulevard system paid for them. Historically, citizens of Omaha have been as dedicated as City’s leading in the beautification movement. An early local architects A.R. Dufreme, made thoughtful and broader observation when he wrote, “There has been too much sameness” (Larsen 1982). Out of these beginnings a “green” Omaha took shape. As people spread out over the landscape, the City survived depressions, dry weather, population changes and insect infestations well into the 20th Century. As economic conditions changed the infrastructure responded to trends, showing signs of the times. At one point, the beautiful boulevard system originally created in Omaha for the sake of enjoying the natural beauty of the City was limited to exclusive areas (Larsen 1982). It was not until the Federally Funded Public Works Administration and Works Progress Administration of the 1930s that provided employment for thousands of Omahans that the greatest contributions to the beautification of the City evolved (Larsen 1982). Since this time, the historical significance as well as 4 8
the beautification issues surrounding the boulevard system once envisioned to connect parks along scenic routes around the city were all but lost. During the 1990s an appreciation for the scenic qualities of boulevards coupled with strong growth and development within the City, re-opened discussions to re-claim the “commons” and beautify parks, adding recreation facilities and considered boulevards in locations where scenic beauty and connectivity were concerned. Today’s park system evolved out of several distinct phases of municipal park development. Omaha benefited early in its history from the commitment of leaders in the community to the concept of parks and open spaces. Following Omaha’s founding in 1854, the Board of Park Commissioners was guiding the city’s well planned park and boulevard system. By 1889, the city acquired land and implemented the plans of internationally known planners early in its development. This early beginning provides the core for today’s park system. The core includes some of Omaha’s most scenic landscape features. By the 1920’s, Omaha had a park system that was considered exceptional for a mid-western city. It consisted of about twelve forty to fifty acre parks which were connected by attractive boulevards (City of Omaha 1981). In the 1920’s to the 1940’s, Omaha acquired new park sites in the suburban areas of the city. Several large parks were added to the city’s periphery. A number of smaller parks were developed to fill in voids perceived within the city park system. Partially successful attempts were made to connect these new parks to the original park and boulevard system (City of Omaha 1981). The 1950’s affected the development of Omaha’s parks in two ways. The conversion of the 49
existing park system from primarily open space with passive recreation to one designed for activity. Facilities such as golf courses, ball fields and swimming pools were constructed as the boulevard segments incurred increased usage from vehicles. As with most major American cities in the post-World War II era, Omaha grew faster than the ability of the city to acquire space for new parks. As a result, the sections of Omaha that developed from the late 1940’s through the 1960’s were basically under-served. Following the wave of urban economic development, only less desirable and smaller lots remained available for inclusion into the park system (City of Omaha 1981). Between the 1960’s and 1970’s, the city established what was considered a sound park planning system. The park system began to pursue dual development objectives. Formalized land subdivision regulations and public financing allowed the City to secure public ownership of neighborhood-sized park facilities within newly developed areas at the western rural-urban fringe. At the same time, the City cooperated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ flood control program in order to develop a series of new facilities for parks and recreation purposes along the flood plain oriented suburban fringe. This provided the much needed access to water oriented recreation opportunities for Omaha’s residents (City of Omaha 1981). The Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Act of 1978 provided federal funds for a comprehensive plan to maintain and improve Omaha’s park and recreation system. The plan which ensued assessed the condition of existing parks and recreation facilities. The plan program focused upon restoring deteriorated facilities and providing recreation services for urban residents. Unfortunately, financial 50
constraints at federal and state levels limited implementation to the use of local funds. Federal funding for park rehabilitation was scarce in the late 1970’s through 1988. However, the comprehensive plan that resulted from the 1978 Recovery Act provided information that was previously unavailable. This information provided significant continuity and direction in decision making for park development (City of Omaha 1991). Since that time, planning has affected the city development as indicated in chapter four, the case study. Gerkens is a major contributor in The Practice of Local Government Planning, (the resource book for planners), by the International City Management Association, ICMA, (So 1988). Urban planning of parks and recreation facilities and properties for development was a relatively new practice that extended the work of planners in cities. Planning values include environmental health, resource conservation, efficiency, beauty and equity. Planners are struggling with pluralism and individuality, democratic participation and responsibility and rational management (So 1988). According to the literature, planning discussions often leave city representatives agreeing that something should be done, but sometimes, they lack the resources to resolve the matter equitably. When federal standards and guidelines drive funding and require planning solutions, it ultimately benefits the development because some of the planning decisions are already made. In Omaha, the practice of providing equitable public parks and recreation opportunities and services has kept pace with federal regulations (USDI 1991, 1995, 1998, 1999). Government documents provided case studies with environmental impact statements as examples. Both federal and state 5 1
projects explored and gleaned from this source of information provided the understanding of commonality in methodology as well as the uniqueness of each case study. In every project there was a point at which specific details were exclusive to a particular site and situation. Master plans seem to follow the logic of collective action based on the perceived "greater good" to justify actions determining the fate of a particular project (Kelsey 1986). Until recently there were few documents that measured performance or final results (USDI, GPRA 1993). Planners continue to debate how to evaluate the outcome of a project. The evaluation of parks and recreation facility planning remains abstract and removed from implementation. Evaluating plans by how well the environmental ideals are upheld seems most appropriate. As a planner’s experience is one that achieves compliance rhetorically. Actual compliance with regulations and standards are a matter of enforcement within operations. Government documents are written with exceptions to rule$ and lots of leeway in interpretation (UPARRP 1991, 1999). Inventory, classification and geographic analysis of Omaha’s parks and recreation system required being at the heart of the city planning process in order to obtain adequate technical support. This was one reason for establishing a strong working relationship with planning professionals in Omaha. In order to gain confidence in creating a model which best fit the city of Omaha’s parks and recreation system; one had to be a part of the process. Many discussions with people concerned about the future of Omaha's parks and recreation facility development aided in the evaluation of best case scenarios. It was difficult however, to determine the methods of 52
measurement that are truly adequate for cities to use in general (USDI, GPRA 1993). Interpolating the equity of Omaha's overall parks and recreation facility system and planning facilities with operation concerns in mind complicated decisions. Forecasting facility needs while knowing maintenance of facilities was already a problem in Omaha led one to think in terms of minimums. Sustainable development and landscape protection required making traditional generalizations in order to project not only a feasible plan, but a responsible plan for Omaha. Public planning administrators are expected to establish lists of critical needs, which most accurately reflect the true identity of a particular project for development considerations throughout the city. To be approved and receive funding, the federal government required city planners to provide evidence of great need with accuracy (USDI, UPARRP 1999). Visual demonstration of quantifiable criteria and viable alternatives were essential. No standard of measurement for quality and quantity of recreation exist but the planning department had to establish their own standard of measurement to fulfill the grant application requirements (USDI, Ammendment 1999). At this point, the parks and recreation planning specialist provided the technical support that established critical needs, documentation and facility plan based upon known information such as inventories, surveys, interviews, developed the pertinent criteria for the 1990 census project. This research provided the necessary resources for planning professionals with the responsibility of predicting logical scenarios based on objective facts. Urban planners study and interpret growth trends to bring a rationality of certainty 53
to planning projects (So 1988). Many cities are evolving faster than public city systems can maintain the infrastructure (Brown 1971; Choate 1983; Chakrovorty 1996) For these reasons, parks and recreation facility planning must be a constant element in the planning process. The belief that parks and recreation facilities needed to become central place locations comes from the distance minimization and behavior models (Keil 1990). City planning accepted this set of concepts and methodologies as the geographic model and was especially useful in analyzing quantifiable spatial information (Kerr 1976; Jalowiecki 1988). An understanding of the planning discipline approaches to the problem (Fogg 1981) enhanced the application of geographic and spatial statistics to urban studies. The fundamentals of spatial information systems are used b y several disciplines studying the city (Laurini 1992). The geographic model of Omaha’s parks and recreation facilities not only designated unique physical features in need preservation or conservation, it also represented demographic character of the City. While physical features remain rather constant, the demography of a city changes rapidly over space and time. Public parks and recreation opportunities can become scarce in the areas sought by developers, especially when growth dramatically increases the population. City administrators found it difficult to insist that developers use a strict percentage of land for public use because public land increased responsibilities and diminished the tax base (City of Omaha, Council Meetings 1991-2). Some developers negotiated a situation financially beneficial to their project without considering public needs or 54
environmental concerns at all. Progressive planning strategies needed to be devised by city administrators to encourage necessary information flows prior to negotiating the development of new land to include public health, safety, accessibility and environmental concerns of the City. Such a strategy for negotiating new land development included the geographic model prescribing parks and recreation facilities by location and reserving a particular portion of developed land for park development. Knowing this was an issue, planners were struggling with at that time, the model design was directed to resolve this conflict of interest and encourage development the park system in a particular area (Figure 4.8). Developing a practical application of geographic theories, spatial distribution and interaction information is discussed in several disciplines. However, few discussions related directly to parks and recreation facility planning for sustainable development. The foundation for Omaha’s geographic model for parks and recreation facility planning took form through application of several mapping methods and resulted in a best case scenerio approved by Omaha in 1992. One of the best examples of useful literature was Omaha’s own parks and open spaces report by the League of Women Voters (Figure 2.8). Thirty-eight major parks were discussed and surveyed out of the 257 public properties managed by the Omaha parks and recreation system. 55
WMHMCTOft COUNTY
^ _ . HMajorCOmaNa Piarks: 1. Glenn Cunningham Lake 2. Papillion Creek Park . 3. Hummel Park ’ 4. Dodge Park : _ 5. Standing Bear Lake . 6. Tranquility Park 7. Maple Village Park 8. Benson Park 9. Gallagher Park i>w$m 10. Fontenelle Park 11. Adams Park 112. Miller Park 13. Bluff View Park 14. Kountze Park 15. Boyd Park 16. Levi Carter Park . 17. Carter Lake s18. Roberts Park, ,'V- yii19. Memorial Park ^ * 4 ^ 2 0 . Elmwood Park • ■$%&-i r *~Y*>&lpj21. Bemis Park ' .^3t v >22. Gifford Park Turner Park S3*;T:~ ." 24. Dewey Park ’ 25. Harrison Hts. Park '^26. Hanscom Pe*k >27. Columbus Park •~*228. Westwood Park * :«j29. West Center Park £30. Conoco Park ^5=8 »^31. Pipal Park J32- Highland Park &§?33. Spring Lake Park
OOUOAtCOUNjT •34. Riverviqw Park U ¥ T COUNTY ^fw«35. Seymour Smith Park n 'm i " ~ 336. Hitchcock Park >v£* ^ 2 v>?r rk -* 1 * #■ vj^ ^ ' I! 37. Christie Hts. Park '38. Athletic Park
Figure 2.8: Major Omaha Parks, from League of Women Voters of Greater Omaha, 1986. Notice the geography of Omaha’s parks and recreation facilities with overlapping service areas in densely populated areas, parks around and along waterways and in scenic areas of the city, unserved populations and more uniform development in newer parks and recreation facilities. 56
A RECREATION PERSPECTIVE Recreation is defined as "any non-work activity that provides for the replenishment of spirits, a change from routine, pleasure" (Nash 1960). It should be an activity which has no destructive effect on the participation of others and the resource setting. Furthermore, the participant should be able to spontaneously pursue situations as they arise. This condition gives the participant maximum freedom of choice in guiding their own leisure behavior. No other facility fits this criteria better than a well-designed or naturally scenic open space. The recreation experience is thought to require an engagement with a commitment of energy, time and personal resources, including money (Jubenville 1990). This is the point at which humans turn play into recreation. As people grow into adulthood, they require a variety of constructive skill learning activities such as basketball, softball, baseball, tennis, golf and even horseshoes in some communities. In contrast to work, the recreation experience needs to be self- rewarding, but not punishing, offering the recreationist free choices with unobligated time and money (Jubenville 1990). Therefore, a wide range of recreation opportunities needs to be available, especially in a city as large as Omaha. The recreation experience has five distinct phases: anticipation, travel to, on-site experience, return travel and recollection (Jubenville 1990). For this reason, it is thought that the city beautification movement fits well into the makings of urban identity as people respond to the environment in which they conduct their lives. There is no doubt that people spend more of their real income and 57
unobligated time on recreational pursuits than ever before (RER 1999). The notion of beautification exists in Omaha's aesthetically pleasing designs of special facilities and gardens.
Recreation Statistics To illustrate the dynamics of change in recreation participation literature let us consider the information available from the Recreation Executive Report (1999). 26.5 million people played golf in 1997. Snowboarding grew 29.1 percent to 2.8 million participants. Seven other sports had double digit growth in 1997: backpacking windsurfing, snorkeling, baseball, water skiing, scuba diving and ice hockey. Percentages are down in swimming, but over fifty-eight t million people are involved in water based recreation activities. Over forty six million people are camping or exercising with equipment at fitness centers. Many more remain unaccounted for because they are not registering at public facilities, taking classes or are recreating at home. About forty-four million people are registered to fish, yet many fish in private lakes. Private recreation activities are harder to track with statistics showing participation. Bowling statistics are down over ten percent compared to other recreation activities. Still, statistics show there are over seventy-two million bowlers and pool players (RER 1999). While the dynamics of change in recreation participation is evident in these statistics, they are inconclusive indicators of recreation needs. Recreation planners know that traditional activities like basketball will have high participation levels. According to the Recreation Executive Report, basketball has the highest and most consistent participation levels. Recreation planners can count on baseball to follow basketball in team sports participation. Softball and volleyball can be successful recreation programs as well with nearly as many participants. At the same time, recreation planners must recognize the decline in sports like tackle football because of higher liabilities than public recreation programs can afford. Recreation professionals know bicycle riding has increased over the last decade. Trends indicate that the popularity of bicycling, hiking and walking is up nationwide. Recreation participation data reveals that the demand for specific types of recreation opportunities is constantly changing over time, but in a somewhat predictable fashion (RER 1999). While it is important to understand recreation in context of changing demands, national recreation participation statistics are not specific enough to guide city parks and facility planning. The answers for Omaha’s park and recreation facility plan came from within the system. The information had to be interpolated and synthesized for practical application.
Recreation Philosophy Recreation philosophy and theory are quite inspiring with notions of enlightenment being achieved through self-actuating activities (Bannon 1976). Similarly, geographic research includes philosophical points on environmental perception, attitudes and values (Tuan 1961, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1982). These philosophies suggest that motivation follows behavior, in other words, one must start thinking and behaving in a self-actualizing way in order to enjoy a leisure experience (Hart 1969; Jensen 1980; Iglitzen 59
1995). The implications of this concept are that if people engage in playful activities, they really will feel more carefree. , In order to b e spontaneous, experience new things, look at things from different perspectives, open new channels of opportunity, explore and discover new worlds of adventure, it becomes necessary to extend personal boundaries (Lee 1999). Parks and recreation opportunities and leisure experiences in urban places help people cope with working and living in crowded environments. Environmental psychology suggests that personal space is an individual perception of one’s image of their own surroundings. The need for privacy and territoriality are basic to the human condition, but they are defined individually (Holahan 1982). Historically, John Muir said that “everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike” (Jensen 1990). Outdoor education is said to strengthen people’s minds as well as their bodies, broadening their understanding of the laws of nature, sharpening their appreciation of its manifold beauties, fortifying their most precious possession, the spirit that gives life its meaning (Jensen 1990). Love and respect for nature come through an awareness of life’s natural processes, geological formations of soil and rock, practicing conservation and preservation, experiencing beautiful scenery and the joy of seeing one’s self through being alone with nature. Luther Burbank, a well known champion of the environment and recreation in his day was quoted by Brian J. Nash (1960) in his book on recreation philosophy the following statement: 60
“Every child should have mud pies, grasshoppers, water- bugs, tadpoles, frogs, mud turtles, elderberries, wild strawberries, acorns, chestnuts, trees to climb, brooks to wade in, water lilies, woodchucks, bats, beets, butterflies, various animals to pet, hay fields, pine cones, rocks to roll, sand, snakes, huckleberries, and hornets; and any child who has been deprived of these has been deprived of the best of his education.”
The natural environment of Omaha’s parks and recreation system possesses scenic value in open spaces, greenways and trails which offer this kind of human-environment interaction (City of Omaha 1990). Historical literature about Omaha comments on the environment’s place in the education of youths and supports the acquisition of spatial information and geographic research (Larsen 1982). Environmental ethics literature tends to advocate alternative methods of problem solving, proclaiming they have found irrefutable evidence that current efforts to preserve wilderness are inadequate (Grumbine 1994).
Recreation Facility Planning Authors of books on comprehensive planning of leisure resources suggest that merely providing space for people to play is half the battle in public administration (Bannon 1976). Reserving space for parks and recreation ahead of development is considered cost-effective as well (Gerckens 1998). As population densities increase around a park location, facilities can be developed in these city owned spaces in response to public demand. This treatment of “the commons” as a zone in transition by planning is progressive 61
management of parks and recreation facilities. Parks and Recreation studies provide philosophical reasoning and define how professionals in the industry should approach the provision of leisure services. The literature is full of controversies surrounding recreation preferences. In practice, public participation in everything from the specific recreation opportunity to the development of policy dictates the fate of a particular facility or service offered within a parks and recreation system. Without federal funding, public and private interest, the urban parks and recreation facilities and properties are at risk of tragic losses (Hultsman 1998). The phenomenon known as the “tragedy of the commons” is the irreconcilable contradictions of interests between the individual and the system (McCay 1987). Parks and recreation facilities are “common property”, broadly understood to mean that people have free and unregulated access to limited resources (McCay 1987). Park property was saved only by Omaha’s representatives collectively asking the questions like... What is where? How can it be measured? How is it related? How is it different or unique? What are the common and other property rights? Whom are we serving? Recreation planning explores interrelationships among government agencies, demographics of whole communities, neighborhoods and user groups, included in an economic analysis of resources (McCay 1987). Public and private development need to coordinate collective effort in the interest of public property because “the commons” belong to everyone, but if no one is responsible and maintains them, they will suffer degradation and decay (McCay 1987). Public participation in the planning process, along with private and federal 62
funding cooperatives can protect communal resources, preserving culture and ecology (McCay 1987). An example of Omaha’s approach to dealing with a crisis in public recreation was featured in the Parks and Recreation publication in February 1999 (Foster). Attendance at swimming pool facilities were so low pools were no longer cost effective. Omaha took the iniative to adopt a city wide pool plan that responded to the need for aquatic entertainment that suited the whole family. Traditional pools were planned to be converted into water playgrounds, leisure pools, waterparks and family fun centers (Foster 1999). Public support and private funding backed the new aquatic centers as a cooperative community effort. A citywide plan to build pools as part of a larger community center is in the works for the future (Foster 1999). The National Recreation and Parks Association was calling for “well- educated, entrepreneurial and innovative” aquatic management (Turner 1991). It was a pleasant surprise to learn that Omaha had found a way to address swimming pools and the need for more recreation centers in an equitable manner much as the project indicated were necessary. Accessible recreation facilities and parks are typically “20 years behind the times” (Oestreicher 1990). In the case of Omaha, as with many American cities, playgrounds were as much as 35 years behind when the project started (Silkworth 1992). In recent years, Omaha has been closing the gap in accessibility with twenty-three new parks and two major renovations of inner-city parks and recreation facilities (Silkworth 1992). Park planners are more carefully scrutinizing playground equipment on the basis of safety, 63
maintenance and play value (Caesar 1999). City governments have grown weary of lawsuits over accidents in the park. New park locations are developed with contemporary playground equipment that meets accessibility standards. They are installed and maintained for a particular age group of a specific population in developing areas because it is economically feasible. Old playground equipment abounds in existing parks with high population densities, with little or no support to help finance the demand for recreation resource improvements (Silkworth 1992). Providing accessibility and adequate safety requires appropriate design, safety inspection and continual maintenance (Allen 1998). Accessibility in the parks and recreation facility system is a growing concern for planning professionals (Gillespie 1989). Playground accessibility is at issue because design can limit recreation participation and omit a significant and vital section of a city’s population (Gantt-Wright 1999). Furthermore, just because a facility was designed to be accessible, doesn’t make it a desirable place to play (Caesar 1999). If accessibility is an issue at the beginning of every planning process, accessible designs will no longer be overlooked (Allen 1998). If space is allocated for parks and recreation ahead of development, park planning professionals are able to effectively communicate to developers essential requirements in terms like “acres per thousand”. Transportation planners seem to agree that citizen mobility needs to be multi-dimensional (Knox 1991). Some cities are widening sidewalks for two-way human powered mobility, giving more emphasis on pedestrian traffic within the City (Untermann 1997). Recreation professionals champion the idea of people having a safe 64
walkway between work and home (NRPA/MPRA Conference 1994). Many articles in the literature spotlight scenic views along the linear and radial transportation corridors (Gerckens 1998). Urban capital improvement programs seem to be among the most innovative attempts to use what resources the city has to create an environment people need, while following the guidelines of the city's master plan (Lovingood Jr. 1978). Other authors join them with articles that consider a list of environmental ethics for parks and recreation administrations to follow. Leo McAvoy writes that a park and recreation professional philosophy demands grounding in ecological principles, not merchant values. In other words, the value of the service should be measured by the extent to which environmentally responsible visitors are cultivated, not by the extent to which revenue is generated (1990). This common recreation philosophy can conflict with economic concepts of feasibility and sustainability when planning and developing public recreation facilities that are expensive to maintain. Again it sounds much like an urban version of the “tragedy of the commons” (McCay 1987).
CONCLUSIONS Cities losing cases of liability due to safety hazards in public places are beginning to take measures of prevention through planning (Fantino 1999). Still, social issues remain unresolved that called upon residents to act environmentally responsible for public places (Varnes 1991). Social issues must be resolved before public administration can fully address development for the sake of sustainability and 65
improved urban function within the city park system. Some enlightened urban individuals attempting to rejuvenate the environmental ethic of a new age for planning by trying a “back to basics” philosophy (Sanson 1976; Untermann 1991, 1997). Planning must anticipate growth and demand, be prepared for the future, ready to defend the citizen’s right to adequate parks and recreation facilities. It is commonly understood that while people may save aluminum cans, recycle, ride a bike or walk more, they do not want to give up the luxuries and conveniences of urbanization. For this reason, an appropriate philosophy for parks and recreation professionals lies somewhere between that of an entrepreneur and an environmentalist. A geographic investigation of urban space as applied to current development of public spaces for the sake of long-term ecological sustainability could and has been defined by many terms from many perspectives. This thesis is an example of the research which focuses on the spatial aspects of parks and recreation facility planning that keeps the collective decision making process in tact by offering interactive mapping of the city. 66
Chapter III METHODOLOGY
Though park and recreation facility equality is more often qualifiable than quantifiable, objectivity and consistency between and within evaluation processes was an asset to Omaha’s planners. Additionally, using service radii mapping to measure scarcity, availability, and accessibility of facilities and parks provided more precise understanding of the population characteristics within different areas of the city. The methodology also included sampling techniques, comparative, centrographic and descriptive methods of analyzing geographical and spatial information. This resulted in classification of Omaha’s park and recreation facilities district, community and neighborhood parks. As space was located within the city system for development, population statistics were calculated from the 1990 census. The usefulness of the cartographic research continued to resolve problems for planning parks and recreation as site evaluation complimented technical information. Further research compared and contrasted the techniques for compatibility to the facility type in terms of effectiveness. It was necessary to demonstrate how theory could be applied to planning methodologies in order to establish a consensus before the park prescriptions were acceptable to planning. The process began with overlapping circles or central place notions defining service areas (Figure 3.1-5). 6 7
Service Facility Area
Overlapping Service Areas
Hexagons use all the space without overlapping
Figure 3.1: Facility Planning in Central Place Theory by author, 1999.
Facility
Diamonds use all the space without Service Radii overlapping Mapping follows transporation routes Figure 3.2: Planning Criteria by author, 1999.
Facility of Influence
Grant Criteria Coverage Areas
Figure 3.3: Planning Application of Theory by author, 1999.
Central Place Theory facility
Grant Criteria
Application
Service Areas Figure 3.4: Combined Model of Theory for Application by author, 1999. 68
Open Space Parks and Playgrounds Recreation Basketball Facility Inventory Tennis \ Tennis Complexes^ Soccer | ' lerging Map Soccer Complexes"! Layers acihty Sw imming Pools 9 Hole Golf lap Layers 18 Hole Golf Recreation Centers I Youth Ballfields Service Adult Ballfields Radii Map Ball Complexes Results
Any Spatial Phenomena Facility to Population Ratios Interactive Map Layers
Topographic Street Grid Sanitary Sewer Parks and Map Layers < > Map Layers Map Layer Recreation Facility Plan Fhyscial Features T ransportation Shows Growth FEMA Maps Routes Potential J k . J k . J k . 'W 'W Park Development Housing Built Balanced Prescriptions Environment Zones < > Growth 1992 Map Layer Map Layer Map layer Regional, Metro. Population Managed Growth Community & Projections Plan Park Neighborhood Prescriptions Centers Acres per 1000 1995
Figure 3.5: Interactive Geographic Analysis Model by author, 1999. 69
Hexagons are used in geographic theory and diamonds were being used in the planning department, both eliminated overlapping service areas. As long as the method was consistent the procedure ensured equitable service coverage. The resulting polygons divided service areas as equitably as possible considering topography and barriers to human powered mobility (Figure 3.6).
Population H e enter .
Low \ Population
Figure 3.6: Applied Model of Theory by author, 1999.
However, the service radii mapping technique gave evidence to consider the overlapping service areas as significant in the development of connectivity between parks along transportation routes. Forecasting future park and recreation facility needs used the service radius of the facility with overlapping circles to ensure coverage which resulted in polygons that divided real space without gaps in service. This work was done by hand and translated into the park prescriptions in 1992. 7 0
84 I 5 '..YtSNVvV
y r w w t r w w i
» w »
Figure 3.7: Playgrounds - Service Radii Mapping Example by author 7 1
Figure 3.7 represents a small sample of the intricate detail involved in calculating population to facility ratios for playgrounds in Omaha. Notice that MAPA 1990 population by block was the base map, facilities were designated with an “X”, park number and name. Overlapping was quite extensive in this section between 36th and 72nd to the east and west and Fort and Blondo to the north and south. Population was divided by the number of overlapping service areas. Population to facility totals were circled and placed by the facility name. Notice the overlapping service areas, common in urban places. For facilities that did not fit the service radii mapping techniques distance minimization principles such as major ball complexes or golf courses, another cartographic method using central place concepts still proved to be a practical application. In the interactive map analysis spatial distribution and relationships were key in designating the facility location. These facilities also needed appropriate sites for development requiring field research to consider topographic conditions and scenic values for parks. Population thresholds were significant as well. Parks and facilities requiring higher population thresholds were more costly. At the same time, higher land value often meant less land available for parks and recreation facilities (Berry 1968; Morrill, 1974; Yeates 1974). In 1995 the Department of Interior required planning prescription in terms of “acres per 1000” (Appendices 8.1-3). Since the geographic model was complete with service radii mapping and merging, an interactive map analysis and the spatial statistics defined on spreadsheets (Appendices 1-4) was all that was needed to calculate the population increases. Since 1995 the “acres per 1000” 72
park prescriptions provided service coverage information that is a significant element of the present City Master Plan (Silkworth 1999).
INVENTORY During the spring and fall of 1991, inventories began to extend the work that had already been done toward including every park, recreation facility and property as part of the city system. A survey was conducted in order to compare regional, metropolitan, district, community, neighborhood, mini and linear parks in terms of levels of public usage and environmental quality. Facilities and the physical conditions of the parks were noted and assessed, as were the general socio-economic characteristics of users and user activities. Time of day, day of the week and site characteristics were varied to get an idea of peak usage times. Site checks involved over a hundred conversations with personnel, park visitors and recreation participants. Repeated visits to park sites and recreation events over the course of several years resulted in a journal of park site observations and responses to simple questions about their perception of the Omaha parks and recreation facilities. Although the interview process was limited, the site checks provided the much needed physical information and valuable insights. Park and recreation properties were defined with comments on facility inventory, maintenance and safety concerns. The physical inventory of Omaha’s parks and facilities was entered onto a spreadsheet using Excel software for Macintosh (Appendix 3). In addition to this inventory, all public properties managed by Omaha’s Recreation, Parks and Public Properties 73
Department were inventoried and classified according to size and development potential. Target locations for future park open space, multi-use areas and facilities were established in order of priority based on the geographic information and spatial distribution. Locations in existing parks conducive to development of specific facilities were also duly noted and included in the geographic model. Site analysis was considered part of the background research significant enough to include because it represents human- environmental interaction in the parks of Omaha (Appendices 4-8). For a fuller investigation of the economic feasibility of park development a Budget Summary was prepared. City government documents produced over the last decade were read to understand the broader financial circumstances of the City. The number of parks and recreation facility development projects completed, planned and underway were considered as a measure of development potential in Omaha. Omaha's demographic trends and population statistics revealed growth and decline, youthful and older populations, socio economic and cultural aspects of the populace.
FACILITY REQUIREMENTS The following standards are used to identify locations for new public parks and recreation facilities: 1. Tennis: 1-11/2 to 1-2/3 mile service radius; 4,500 people of all ages; 1 acre 2. Tennis Complexes: 2-1/2 to 3 mile service radius; 35,000 people of all ages and tournament play; 2 acres 3. Recreation Centers: 2-1/2 to 2-2/3 mile service radius; 35,000 74
people of all ages; 2 acres* 4. Soccer Fields: 1-1/2 to 1-2/3 mile service radius; 10,000 people of all ages; 2.6 to 4 acres depending on site 5. Soccer Complexes: evenly distributed near population centers; league play and tournaments; 8 acres 6. 18 Hole Golf Course: evenly distributed among the population; 50,000 people of all ages; 30 or more acres 7. 9 Hole Golf Course: 2-1/2 to 2-2/3 mile service radius; 50,000 people of all ages; 10 or more acres 8. Swimming Pools: 2-1/2 to 2-2/3 mile service radius; 8,000 in the 5-19 age group; 2 acres 9. Ballfields: 1-1/2 to 1-2/3 mile service radius; 6,000 people of all ages; 8 acres 10. Adult Ballfield Complexes: evenly distributed; league play and tournaments; 19 acres 11. Youth Ballfield Complexes: evenly distributed; league play and tournaments; 10 acres 12. Basketball: 1 to 1-1/3 mile service radius; 2,700 people of all ages; .5 acres 13. Playgrounds: 1/2 to 2/3 mile service radius; 500 children ages 2-11; .5 acre minimum; prefer 1 acre sites with buffer zones 14. Multi-Use Open Space: 1 to 1-1/3 mile service radius; 3,000 people of all ages; .5 acre minimum on flat site, prefer 3 acre sites with 1.5 acres for picnic area, consideration given to flat or rolling site with a minimum of 25 percent additional area allowed for trees and amenities. 75
SERVICE RADII MAPPING In order to meet the goal of providing service equitably throughout the city, basic recreation services are evaluated in terms of the distance which the users must travel to the facility, and in terms of the amount of population within that service radius. Gaps in service can then be identified, so that construction of new facilities can be programmed in those areas which are lacking service. The process for mapping service radii was as follows: 1. Identify and locate parks which have the specific facility, using the parks database, the park facilities maps (covering specific areas of the city) and the Omaha and Vicinity Map. Old overlay maps of service radii was also helpful in this process. 2. If the park is large in area, aerial photos were used to locate the recreation facility (central place) within the park. 3. Translations of the service radius for each facility were cartographically measured to scale on the base map. Measurement was done along existing routes which can b e followed by pedestrians from the facility out to the edge of the service radius distance (Figure 3.7). 4. Different colors and/or map legend patterns were used for adjacent facilities to mark the facility location and the end points of the service radius measurement (Figure 3.7). Edges were connected around block boundaries to create unbroken zones surrounding all of the area within the facility’s service radius (range of a good). 5. Census data at the block level were used to tabulate the target (threshold) population for each facility. This was done by 76
adding the population within the target socioeconomic group of each block which is within the service radius (tributary area or sphere of influence) of a particular facility. 6. Some facilities have a target population which is less than the total census population. In these cases, subgroups such as “ages 5 to 9“ within the total population were calculated for the facility. Subgroup data were derived block by block from a percentage of census tract totals within each service area. The population of overlapped service areas will be equally apportioned among the competing facilities.
This process included a block by block survey of population density in order to understand the distribution of population in Omaha relative to public park locations and acreage. Acres per capita were assessed as a rough measure of usage at public recreation facilities. The total acres of land as compared to an acre of recreation land were used as an estimate of availability of public facilities. Accessibility was considered in terms of the distance of the population from the public parks. Facility maps assigning each facility a population to facility ratio synthesized the results of this process. Then, spreadsheets were produced for the planners’ use in conjunction with computer assisted map layers of each facility type (Figure 4.1). Served, underserved and unserved classifications were subjectively chosen by planning professionals based on higher standards than the national minimum requirements and state guidelines. This resulted in a series of map layers which a technician could use to interpolate the facilities needed by location based on 77
population. The results of that map layering set was then listed and cartographically represented on the planners’ version of the parks and recreation facility plan as park prescriptions featured in this case stu d y . Population statistics were measured against space requirements for each type of facility required in a given area to determine the size of park needed. Multi-use open spaces were verified by site checks, aerial photos and platt maps of public properties conducive to recreation facility development. These sites were then targeted a s potential locations for recreation facilities and parks. Coverage areas, based on the nearest neighbor concept, allowed for the adoption of an “acres per thousand” standard for the distribution of public facilities. Locations were designated after several planning meetings that hashed out best case scenarios with discussions comparing locations to each other with respect to its proximity to commercial centers and residential areas. Many of these locations are in keeping with the idea of parks as transition zones with the most ideal park and recreation facility locations between commercial and residential areas.
MAP MERGING AND INTERACTIVE ANALYSIS As indicated in Figure 3.5, existing park locations and natural features included an inventory of urban forestry, wetlands and waterways as base map features. These maps were merged b y converting large service radii maps to computer map layers which the planners could use individually or interactively as part of the geographic model. In order to effectively determine facility needs in a comprehensive analysis, map layers were formatted for the 78
Macintosh computer with Illustrator 5.5. Spreadsheets were developed from the Excel software that planners were using. Additional map layers were included: topographic information, streets, sanitary sewer, development criteria, planning zones and even a balanced contiguous growth map layer as part of the process (Figures 4.2-3, 4.5-8). From this geographic model, the official parks and recreation facility master plan was submitted and approved b y the city council. As stated earlier, this format allowed planners to work with spatial information from the desktop. Planners could shuffle through map layers, choosing layers most pertinent to planning current issues. Newer versions of Illustrator allowed one to look down through all the layers as was done with transparencies early in the project, only now the format is easily printed and duplicated. The interactive map analysis allowed planners to visualize the Geographic Model of Parks and Recreation Facility Planning (Figure 4.9) in relation to other spatial data. For example: topography, transportation routes, sewer systems, development zones, housing and the managed growth plan were constant issues of concern (Figure 3.5). Since they were in a format that could be merged with the parks and recreation facility plan, decisions on locations suitable for development of these facilities were easier to make. The interactive map analysis was developed to standardize a method of analyzing parks and recreation from a spatial perspective, but also to provide planners with valuable information for decision-makers. The planning process required documentation the geographic model could provide in a timely manner. 79
Chapter IV THE OMAHA CASE STUDY
Does the city of Omaha have a comprehensive urban park plan which effectively considers the environmental impact of park usage? What are the factors impacting park use? While urban parks are designed for public use, there are environmental aspects that deserve consideration in park planning and development. An important part of the Omaha park system includes a wealth of historically significant places which demand preservation. Use and preservation represent a duality in the purpose of park management. The fundamental issue is determining the optimal levels of current public use that allows for continual use and future preservation. The course of action taken by the city to resolve conflicts between qualities associated with usage and preservation was analyzed. Is the current program an effective part of a long range land use plan? This thesis identified the major efforts in park planning in the past as they impacted recent courses of action. The analysis was based upon assessing use through direct participation and hands-on field research coupled with numerous work sessions, interviews and extensive research of applicable literature. This procedure provided both local and national perspectives for synthesis and contribution to the Omaha’s park and recreation facility planning process. Results of this part of the analysis indicated that while Omaha has its problems, effective use of planning principles, assure a vigorous and utilitarian future of the parks and recreation system. 80
SERVICE RADII MAPPING RESULTS While circles, hexagonal or diamond shaped service areas were the ideal circumference, actual service areas had to conform to transportation routes. Service radii mapping observed the parameters of theory, while application resulted in oddly shaped polygons discussed in the literature analysis (Gould 1985). Government guidelines required that existing transportation routes represent the most logical path of travel to and from parks and recreation sites (USDI June 1991). Therefore, the geographic model was a reasonable solution satisfying both the governmental guidelines and public demand for traditional recreation and park facilities in Omaha (Figure 4.1; Appendices 1.1-15). Developing a complete inventory of Omaha’s parks and recreation facilities and services with multiple map studies and population statistics provided understanding of the human-environment interactions. Therefore, maps were accompanied by corresponding population statistics. For example, see Appendices 2.1-5 which provides populations statistics on Playgrounds. Notice Crown Point Park at 4404 Laurel Street is a two-acre park with one playground serving 959 children between the ages of two and eleven. The target threshold for playgrounds is 3 00 children in this age group. Figure 4.1: Service Radii Mapping Example - Playgrounds by author, 1992. Notice gaps in service and overlapping service radii in densely populated areas. 82
MAP MERGING AND INTERACTIVE MAP ANALYSIS The first step in solving the problem of optimizing Omaha's park and recreation facility location is taking inventory and relative assessments of the sites and situations in question. Figure 4.2 was the first complete map of all of the parks and recreation facilities in Omaha. Once planning officials knew where all the existing Parks and recreation facilities were in relation to areas in need of environmental protection, preservation and conservation, the foundation was set (Figure 4.3). The next logical step was to produce a map merging several map layers in order to produce a Parks and Natural Resources map where green was used to designate natural areas the City planned to conserve, preserve or protect. One by one, the coverage maps and statistics were merged by hand until locations could be designated and prioritized (Figure 4.4). 83
Figure 4.2 Parks Merged with City Streets by author, 1991. 84
ii i l .mym\
Figure 4.3 Natural Resources Merged with Parks by author, 1992. 85
■igure 4.4: Parks and Recreation Facility Plan, City of Omaha 1992. 86
Parks were prescribed accordingly, resulting in Figure 4.4: Parks and Recreation Facility Plan, City of Omaha 1992. On the basis of park size alone, planning officials began to close the gap between supply and demand for parks and recreation facilities. However, this simple plan did not consider public transportation, automobiles and human powered mobility. Movement of the people over the land is an issue considered by this author. Furthermore, some recreation facilities are special, expensive or site specific. Service radii mapping techniques and coverage maps do not evaluate these opportunities very well because it is based on distance minimization principles. It is duly noted that the service radii method does not account for the fact that people will drive, ride, even walk great distances to participate in a particular recreation activity at a more desirable facility. In Omaha, sports tournaments such as ice hockey, baseball, basketball and even soccer leagues are filled with dedicated participants who will pay fees and drive wherever they need to go to be there for the recreation event. For these special opportunities, ticket sales, membership fees and a minimum population threshold are more important than travel time and distance of population centers to the facilities. Equitable spatial distribution of these larger facilities was more important than the specific location and population data resulting from service radii mapping. In order to create a geographic model that recognizes their place within the system, site and situation were considered most important. With this in mind, the interactive map analysis ensued. 87 ZONE A A - Aggressive ZONE Assimilation - Passive/Aggressive B ZONE Assimilation Passive C- Assimilation ZONE
Figure 4.5 Jurisdictions Merged with Parks and Natural Resources Map Layers by author, 1992, Notice planning criteria. 8 8
*—<
1-g e jEO 'CJ
K3 oi i—>q ,y •> 3 - H- oj uP tJ- o
■.i. “
Figure 4.6 Sanitary Sewers Merged with Parks and Natural Resources Map Layers by author, 1992. Notice limits of service. 8 9
Figure 4,7 Development Critera Merged with Natural Resources by author, 1992. Notice development in natural areas. 9 0
Figure 4.8 Population Merged with Parks and Natural Resources Map Layers by author, 1992. Notice population encroaching on natural reso u rces. 9 1
Other indicators of growth potential included topography, transportation routes, sanitation, housing structure, housing starts, even industry and commercial locations, provided understanding of urban population growth in varying regions of a city. Figure 4.5 merges map layers with information about Omaha’s parks, natural resources and jurisdictions also referred to as development zones. Figure 4.6 is an example of Omaha’s parks, natural resources and sanitary sewers information merged and used as an indicator of growth potential or zoning concerns. Without the proper sanitation facilities, engineering becomes a problem. With this all this information documented and before them, it is not overlooked in the planning process. Figure 4.7 provides a look at Omaha’s parks, natural resources and development criteria in relation to regional, metro, community and neighborhood business and shopping centers with current transportation planning policies already in effect. Figure 4.8 is an attempt to model population growth merged parks, streets and natural resources. It is also one interpretation of a multi-nodal projection of balanced contiguous growth that Omaha City planners were concerned about at the time. Although the projection is limited, the results are remarkably similar to the work of Kenneth W. Englebrecht, Ph.D., whose dissertation produced maps illustrating residential growth patterns (1986). In spite of a few limitations, Figure 4.8 shows the location of parks, natural resources in green and overlapping population growth with the greatest concentration of people represented by black. Such map merging provides the basis of a geographic information system used to determine what, where and how p a rk s 92
and recreation facilities are situated in real locations. Visualizing how urban systems fit together, overlap or understanding why facilities were absent in a particular location exposed weaknesses and strengths within the infrastructure. Maps allow for future planning to analyze factors that discourage or lend incentives to development in a given location.
A GEOGRAPHIC MODEL The preceding set of maps built from parks and natural resources layers, streets, sanitary sewers and planned centers of future development helped define the design of the geographic model. Planning professionals needed technical support grounded in the most objective assessment of the city. It was common knowledge that streets and utilities precede development. For this reason, streets were present in every map layer. The additional sanitary sewer layer, in contrast to previous layers, crosses over into development potential and could be interchanged with the Development Criteria Layer. Upon reading the map set included in this model, interpretation of merged layers started with knowing streets and utilities were already in place, the potential for development was much greater. If both streets and utilities were located in an area already zoned for parks and recreation development in that vicinity, the location selected was even more likely to be developed. Even without incentives for development, created by existing zoning, existing streets and utilities meant fewer problems for development of the location, especially if it is proposed in the path of natural urban growth. A combination of these interactive map layers was used as a 93
reference for decision-making when dealing with developers. As part of the geographic model the interactive map layering technique allowed decision makers to analyze the relationship between parks, natural resources, and the planning criteria necessary to support development (Figure 4.7). Additionally, projection of desirable growth interactive with the planned development layer that represents regional, metro, community and neighborhood commercial development centers as well as planned street upgrades adds yet another dimension to understanding the City's growth in a real context (Figure 4.8). Balanced contiguous growth was the underlying concept, a multi-nodal projection in the model seemed to be a better representation of reality. Although there were several combinations of interactive map analyses available to the city planners with the use of the geographic models, the layers presented in the methodology and case study seemed to be the most applicable. Here we make one more step into projecting future scenarios based on land use theory (Figure 2.5). As the distance increased from the city center and population decreased, facilities spread out over the landscape and distribution of facilities became more uniform. Planning policies included managed growth and was budgeted as key points of concern in the cost-effective planning for future development of the City. The geographic model allowed the planner to shuffle through all these layers without losing sight of parks, natural resources and sanitation available, not only for the sake of the environment, but also cultural ecology. Recreation facilities really do need to be along transportation routes between commercial and residential development. Parks need to be integrated into the City system, not 94
isolated from the population they are supposed to serve. This interactive model forces private development to allocate better land, more conducive to recreation facilities and is above the floodplain. There was no objection to making good use of otherwise wasted public property. However, all too often the parks have land dedicated to them that was not functional for expensive development of active participation recreation facilities. It was difficult for private development to see beyond the basic trails, pathways, sidewalks and open spaces to include meaningful play areas and sports facilities. However, planners armed with the park prescriptions laid out in this model, have at their fingertips, in full color, the visual aids necessary to drive home the argument for a particular set of facilities in any location within the City's sphere of influence. It was this original set of map overlays and interactive map layers developed on transparencies that initiated discussion of the Parks and Recreation Facility Plan in terms of a Geographic Model (Figure 4.9). Of note are facilities added to existing park properties that include approximate locations adequate for development, minimum and optimum park size recommendations and the development of a typical urban park type confirmed by the model. The following geographic model is complete with a corresponding index of facilities planned and projected as a result of this project. 95
Figure 4.9 A Geographic Model of Parks and Recreation Facility Planning by author, 1992. 96
1. playground - .5-2 acres - Central Park Mall 2. open space - 2 acres 3. Recreation Center with parking - 4 acres 4. Soccer Complex with parking, basketball - 11 acres 5. playground, openspace - 2 acres 6. basketball - .5 acres - James F. Lynch Park 7. ballfield with parking - 10 acres 8. ballfield with parking, basketball - 11 acres 9. playground with open space - 3 acres 10. open space - 2 acres 11. tennis, basketball, openspace - 2.5-5 acres - Fontenelle Park 12. basketball - .5-1 acres - Miller Park 13. playground with open space - 3 acres 14. basketball, soccer, playground with open space, picnic area -16 acres - add to 28th and Craig Park 15. playground with open space - 3 acres - add to Florence Park or Community C enter 16. basketball - .5-1 acres - Myott Park or Cottonwood Heights Park 17. basketball, playground with open space - 1.5 - 3 acres - Orchard Park 18. open space - 1 acre - Benson Park 19. basketball with open space - 3 acres 20. playground with open space - 3 acres 21. Tennis Complex, playground with open space - 6 acres - Benson Community C enter 22. basketball with open space - 3 acres 23. playground with open space - 3 acres 24. open space - 1 acre - Roberts Park or Hillside Little League 25. playground with open space - 3 acres 26. basketball - .5-1 acres - in or near Memorial Park or north side of Elmwood P ark 27. Soccer Complex -10 acres - add to Elmwood or near Lexington Street 28. playground with picnic areas and open space - 3 acres 29. basketball, tennis, playground with picnic area and open space - 6 acres 30. playground with picnic area and open space, Golf - 9 hole, 25-35 acres 31. open space - 2 acres 32. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 33. playground, basketball - 1.5-3 acres - Pulaski Park 34. playground, basketball with picnic area and open space -5 acres 35. basketball - .5-1 acres - South Omaha Industrial Park 36. Golf- 18/9 hole, open space - 31-60 acres 37. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 38. playground - 1 acre - Karen Park 39. basketball, soccer - 6 acres 40. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 41. open space - 1 acre 42. Swimming Pool - 5 acres 43. basketball, playground - 1.5-2 acres - Regency Park 44. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 45. basketball with open space - 1 acre 46. basketball - .5-1 acres - Maple Village Park or Warren Swiggart Golf Course 47. basketball, playground with picnic area and open space - 5 acres 48. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 49. basketball, playground with picnic area and open space - 5 acres 97
50. 2 playgrounds (east/west sides) with picnic area and open space, basketball, soccer, Recreation Center, Tennis Complex - 16 acres 51. playground with picnic area, tennis, Recreation Center - 6 acres 52. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres - add to Escalante H ills 53. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres - west end of Knolls Golf Course 54. playground with picnic area and open space, Recreation Center with accessible parking - 8 acres 55. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres - add to Brookside Park 56. basketball, playground with picnic area and open space - 5 acres 57. open space - 1 acre - Mockingbird West Community Center 58. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 3-5 acres - west of Harper Valley Park 59. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 60. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 61. basketball, Tennis Complex, soccer - 9 acres 62. basketball - .5-1 acres - add to south end of Timber Creek 63. basketball with open space - 1-2 acres 64. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, soccer, Tennis Complex - 20 acres 65. 2 playgrounds with picnic areas and open space (east/west sides), basketball, Recreation Center - 20 acres 66. basketball, open space - 1.5 -3 acres 67. playground with picnic area and open space -2-3 acres - add to Trendwood Park 68. basketball - .5-1 acres - West Fairacres Park 69. basketball with open space - 1.5-3 acres - west side of Boy’s Town 70. ballfield - 10 acres 71. playground with picnic area and open space - 2-3 acres - southeast side of Willow Wood Park 72. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 73. playground - 1 acre - southeast section of Tranquility Park 74. basketball - .5 acres - near Fort Street in Tranquility Park 75. Basketball - .5-1 acre- northwest section of Tranquility Park 76. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 77. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, ballfield - 14 acres 78. playground with shelter(s), picnic area and open space, basketball, Youth Ballfield Complex, accessible parking - 25 acres 79. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres - 6 acres southeast with other facilities planned 80. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 81. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 82. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 83. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 84. playground with shelter(s), picnic area, open space, basketball, tennis, accessible parking - 14 acres 85. playground with picnic area and open space, soccer - 0 acres 86. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, tennis, Recreation Center - 10 acres 87. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 98
88. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 89. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, Tennis Complex - 9 acres 90. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 91. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, ballfield - 14 acre 92. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, Youth Ballfield Complex - 28 acres 93. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 94. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 95. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, soccer, Recreation Center with accessible parking - 14 acres - northside of Boy’s Town 96. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres - west side of Boy’s Town 97. basketball with open space - 3 acres 98. basketball, Tennis Complex - 5 acres - Zorinsky Lake 99. basketball - .5 acres - Walnut Grove Park 100. playground with picnic area and open space, ballfield - 12 acres 101. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 102. 2 playgrounds with picnic area and open space, basketball, soccer, Swimming Pool with accessible parking - 14 acres 103. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, tennis, Recreation Center with accessible parking - 9 acres 104. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 105. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, Swimming Pool with accessible parking - 9 acres 106. playground with picnic area, basketball - 3 acres Harvey Oaks Park 107. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 108. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 109. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 110. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 111. playground with picnic area and open space - 3 acres 112. basketball, open space, tennis - 5 acres add to Seven Pines’ 6 acres 113. playground with picnic area and open space - 4 acres - add to Huntington Park 114. basketball, open space - 4 acres 115. soccer, Recreation Center with accessible parking, Youth Ballfield Complex, Swimming Pool - 30 acres - add to Northwest Park 116. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 117. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 118. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, tennis, soccer, ballfield, Swimming Pool with accessible parking - 24 acres 119. playground with picnic area and open space, tennis - 5 acres 120. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 121. playground with picnic area and open space, Recreation Center with accessible parking, ballfield - 14 acres 122. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, Tennis Complex - 8 acres - northside of intersection 123. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 124. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, tennis, soccer - 10 acres 125. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 126. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 99
127. playground with shelter(s), picnic area and open space, basketball, tennis, Recreation Center with accessible parking, soccer, ballfield - 32 a cres 128. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 129. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, Tennis Complex - 8 acres 130. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 131. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 132. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 133. playground with picnic area and open space - ■ 3 acres 134. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, tennis - 7 acres 135. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 136. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 137. basketball, golf 18/9 hole - :30-60I acres 138. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 139. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 140. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 141. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, Tennis Complex - 8 acres 142 playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 143. tennis 1 acre - Zorin sky Lake 144. playground with picnic area and open space, Recreation Center with accesssible parking - 7 acres 145. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 146. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 147. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 148. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 149. playground on southside, basketball, soccer, Adult Ballfield Complex, Golf 18/9 hole - 55-90 acres - Ridges Park 150. playground on southeasl : side of intersection with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 151. playground with picnic area and open space, , basketball, Recreation Center with accessible parking, ballfield - 16 acres 152. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 153. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 154. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, Recreation Center with accessible parking - 9 acres 155. playground with picnic area and open space, ballfield -12 acres 156. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 157. playground with picnic area and open space, basketball - 5 acres 158. playground with picnic area and open space, Recreation Center with accessible parking - 8 acres 159. playground with picnic area and open space, Swimming Pool with accessible parking - 8 acres
Once the significance of the project was realized, the resulting park prescriptions were integrated into the City Master Plan and is now an equally important element of the City Master Plan (Silkworth 1999). 100
Functional parks and recreation facilities provide opportunities for quality leisure experiences that enhance the lives of people. Planning parks and recreation places is an increasingly demanding responsibility (www.planners’ web.com). Standards for public facilities include federal funding criteria requiring more explicit planning methods (NPS 1998). Generating funding for public parks and recreation development is also becoming an increasingly complex task for cities in the United States (Wicks 1993). Federal standards lead state and local safety standards on parks and recreation facilities by about ten years (Smith 1974: Platt 1991; USDI 1993; Rich wine 1999). In the past, standards were followed as a set of guidelines or recommendations. Recently, funding constraints enforced regulations that reinforced optimal new facility development. However, the “commons” shared in densely populated areas of the city struggle with funding to manage and maintain effective parks and recreation facilities (USDI 1999). Parks are places for people to play. Play seems to be considered an economic responsibility, rather than a benefit in city budgeting. Recreation is an expense, a liability, and a responsibility to the tax paying public. Even in the more progressive parks and recreation systems, land has been haphazardly donated, dedicated, set aside, developed and/or eventually maintained as “someones” park or recreation facility. This is due to the normal shortage of funding and the lack of a coordinated inter-departmental strategy to keep planners informed and prepared for development. Without funding from outside sources, be it a generous wealthy citizen or federal grant, the people using the facilities must pay for them with tax dollars or 101
user fees. Cities frequently maintain parks strictly on the basis of critical need. Typically, when the situation becomes a safety hazard, funding is found on an emergency basis to correct the problem. All too often needs arise faster than funding permits the most appropriate method of correction. Political expediency often leads to appropriations for building a new park in another location rather than renovating a deteriorating park in a heavily used area. In many cases, temporary solutions mean the removal, not the replacement of expensive recreation equipment, especially in well used parks and recreation facilities of lower income areas. Commonly, parks and recreation systems are operating at a deficit in maintenance. Ultimately, the elimination of certain facilities results in a list of undesirable park uses. Complete renovation of the park, then, becomes necessary in order to encourage the intended recreative uses of the public park. Renovation of this kind should be done about every twenty years or sooner, especially in light of recent upgrades in standards and passage of equal access laws. However, renovations such as this seem to be occurring closer to thirty-five years after they were built with maintenance occurring in emergency situation and to prevent obvious safety hazards. Why? Public spaces remain at the bottom of the list of critical needs and priorities in city administration. Opportunities for traditional recreation experiences should increase proportional to growing urban populations. However, statistical and technical support necessary to document and justify collective action normally follows operations. Departmental operations generally continue at status quo for years until funding is finally received to do major renovations in 102
older and often highly populated communities in the greater city. There is good reason for cities to become more concerned about providing quality services equitably throughout all sections of the city. Some state and all federal grant programs require a considerable amount of planning with specific instructions as to how the monies are to be used prior to allocation. Better plans and greater need are basic to the establishment of funding. There are no specific universal standards, to determine population needs. Population densities, population characteristics and public preferences ultimately set the pace by which parks and recreation facility development and maintenance is kept. Urban parks are for people! They cannot be excluded from the process of developing the places they play, especially when they are active on the landscape. Recreation facilities are normally designed for particular types of active and passive uses. Some facilities are designed for a certain purpose, attracting a specific type of recreationist. When dealing with personal preference, one can get into all kinds of intangible questions that arise as to what people "might want or probably would do" if the opportunity was offered. This is best left to planning operations. Recognize the sites and situations in Omaha's present form and using all available information to tailor a plan that satisfies the majority is the objective. However, it is supposed to be designed to meet the needs and wants of the people of the area. A once progressive parks and recreation facility can become a public liability because yesterday’s plan does not work in today's complex parks and recreation environment. For this reason, a master plan for parks and recreation facilities 103
should be flexible. Plans are ideal for projecting into the future, using what is known about the system up to that point. Still, they are formal constructs based on the past. In reality, population wants and needs change and the parks they play in should reflect this change. Unfortunately, federal funding for parks and recreation facility development is diminishing. At the same time, standards are becoming legally binding requirements for city parks and recreation facilities. More explicit planning proposals must be done before funding is allocated for development. This model can help planners resolve this problem by making the method of establishing parks and recreation facility needs more effective and efficient. It is a consistent methodology reproducible and usable in a collective decision making environment of city planning professionals and public administration. Establishing an assessment process for targeting parks and recreation facilities should consider an entire population equitably, over an extended period of time, with contiguous methods of analysis in order to benefit real life situations. If the same analysis process could be consistently updated and reassessed with the same basic criteria as provided in the model and building from the model, the process should be even more efficient, consuming less time to complete projects. Consistency can be maintained and objectivity is not lost in a series of arbitrary decisions made in the beginnings of a new planning idea. Some subjective decisions were still necessary in designing the model especially in the division of space. However, the process remained as consistent as the natural environment. In the thesis, the 104
division of space was held to a politically neutral measurement of parks and recreation facilities spatial distribution within an entire system. An apolitical position within planning parks and recreation facilities equates to an equidistant relationship from one facility to another with consideration given to physical barriers, public needs and the most effective plan. 105
Chapter V SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A synthesis of information concerning Omaha’s park and recreation facilities over time provided a more comprehensive approach than park planners in Omaha had performed in the past. This project involved a computer assisted planning process that used population statistics to identify locations and regions in need of attention. Needs of older areas of the city can be addressed in a timely fashion, just as new areas of development are recognized. Creating this example should help in exposing the need for development and maintenance of certain park and recreation facilities and services. Keeping parks and recreation facilities with natural resources on the master planning model for the City planning professionals should also result in better recreation benefits for the people of the city, which is also politically desirable.
FEASIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS For a city park and recreation system, determining feasibility can be a simple matter of knowing the site and situation of the city at the time the recreation facility and its programs are first organized. In normal situations, well-executed planning produces desirable results. This notion is based on the premise that everything essential to the success of the facility and its programs has been considered before development. However, the threshold of feasibility is different for every public recreation activity and facility location offered by the 106
city system. The changing dynamics of municipal park and recreation facility use requires an equally dynamic solution to the problem of predicting locations suitable for recreation development throughout the city. Parks and recreation research publications imply that an environmentally balanced park and recreation system can provide optimal planned recreation opportunities. Similarly, the more basic the recreation program, the easier it is for the program to maintain itself. This is based on the idea that an environmentally balanced system is more self-sufficient. A well-planned recreation facility operates with fewer liabilities to the municipality because use balances with adequate maintenance. The Omaha Parks and Recreation Facility Plan is designed with this in mind.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Often Cities grow in spurts of rapid development before environmental technicians are brought into the situation to assist urban professionals who need to address critical situations first. The problems basic to all cities cannot be dismissed, especially since the city has been an important topic of academic and applied research. Since Burgess’ concentric zone model and Christaller’s central place theory, modeling the environment has developed into one of the most important and far reaching contributions of technology in this century. Now there is a need for geographic information systems, GIS, in planning parks and recreation facilities; a basic premise upon which this paper rests. In order to establish need, government documents must be filed complete with plans predicting logical scenarios; some projecting into 107
the future. Information based on what was currently known, plus trends and negotiable boundaries within the city administrative process are crucial in park planning procedure today. Urban representatives are also interpreting “in practice learning” more in watching how plans evolve throughout the city. Cities are evolving faster than public city systems can keep up with and control growth. In the case of Omaha, the city is growing faster to the south and west. Most gravity models show direction of urban growth with model building and theory applications (Engelbrecht 1986). Engelbrecht tested the Adams model with statistical information accurate enough to label growth either as "concentric or axial" (Engelbrecht 1986). This allows for assessment from description of true socio-economic patterns of Omaha. Engelbrecht’s dissertation represents an application of theory to study the significance of topography, transportation and economic conditions that affect urban morphology in Omaha (Engelbrecht 1986). His research results, not only demonstrates Omaha's unique spatial patterns of residential growth, but also the need for geographic applications in understanding the complexities of the urban landscape. Just like every other city, Omaha needs to keep its city center stable, creating incentives for more inner city development. Omaha is more broadly understood when it is simplified to elements every city needs to consider. Omaha has its ups and downs, trying to keep the city center stable, creating incentives for more inner city development, preventing decentralization, dealing with federal cut backs, taming the Missouri River and in sharing shifting boundaries with Iowa. 108
MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS Generally, maintenance continues to be the greatest problem with park and recreation facilities. The reason for this is that life time maintenance costs are often omitted from planning and development cost projection considerations. Though low use can be a problem too, overcrowded or overused facilities seldom provide optimal leisure experiences. Federal grant applications do not require a life time maintenance plan, cities are expected to have the money to maintain the facilities once they are built. Observation of city facilities in the United States suggest this is difficult for cities to do. Cities do not continually maintain all their parks and recreation facilities at optimal levels. City governments of size are attempting to provide recreation experiences that consider long-term environmental quality of facilities and recreation benefits. However, the problem is in this race to catch up with population growth a lot of retro-fitting occurs and omissions are made. Overlooking ongoing facility maintenance and potential recreation facility development can be justified by the administration. Location is most important and fundamental in the entire planning and development process. Public support seems to b e a close second and needs to continue after the construction of the facility. However, after a facility is developed, maintenance often becomes the sole responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department. Without public participation in the department and recreation activities, typically, recreation facilities cannot be maintained adequately. Open space, greenways, trails, paths and sidewalks are all transportation systems that need to incorporate 109
parks and recreation facilities managed by the city. The infrastructure of the city often consumes the greatest share of the city budget, the needs of such basics as police and fire departments undoubtedly are considered before the most critical needs of the park and recreation department and has resulted in a history of limited funds for recreation programs and park maintenance. Experience dictates a strong recommendation for the inclusion of maintenance costs for optimal recreation experiences for the life of the facility. As stated above, provisions for maintenance over time are not always required in the federal funding grant applications. Constant upgrading of park and recreation facilities to keep pace with new safety standards mandates the creation of an objective, accurate and 4 effective method of analysis. Though it is no substitute for a federal facility maintenance program, a logical method of pinpointing weaknesses within the city’s park and recreation system could help to minimize the gap between initial development and long term maintenance. Like many other cities, Omaha needs to maximize its initial developments to conserve on maintenance costs.
POLITICAL CONCERNS The closer the plan fits reality, the closer development will come to adequately serving the taxpaying public. It is conceivable that the use of geographic methods provides a solution to this problem while maintaining a neutral political perspective concerning the division of public space. For the division of space is always a political issue in an urban setting. During the year spent developing the planning model 110
for Omaha’s parks and recreation system, planners often repeated, “anytime space is divided, it becomes a political issue”. Consequently, population ratios were studied spatially and decisions were based on practical standards set by the planning professionals to avoid as much political discrimination as possible. The federal provision of funding for various recreational facilities is tied to the demographics of the city. Federal and state grants are allocated based on need. The city’s ability to establish a strong justification for development of certain kinds of park and recreation facilities is imperative. Still, the criteria for establishing a sphere of influence for each park and recreation facility are interpretive. Interpretation of the guidelines provided for cities becomes the responsibility of city planning personnel. Usually, population densities are the foundation for the planning process, however, methods of using this information are variable. Additionally, a variety of methods were used to determine needs. An academically formalized spatial allocation model has never been devised to standardize this process. Only recently has consideration extended beyond the ratio of population to park and recreation facilities to include development in terms of environmental impact on the area. Though much time is spent planning and preparing proposals for park and recreation development to meet the more stringent criteria, there are fewer and fewer grants for urban recreation development (Safety Standards Seminar, City of Omaha 1992). Even so, only the best proposals illustrating the greatest need get funding. 111
NEEDS AS DETERMINED BY USE Much of the problem with maintaining recreation facilities seemed to be centered around the unpredictability of public participation. Part of the planning process involves forecasting and anticipating participation levels. This is easier said than done. For example, with playgrounds, one could deduce from a service area of five hundred children between the ages of two and eleven years old, if only ten percent of them visited the park at the same time, then, fifty children would be using the playground! But what if thirty percent used the playground everyday? That’s a lot of children! Without public participation, especially in the initial phases of a park and recreation department’s planning process, municipal funds are easily spent elsewhere and facilities suffer (Silkworth 1992). In 1990, playgrounds in Omaha were as much as thirty-five years out of date. Today, Omaha is keeping pace with the national averages of only ten years behind current playground standards (Silkworth 1992). This is why it was so important to use mapping techniques that allowed people to visualize the parks and recreation facilities and properties as a system within the system. As people recognized the spatial relationships between parks and recreation facilities and other parts of the infrastructure, parks could no longer be overlooked. Traditionally, the needs of police and fire departments take first priority. Then, streets and water systems are addressed, often before even the most critical needs of the park and recreation department. Many times facilities that presented a safety issue were simply removed because the recreation department did not have the funding to replace, fix or upgrade the facility to meet new standards 112
(Christiansen 1999). Some recreation professionals would argue that the parks and recreation department is the last one to get funding and the least likely to get attention from the city administration (NRPA Conference 1997). With active public participation, inter departmental cooperation and the parks and recreation facility plan based on a geographic model, Omaha has been more successful in acquiring funding for new facilities and parks during the 1990s (Silkworth 1999). When adding the dimension of time to these ideas we can project the future needs based on spatial information. In faster growing areas of a city, census data are always behind a few years, but growth factors can be calculated based on the original statistics with a fair amount of confidence in the numbers. The dimension of time is an important factor in planning. Timing is everything when wanting feedback from the participating public and their families! In order to get the feedback needed in the initial phases of planning a park or facility, planners need to be creative. Volunteers are scarce these days. It is difficult for urbanites to break routines between work and home to do surveys and be involved in the administrative process of planning parks. Volunteers from social, civic and even recreation organizations invest a great deal of time and money in local facilities. However, the skilled volunteers are hard to find. They have to be cultivated, public notices need to state a purpose, agenda and limits that inform volunteers. Urbanites want to know exactly what will be expected of them as a volunteer. Then, to keep them involved in the planning process, volunteers have to feel like they are accomplishing something vital with their time. The same is true for 113
recreationists, they don't want their leisure time complicated by facility problems or deficiencies (RER 1999). Recreators are willing to pay reasonable fees for special opportunities and even traditional ones, if the facilities are well maintained and programming services are adequate. The logical answer is undeniably the addition of user fees and charges to cover facility costs (Foster 1999; RER 1999). If all the people of the city were happy with looking at the Nebraska sunrise or sunset, or feeling the wind in their hair while sitting on a park bench, maintaining parks would be simple. While the allure of the landscape continues to compel recreationists to participate in outdoor recreation activities, desirability of the location plays an important role in participation (Kaplan 1998). Trends suggest that people want to participate in a wider variety of recreation activities as part of their routine. Parks and recreation sites between work and home, connected with adequate sidewalks, trails and bikeways seems to be the future of urban transportation (McMahon 1997). Accessible facilities with innovative designs that meet the challenges of the disabled challenging the individual at many levels of participation (Hultsman 1998).
CONCLUSIONS In order for the City to use the model continuously, an ongoing inventory needs to be kept by the Planning Department. Preferably, a computer assisted model should be available to planning professionals. This thesis provides the framework for an interactive geographic information system that can be used between census years. The interactive format offers planning professionals a holistic 114
perspective, but also a detailed inventory. Application of theory to the real City justifies professional decisions such as the gradual spreading of parks and recreation facilities as one travels from the City. Demographics demand more attention be given to inner city locations as well as residential corridors and rapidly developing areas alike. Planning professionals using the system of layering geographic information will be better informed decision makers which will ultimately mean better planning. The dynamics of cities are studied across the curriculum. The city is a place where people and nature overlap, interact, change, evolve, differently, together. Land use and environmental impact studies, ranging from theory to applied research offer case studies as examples. However, the technology and spatial information which can resolve concerns of a city planning parks and recreation facilities equitably, is limited. As people use new technology to make better plans or models, methods of inventory, prescription and assessment are revealed (Laurini 1992). At its conception, this project was ahead of technology in many ways. There were no models of Omaha’s parks and recreation system. Inventories were incomplete. Public property assessments were inconsistent. Nothing existed that tied the parks system together for planning. Integration with other City systems in terms of planning were very limited. The park planner didn’t even have a “good map” of all the city parks and recreation facilities (Silkworth 1992, 1999). This is where we started. City planners were being forced to develop strategies for forecasting public need in an equitable manner long before the 115
technology existed to effectively address parks and recreation facility issues. The geographic approach used to develop the public park and recreation facility planning model proved to be useful to planning professionals in Omaha, Nebraska. The model provided the documentation needed to target critical needs, recognize service areas as well as establish parks and recreation facility planning as an element of the City’s Master Plan (1992, 1999). While the population and spatial statistics are constantly changing, the geography remains constant. Once unserved, underserved and adequately served areas were identified, population statistics allowed us to set ideal thresholds and target locations for development. Spatial relationships move a little as facilities are developed, but the model is essentially unchanged since 1992 (Silkworth 1999). The model has been referred to repeatedly to verify specific needs in a particular location, to secure land acquisitions and meet minimum coverage criteria set by the City during the course of this project (Silkworth, Klein 1999). For this reason, park planning personnel are able to request land for parks and recreation facilities and preserve open space more effectively (Silkworth 1999). Twenty-three new parks and recreation facilities and two major park renovations have resulted during the 1990s. Hopefully, parks are being considered as one way to revitalize communities within the inner city as well. Understanding the planning process was essential to the creation of a model for Omaha that would withstand the test of time. The niche for this thesis is as that it applies theory to reality. It uses governmental guidelines and a city’s own standards to create a model that served the purpose of application. Interpreting the criteria for 116
planning the development of public parks and recreation facilities is so specific that the spatial relationships discussed in theory are very different from the obstacles found in real space. This problem is addressed in the methodology which “recognizes central place theory as a description of spatial behavior, suggesting reasons for different functions, sizes, numbers and spacing of places” (Morrill 1974). It was the application of geographic theory, spatial analysis and mapping techniques that resulted in a paradigm the City could really use. In collective decision making situations such as that of public planning committees and private meetings among government officials, no one person was actually held responsible for the outcome
t- of the project. In this case, one might inject that we can pin-point the first hint of the "tragedy of the commons" (Harden, 1968). Observation of parks in general, bring to mind the thought that many public resources are neglected, polluted and destroyed by people with a “throw away mentality”.
FURTHER RESEARCH This study not only provides an accurate inventory of Omaha’s park system for future reference, but is expected to be used as the framework for the general course of park planning in Omaha for the next twenty or thirty years. The computer assisted planning model can evolve with the city. If this procedure is repeated with the next census year, the results from each study can be compared one to the other, revealing much more over time, than in a singular study. Omaha’s decision makers seemed to have used the results of this 117
study repeatedly as a basis for new plans. Perhaps other city representatives will see the benefit of a similar analysis for their cities? Omaha may be ready for follow up research to fine tune this model after the next census year. The use of the model by city government officials seems to have enhanced their position in the planning process as well as improved general knowledge of the city’s geography. An accurate model closely represents reality. The park prescriptions provided in the model should be an asset to the administrative process because they are based in reality. Successful applications of the model and interpretations of spatial information required an understanding of the geographic concepts and methods as well as an appreciation for the planning process. Planning professionals in Omaha seemed to be pleased with the model (1992, 1999). It was interesting to see how many different ways planning professionals have used the spatial information provided in the geographic model.
i y - L T ! X t a w * If tS
Figure 5.1 The Concept of Flow by the author, 1992. The best case scenario resulting from the use of the model in a planning setting is the grasp of the idea of "flow" of activity over the urban landscape illustrated in Figure 5.1. This is one example taken from many discussions on the concept, whereby recreation facilities 118
are in parks with trails and pedestrian walkways designed to enhance environmental perception with various types of scenic views. The idea is in keeping with the linear park concept embraced by Omaha’s planning professionals throughout history. Trails, sidewalks and streets establish connectivity between parks, residential areas and commercial centers. This concept emphasizes the need to develop the various types of transportation collectively for the sake of connectivity and movement with respect to the urban location. It is the opinion of this author that linear parks offer human powered mobility. Open space, green ways, walkways, sidewalks, trails, all extend the historic ideal of city beautification. If the geography is scenic and the location benefits from secondary connectivity, boulevards will serve their appropriate place in space over time. Just as the original designers intended, boulevards, should not offer a more direct route, but a more scenic one. Surely, the City’s representatives will keep the ideal boulevard concept intact to preserve and develop Omaha’s historical beautification efforts. The planning literature encourages this appreciation of the natural environment and is in keeping with contemporary recreation philosophy. 119
APPENDICES 1.1 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Open Space by author, 1992. 1.2 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Basketball by author, 1992. 122
1.3 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Tennis by author, 1992. 123
14 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Tennis Complexes by author, 1992. 124
1.5 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Soccer by author, 1992. 125
1.6 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Soccer Complexes by author, 1992.
as WMBBm
Q
y
s i i ! I ! I I I s i I I I S I 2 ! I 1 26
1.7 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Recreation Centers by author, 1992.
II JIHIIIIIItlllllllllM
' •. : : Xx.-vf-.;- •y iiV v .Vi.:*:; 127
1.8 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Youth Ballfield Complexes by author, 1992. 128
1.9 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Adult Ballfield Complexes by author, 1992.
? t t 1.10 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Swimming Pools by author, 1992. 130
1.11 - Service Radii Mapping Results - 9 Hole Public Golf Courses by author, 1992. (Public Only) 13 1
1.12 - Service Radii Mapping Results - 18 Hole Public Golf Courses by author, 1992. (Public Only) 132
1.13 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Soccer League Complexes by author, 1992. (Public and Private) 133
1.14 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Youth Ballfield Complexes b v author, 1992. (Public and Private)
i | | | i i | j | jj 1 [ \ l i 1 I I I i i i i i ? I s i i i i j 134
1.15 - Service Radii Mapping Results - Adult Ballfield Complexes by author, 1992. (Public and Private)
ifiiJ!
itth T
< iu o a
-1 cl O a . O
8 8 £ | i j i 1 1 I ! 8 ! ! 8 \ E I I 8 I 135
2.1-5 - An Example of Population to Facility Ratios - Playgrounds by author, 1992. |0801S
8 8 S | t8'8SS CD CO CM in CO Oi 5 o CO CO •M" in CD oi co CMd o o Oi
P*. CO 465.54 467.68 479.41 486.23| 482.281 487.55 497.291 5087m 541.42 549.43 569.14 640.34| 596.49 671.32 668.87 758.40 686.55 778.03 946.76 959.00 831.20 in in in in in in ages ages 2 to 11 July July 14, 1992 i i 568.42 ! ! 568.28 e e s s o o z 0SS868 o CO ino ino CMCO o o o in H* CM CO CO CMo 3125.50
in 3440.00 2798.83 3797.50 2879.82 2609.50 3026.16 2441.00 3425.00! 3518.32 3355.00
3575.00 CO < 2766.91 2818.25 4297.83 3306.50 CO CO 3647.001 3967.00 4720.00 5393.33 —I 4714.00 CM CO =)a aO i i S 2842.00 2743.49 a: | ! 2811.16 4067.50 O > < -1 a > > > > > > > >- > > > > >- > > > > > >- > > >- > >- >- >- >- >- > > > >- Northwest Subi Northwest Midtown South Omaha South Midtown Southwest Southwest Northwest Sub Northwest Midtown Omaha South Northwest Sub Northwest Midtown Sub West Midtown South Omaha South Southwest Northwest Sub Northwest Northwest North Omaha North Southwest Southwest Omaha 1 North Omaha | North DISTRICT DISTRICT | Sub West Midtown Florence Midtown Midtown j | Northwest | Florence Sub West j (Midtown [West Omaha [West Omaha [South {Northwest I 8 CO ______o ______^r 5 ______A1IO CM o AUO] z> ...... ■■■> . □ o CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY ! CITY CITY | CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY 182 SID CITY j I
CITY CITY j co SID 233 SID CITY CITY CITY I CITY |
CITY CITY CITY a SID 272 SID CITY CITY OWNER OWNER CITY | | CITY | [CITY I SCHOOL, O P. O SCHOOL, I 257 ISID CITY I r
o o o CO o CO o Oi COCO o o CO o CO o m COCOo CO a> o q 67.0
o 67.8 d 15.0 CM iri iri 4.7
22.5 CO 23.3 23.3 j oi SIZE SIZE | 2.0 rv! COCM CD eo co oi COoi co cvi o d | |
o CO | | [ | I ] * Mockingbird Mockingbird Maple 52nd St 52nd Center St Center & & & & N N & & 9545-1/2 Tomahawk E Tomahawk 9545-1/2 103rd 103rd 3720 Martha St Martha 3720 15129 Drexel 15129 114th 15901 Valley St Valley 15901 Blvd Park Deer 1801 6005 Underwood Ave Underwood 6005 2936 2936 1329 S 24th St 24th S 1329 2005 N 66th St 66th N 2005 11235 Fowler Ave Fowler 11235 St Cuming 3434 7802 Hascall St St Hascall 7802 14948 West Center Rc Center West 14948 20th 4855 Bedford Ave Bedford 4855 2811 N 45th St 45th N 2811 4405 Fontenelle Blvd Blvd Fontenelle 4405 4802 S 144th St S 144th 4802 6405 S 142nd St S 142nd 6405 2361 N 127th St N 127th 2361 St 154th South 728 St Miami 4243 6317 Military Ave Military 6317 Dr Parkview 3865 j 5060 N Happy Hollow N Happy 5060 Ave Redick 2707 4404 Laurel St Laurel 4404 [5115 Hickory St Hickory [5115 ADDRESS ADDRESS 1 St Fort 111424 j Ave Hartman [6502 I | Harrison Heights Park Heights Harrison Park Hills Tomahawk Mockingbird Comn West Mockingbird Park Memorial Gallagher Park Gallagher Deer Park Deer LeBeau Park LeBeau Clifton Elementary Hill Clifton Bemis Park Bemis Rambleridge Park Rambleridge Park Lions Benson Lake James Park James Lake Park Columbus Pipal Park Pipal Millard Highlands Park Highlands Millard Park Estates Roanoke Park Oaks Harvey James F. Lynch Park Lynch F. James Englewood Park Park Englewood j Fontenelle Park Fontenelle Cottonwood Park Park Cottonwood Miller Park Miller Park Young Grace Park Village Maple Metcalf Park Metcalf Crown Point Park Point Crown Park(b) Wood Willow PARK PARK j Center Park Center j } Hefflinger } I SchroederA/ogel Park SchroederA/ogel I [Orchard Park [Orchard :Miami Playground :Miami I
O i in 890 CD COp*. p*- CO CO r- 103/1 CO CO CO O i CO o COCO CO
CO 038 o 148 I o 078 197 o 036 o 072 ] 079 077 |047 022
o o | 1025 1075 CM O 1081 1019 |200 |198 1029 1 MAP MAP 1 136
2.2 - Playgrounds continued. CO r- CO CO CO o CD in CO rr CO CO oi CO* o 00 cm o r*- ■^r
in 352.25 352.58
in 362.94
CO 361.95 378.15
383.60I 382.95 382.62 CO co 391.971 389.30 403.60 401.35 409.60 407.47I
425.30 co 431.16 430.511 441.01 432.58 452.86| 453.51 454.48 462.93 460.83 Tf ages ages 2 to 11|
I I 426.13 o o o z oO in in in o cri rr rv.r-’ CD h CO CO CO CD 1735.09
CD 2173.16 2233.00 2286.50 2229.16 2139.75 3212.97 4169.49 2557.82 3004.00 2520.99 3850.00 2561.07 3487.96 2211.50 2348.50 2144.91
< 2274.32 2023.00 2352.50 2667.00
4377.00 3486.50 CM CM 2684.65 3485.98 2211.25 -J 3156.16 CM =5 CL O CL I I 2416.49
> > > > > > PLAYGF > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- > > > > > > > > >- > >-
0) co o2 North Omaha North Northwest South Omaha South Midtown Omaha North Downtown Midtown South Omaha South Southwest North Omaha North Southwest Northwest Sub Northwest Omaha South Southwest Southwest | Omaha South Northwest u_ DISTRICT DISTRICT | Omaha North North Omaha . Omaha North Northwest Northwest | Midtown Midtown Southwest Omaha South Omaha j South Southwest Southwest j Midtown j [West Omaha [West j Southwest j Omaha [West Midtown [ I J ______CITY CITY CITY P. SCHOOL,O CITY city LEASED CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY SID 134 SID SID 219 SID 103 SID j SCHOOL,OP. j CITY CITY CITY | SCHOOL,O P. SCHOOL,O CITY CITY CITY [ CITY OWNER OWNER CITY | CITY [CITY [CITY O'St OSS SO SO o o OS CO CO in o o o o cri o o LOp o o d CO o 0.6 217.3 in CM in 0.3 cri o 20.0 M2-Q SIZE SIZE | 29.0 in CO cd c\i CM d o ' CM 1812 Wirt St Wirt 1812 12207-1/2 Dr Signal 12207-1/2 7002 Military Ave Military 7002 615 Pine St Pine 615 12750 Westwood Lanj Westwood 12750 St Cedar 417 2606 Craig St Craig 2606 3201 Woolworth Ave Woolworth 3201 5515 Bay Meadows R[ Meadows Bay 5515 Blvd Florence 3505 12334 Seldin Dr Seldin 12334 6215 S 36th St ‘ 36th S 6215 St S 50th 3712 3425 Leavenworth St Leavenworth 3425 2504 Meredith Ave Meredith 2504 6220 N St 51st N 6220 4615 N 127th St N 127th 4615 10706 Washington Dr Washington 10706 3030 Spaulding St Spaulding 3030 | 15050 "Q" St "Q" 15050 St Davenport 3528 St Blondo 7065 St "G* 4065 St S 18th 4716 ] 8822 Lakeview Dr Lakeview 8822 j St Izard 8025 ADDRESS ADDRESS | [530 Turner Blvd Turner [530 113435 Birchwood Avi Birchwood 113435 St "U" [10205 Ave 26th [548 S Ave N 65th 6606 i St ]3506 Franklin Binney/Wirt/Spencer Dahlman Park Dahlman Country Club Manor Pa Manor Club Country Elementary Franklin Dewey Park Dewey Greentree/Parkview P Greentree/Parkview 5th & Cedar & 5th Park East Park East Park 28th & Craig & 28th Signal Hill Park Hill Signal Park Hanscom Kountze Park Kountze Leavenworth Park Leavenworth Park Meadows Bay Park Cody Westwood Heights Park Heights Westwood Essex Park Essex Park Churchich Oak Heights Park Heights Oak Cottonwood Heights Pal Heights Cottonwood Elementary Saratoga Druid Elementary Hill Druid Gifford Park Gifford Park Roberts Park Green Bowling Park Pulaski Park Unity Mockingbird Hills Park Hills Mockingbird Park Heights Applewood PARK PARK | [Benson Park [Benson Walnut Grove Park Park Grove Walnut | [Timber Creek Park Creek [Timber i
a 6601 00 O CD CO *- < CO r*- CO CO o CM CM in
in o CM 135 024 C\] 106 163 043 092
017 O t o
176 o
183 o O 039
012 097 CM 080 T“' 1007 1007 i
£ 1063 032 f 1149 137
2.3 - Playgrounds continued.
co 00 217.59 219.17 219.17 219.73 231.39 224.40 234.04 239.35 236.42 247.30| 244.78 247.71 253.05 253.48 255.86 280.27 261.85 297.60 281.62 298.54 300.44 299.60 302.19 301.63 303.211 315.65 334.311 342.23| 337.25|
345.38| CNJ 331.05] ages ages 2 to 111 _____ o o CO o 00 z o o Nf CO o •*3- O) o ' ^3- CNJ TJ- H- o O) CO Tj-
o 1486.00 2458.42 1396.57 1601.99 2458.42
*3- 1164.83 1117.00 2540.00 2151.00 1080.75 1149.00 1264.76 1826.00 1555.081 1838.16 1451.00 2009.66
< 2216.00 1950.08 1590.50 1476.50 2680.99 -J 2136.74 2551.50 CNJ Q. o a [ [ 1111.57 | | 1546.16’ c | 1917.33 C3 >- < _j CL > >- > > >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- >- > >- >- >- >- > > > >- >- >- >- >- >- >- ;> > >- >- Southwest Northwest Sub Northwest Northwest Omaha North Southwest South Omaha South Southwest West Omaha West Southwest/Wes South Omaha South West Sub West South Omaha South DISTRICT Northwest Omaha South Omaha West West Sub Sub West j South Omaha Omaha ] South Sub West North Omaha North [ North Omaha North [ Southwest Southwest I West Sub Sub West I West Sub West [North Omaha [North West Omaha West [West Omaha [West i Northwest i Sub West | Omaha [North Omaha [North J AilO _____ > 1— SID 313 SID CITY CITY CITY SCHOOL,OP. CITY CITY CITY SID 205 SID SID 295 SID | CITY CITY CITY
SID 318 SID CITY 0 CITY SID 247 247 SID CITY j SID 291 SID | CITY SID 126 SID CITY OWNER CITY CITY CITY FEDERAL | SID 295 SID OS ] 339 SID | [CITY 6'C | 294 [SID
o 0'96 009
0 00 CO o OS lO o CNJ *3" o o o> in p CD CNJ ^3"
O cvi 0.8 6.0 34.9 11.4
25.0 co' CNJ o ' 31.2
15.0 15.0 21.0 co' SIZE cnj o r- CO CO CO* CO i
CD
______£ 00 00 Z 00 0 0 1703 N 32nd St 32nd N 1703 2310 Nicholas St Nicholas 2310 1501 N 22nd St 22nd N 1501 I 13333 Pacific St* Pacific 13333 St Charles 1915 15812 West Center Rj Center West 15812 NW 160/Pacific NW 48 St. S. 6606
5708 S 15th St S 15th 5708 | St 91st N 3820 ^3- 16313 Wood Dr Wood 16313 "F" & 156th 4020 Hoctor Blvd Blvd Hoctor 4020 | 14120 Pine St Pine 14120 | 5151 Mary Plaza Mary 5151 6426 S 91st Ave Cr Ave S 91st 6426 Ave Bedford 3121 j ADDRESS ADDRESS St S 126th 585 | St 87th S [6617 [1311 N 24th St 24th N [1311 j 11707 Farnam St Farnam 11707 j Blvd. Faye | 57th-60th (2808 Harrison St Harrison (2808 St Harrison 11550 [ i 12771 Hamilton St Hamilton 12771 i St "D" 12512 St "P" [3623 [ 9000 Washington St Washington 9000 [ St Ida [11212 St S 116th [3119 Kellom Elementary Kellom Park Kellom Park Meadows Estates Meadows Park Woodbine Rark(b) Woodbine Hargleroads Park Hargleroads Blvd. Faye Franklin & 32nd McKinley Park McKinley Park Lane Meadow Prairie Lane Park Lane Prairie Palomino Hills Park Hills Palomino Christie Heights Park Heights Christie Ridgefield Park Ridgefield Bent Creek Park Creek Bent Park Logan-Fontenelle Highland Park Highland Greenbelt Kellom H.H. Harper Park Harper H.H. Trendwood Park Trendwood Pinewood Park (Pacific Park Pinewood Pacific Meadows Park Meadows Pacific Park Brown Myott Park Park Myott [ Turtle Creek Park(b) Creek Turtle Park Parkside Zorinsky Lake Zorinsky Park Lake Spring I Woodhaven Park Park Woodhaven ] Deer Ridge Park Ridge Deer Park Adams PARK PARK | j Brookhaven Park Brookhaven j [Turtle Creek Park(a) Creek [Turtle j
a 960 CNJ CO CO CO cv CNJ < CO o CNJ CO IT) 053 172 o 195 069 045 074 067 067 054 O CNJ 109
193 CNJ 093 213 [209 2 CNJ 026 001 [ 216 [ 1089 [ 048 [ 1014 1210 138
2.4 - Playgrounds continued. 9ZZ6 00’86 55081 00 O) 117.45 118.79 120.19 123.21 132.80 132.02 161.13 153.86 151.25 168.86 172.07 175.02| 172.67 176.67 182.62 182.861 192.40| 183.13| 185.42 207.14 202.32 201.64 208.31 207.27I 215.31 ages ages 2 to 111 ______. ) ) 149.69 I I | 177.75 173.74 00’869 S Z O J OS’ZSOl o 09066 o o o o CO 558.67 519.36 837.58 516.18 742.41 00 972.48 o 872.58 798.00 792.09
994.50 CM o 933.50 902.06 1008.82 1201.00 1014.41 1339.25 1405.41 1293.16 1152.83 1452.00 1356.00 1337.49 1794.00 1108.33 1030.25 POPULATION | POPULATION ____ [ [ 1145.00
> > > >- >- >- >- PLAYGR >- > > > > > >- > > > >- >- >- >- >- > > >- >- >- > >- > > >
"SJ © x:5 3o Ponca Hills Ponca Florence Northwest Omaha North Northwest Sub Northwest Omaha North Northwest Omaha East Midtown Midtown ' Northwest Southwest West Omaha West Northwest North Omaha North Southwest Southwest { DISTRICT DISTRICT | {West Omaha {West South Omaha Omaha j South North Omaha Omaha I North Sub West [ Southwest Southwest j West Omaha Omaha West | West Sub Sub West Omaha | South [ Omaha j South Omaha West | South Omaha Omaha | South
CO [Southwest 1 Sub jWest I I I ______A1I0 ______>- £ h- SID 142 SID LEASED CITY SCH00L.0 P. SCH00L.0 CITY CITY SCHOOL,OP. SID 143 SID CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY
CITY CITY j o CITY |CITY CITY CITY SID 322 322 SID CITY | CITY | CITY CITY CITY CITY j OWNER OWNER |
O LEASED ! iCITY 126 [SID 00 o o o o ____ in O o o' o o o 00 in o CM o O CO in o CO iri o 2J6 11.6 28.0 216.4 15.0 o iri 340 17.7 00 o 3.5
8.0 o’ 22.0 in CO CO iri CO o 00 O CO
55 55 £ CO CO CO Vi £ o O b CD Z * CO CO o CM CM CM O CM 28th & St. Grant & 28th 2906 N 30th St 30th N 2906
CM Ave 14th N 5618 St State 3015 13625 Cottner St Cottner 13625 Ave Ellison 9330 8780 Templeton Dr Templeton 8780 1211 Peterson Dr Peterson 1211 St Mary 7737 St Lake 3377 5414 S 116 St S 116 5414 ! 7931 Arlington Dr Arlington 7931 St. Holmes 5550 Dr Keystone 7819 13434 Kingswood Dr Kingswood 13434 3310 S 137th St S 137th 3310 St Blondo 2827 13931 St "0" 13931 8602 Westridge Dr Westridge 8602 j Ave S 2304 135th j 3525 S 94th St 94th S 3525 00 SW 154/Pacific SW 154/Pacific f 2002 Madison Ave Ave Madison 2002 { Dr Oaks Raven 7917 j 3717 Erskine St Erskine 3717 3104 Jefferson St Jefferson 3104 ADDRESS ADDRESS SIZE | | in 19310 West Center Rd Center West 19310 112222 West Maple Rc Maple West 112222 Howard Kennedy Elem< Kennedy Howard Raven Oaks .Park(a) Oaks Raven Lee Valley Park Valley Lee Peterson Park (Pacific Park Peterson North Oaks Park Oaks North Park Florence Yale Park Yale Elementary Sherman Stillmeadow Park Stillmeadow Roxbury Park Roxbury Park Towl John P. "Red" Munnelly P. "Red" John Park Keystone | Tranquility Kingswood Park Kingswood Blondo & 29th Field Anderson Saddle Hills Park Hills Saddle Kingswood Pool Kingswood Morton Park Morton Pacific Hollow Park Hollow Pacific Montclair Park Montclair Park Rockbrook Albright Park Park Albright Park Erskine f Conoco Park Park Conoco | Grant & (28th Upland Park Upland Park Hitchcock PARK PARK Park Westchester | j Democracy Park Democracy j j Elmwood Park Elmwood j J C l CO r-» in CO CO < Ol CM in CO o O) e o 153 064 240 00 00 158 144 027 194 194 j 030 o m 100 123 031 020 o o 1199 O o 1128
S [056 | 1055 ! L 1214 1050 1002 I Playgrounds continued. S8U CO in ISO 05 CO
t< I CO 05 3.69 10.62 46.02 38.60 77.00 68.21 97.76 97.76] 00 86.24 CO in ages ages 2 to 11| ______O CO r~- | | 62.96 o 46.02 o z o O CO o o o o 05 CO o GO rr 24.00 H- CO CO CO 92.00 232.00 254.58] 254.58 408.50 < o CO CO 383.07 CO -J 1011.00 3 0. o Q. | | I 389.50 428.50
PLAYGR >- > >- >- > >- >- > >- >- >- > > > >- >- > >- Northwest Sub Northwest Northwest Sub Northwest Northwest Sub Northwest Sub Northwest Florence Northwest Sub Northwest Florence Florence DISTRICT DISTRICT | Florence South Omaha South Southwest East Omaha East South Omaha South West Omaha Omaha West | West Omaha Omaha West j ! Northwest Sub Northwest ! SID 272 SID CITY 272 SID CITY CITY CITY LEASED CITY CITY LEASED CITY 267 SID CITY CITY OWNER | SID 250 SID | CITY | CITY | CITY | 0S89 CM 00 in CO o GO CO o 1438.6 1438.6 I 75.0 445.0 71.2 202.0 519.5 0.25 36.2 30.0 SIZE SIZE | cvi CO o o
00 CO CO CO 11001 John J Pershii John 11001 12330 Yates 12330 12901 Erskine ' Erskine 12901 11808 John J J Pershinj John 11808 2222 Papillion Parkw 2222 Papillion 6221 S 13th St S 13th 6221 St N 132nd 6404 124th & Harrison & Harrison 124th | 13th & St. Fort & 13th 8818 N 29th St 29th N 8818 | Cunninghar Lake 8660 10755 Nicholas St Nicholas 10755 13502 Discovery Dr Discovery 13502 8220 Hanover 8220 St Bondesson 2818 11085 Seward St Seward 11085 | ADDRESS ADDRESS | [809 Carter Lake Shoi Lake Carter [809 N. P. Dodge Memorial P Memorial Dodge P. N. Florence Community Cc Community Florence Park Hummel Lake Bear Standing Park(c) Wood Willow Willow Wood Park(a) Wood Willow Mandan Park Park Mandan ! Glenn Cunningham Lake Cunningham Glenn Fillmore Park Fillmore Crosskey Villages Park Villages Crosskey Discovery Park Discovery St. & 13th Fort Center/West Horizons P Horizons Center/West Heights Millard Park Carter Levi Glenbrook Park Glenbrook 8th & Pacific & 8th PARK Oakbrook Park Park Oakbrook | 060 9801 CM CO 051 085 207 182 035 175 178 177 CM 239 O 1091 1207 |033 1065 I MAP MAP I I 140
3.1 - INVENTORY - An Example of Park Lists - updated by author, 1992. V 3 H V N O W I O D 3 0 V d S N 3 d O • • • • novd nvioads * N O H I A V d • • SWOOfcLlSHH • • • • •* * • • * S U 3 X T 3 H S • * * • • • • • * * V3UV OINOId • N O O O V 1 • • XNId 301 Nl • U 3 J L N 3 0 m O O • • * • • SdO SS3N113 • • O N Id N V O X O C T fcQ A O • d S I O l V H O l d •• UWJ OIUOISIH « •• •• • 9 N I X I H • S H l V d 3 X I 8 •* • * • * • O N I W S U 3 1 V M 0 N L L V 0 8 O N I H S I d • 3 1 0 0 CD CD IN IM S dOOClNI T O O d IN 1M S • •* S I N N 3 J . N l S I N N 3 1 1 1 to
s i N N a n n CM CM CNJ CNJ CNJ CNJ ' CNJ CM CM
T i v a i a x s v a CM
3 0 H S 3 S U 0 H CO CO CNJ k B O O O S T I V B l O O d
c r a u n v a i n CO CNJ CNJ _
m a u T i v a n CO C W n O d O A V T d A1I0 I 1 A | o i l A I 0 I 1 A I
> > __ t - *- CITY CITY CITY | I CITY CITY | CITY CITY | CITY | CITY CITY | CITY | CITY | CITY | CITY | CITY | | | fcSN/W D CITY CITY CITY | | CITY | | | CITY CITY | | o O o o ICITY ICITY ICITY | ICITY | CITY I | CITY I | ICITY | o | C ITI Y [CITYo [CITY [CITY
to CNJ to o to «
0 § © g <> > • CO 75 Q. 1 o o to s CM o CNJ 1920 C a rte r Blvd I 7065 2127 B londo B ro o k St sid e Ave I I 1703 N 32nd St 13625 Cottner St I 2812 Pinkney I 7002 M ilitary Ave I I 5515 Bay M e a d o w s Rd 3434 Cuming2005 St N 66th St I I 4720 S 20th St I 6008 Maple St I 2323 2606 N 22nd Craig St St 3121 B2002 ed fo rd M ad iso Ave 6111 n Ave S 9705 99th 1 St G ro v e r I St I I | s s a u a a v 4814 C ass St I 8
1 |1812 Wirt 1 St |5708 o> S 115901 15th 110755 St Valley11302 Nicholas Farnam St |3712 St on [12750 I S the 14665 50th Westwood Mail11329 Wiliit St [8602 S | [6220 Lane 24th Westrldge I | 1728 St N South [6606 51 St [4404 S Dr I 154th t N | 65th 1 S 1783 Laurel t |Saddle Ave C ry er St A Creek v e | j A Cuming 1 I I I I & c c a> © O o
E Z _____ 8 9c CO E 9 to o 9 E c . e o i O S O c ■0 ■0 8 o TJ CO c £ > c CM © Brookside Park Carat Homes Park Bemis Park I Barrington Park I Autumn Heights Park | 13th A Fort St 1 AndersenApplewood Applewood Park Armbrust Golf Athletic Heights Course Park Park Park | | I I 28th 28th A Craig 29th A Grant32nd A Blondo a St Franklin I I CM CO 5th A C e d a r Adams AlbrightPark Park ] I I CD | B| a n c ro ft Jr. Bay | High M Bedford ead| o w s Place Park I 1 1 B en1 son Lions P a r k X H V d < BensonI |Bent Park Beveridge1 Creek Blnney/W| Jr. ParkBluffI High irt/Spencer View Bowling| jBrookhaven Green I Park Brown1 ParkBurke ParkI ICamelot High IC a n d le CommunityI w o o d Center I Cente II Park o CM f - o to CD to CD O CO o CO o co o <0 CO - CNJ «o «
3.2 - INVENTORY - Park Lists continued.
V H H V N C m O O * | 3 3 V d S N 3 d O * • •• • • •• • HOVd TVI03dS • • * N O H I A V d * • • S W O O U L S 3 H • • ••• • • • S H 3 1 1 3 H S • • • • • • • • V3HV OINOtd • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • N O O S V 1 • • • M N IU 3 0 1 N1 • fcHlN30WWCO * SaO SS3N1IJ • • S N Id W V O • X 0 0 1 U 3 A O • • d s i a i v y o u •• • • HVW OIHOISIH ••* • • • * ONIXIH • S H l V d 3 » l 8 •• • * •• • * •• • • • • • • O N I W S U 3 1 V M 0 N L L V O 8 • O N I H S I d *• • • ao d T O D o> WIMS bOOONI - T O O d W IM S * • • • • * * S I N N 3 1 N t GO in S I N N 3 1 n CM S J N N 3 i i n »- CM CM CM CM CM n v a i a x s v a CM 3 0 H S 3 S U O H CM CM fcfiO O O S n v a i o o d CO Q. cnaidnva in _ CO CO n U> CM a i i u n v a n CM CM ONTIOUOAVld • * * • * H 1 I | > I I *- £ £ £ £ £ city city city CITY CITY | CITY CITY CITY c | i t y | CITY CITY CITY CITY | CITY | 1 city city CITY CITY | CITY CITY | | CITY 1 CITY fcS N /V O CITY CITY | CITY I | CITY | CITY CITY CITY I 1 | [ [ ICITY I [CITY [CITY ICITY [ | | [ o o [CITY [ | o o o o o o o CO CM CO GO 03 to CO CM GO m GO in CM d N GO CO CO O o> 03 <0 CM CO CO o O *- o> 3 Z I S co CM CO CM o in CM o in CD in CM CO in CM d CO
w 55 ao W co c <7> £ >© « 55 © (0 m c § iI j Q O X i£ (0 03 o 03 in CM £ mCM CM CMCO 13502 Discovery Dr I 57th-60th2818 Bondesson Faye Blvd. St | I 530 530 T u rn e r Blvd I 3212 W oolw orth Ave 8660 Lake Cunningham I Rd I 14948 West Center Rd 2512 *D* St I 3015 Martin Ave 11808 John J Pershing 1915 Dr Charles | St I 6317 Military Ave 3201 Woolworth3720 Ave Martha St I I I 5550 Holmes St 82nd 2758 & Hamilton Ellison Ave s s a u Q o v to 20th & C e n te r S t 2310 N ich o las St I ! 1801! Deer [585 S |8780 Park 126th Blvd Templeton St Dr s [4802 CO I S [6215 144th S | St 36th I [8818 St |3015 N 29th14405 State St F St o n te12936 n eCO lle 1 N 52nd [4951 Blvd St I S 13th St | [6606 ] S I [4008 48th N St I 88 th Ave I | ] CO <5 a . cM o o X ©*5 Q.(3 £ >* ©a Deer DeerPark Ridge Park I I Escalante Hills Churchich Park I Dahlman Park DemocracyDewey Discovery Park Park Druid Park E Hill l d o E r l a e m I d o e n tEnglewood a r y Ersklne I Park ParkE ssex I I P a r k ColonialColumbus Acres Conoco Park ParkCottonwood Park HeightsCrosskey I ParH VillagesCuming I Park Corner I Discovery SoccerElmwood Compla Park Fillmore Florence Park Comm.Fontenelle Ford's Center Franklin Park Birthplace Elementary Faye B lv d Florence Park X U V d o o CottonwoodC oun try Club ParkCrown M an o r Point P a rPark k I I [Central [ChristiePark Heights Mall [Clifton Park Hill E le m e n ta ry | I | [Cryer Pool I [Gallagher Park I GO O) CO in ID GO CM CM CO in CO CO o> o CM to CO in GO CO CO CM * r CO o CD CM o m o> o CO O N d V W CM CM CM CM 2 3CO 6 CM CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO o> CM ■*r in in to in in in 142
3.3 - INVENTORY - Park Lists continued. vsav Nomoo i I • 3 0 V d S N 3 d O •• • • • niovd ivtosds • • *• I* N O H I A V d • i * • s w o o t n s a a i * • ** • * s u a r s H S • ** • *• * * V3HV OINDId * * N O O E W l * • . XNId 331 Nl f c B i N B O m O O * • S d O S S 3 N 1 H •• O N Id W V O • X C X T 1U 3A O * * dSia iVHOld • • HVW OIUOISIH *• • * ONIXIH • S H i v d a x i a •** • ** • 9 * • * 0 N I N S U 3 1 V M • 0 N I L V O 9 - * * D N IH S L d •• * 3 X 3 0 05 IN IM S HOOONI • * TO O d IN IM S 9 * * • ** • ** S I N N 3 1 N l
S I N N 3 X 1 1 TT CO S I N N 3 1 i n CM CM CM CM to CM CM CM »_
n v a i s x s v a V- CM CM CO CM
3 0 H S 3 S U 0 H CD
k S O O O S V- CM CO T I V a iC X D d V- ai3idnva in CM CM CM ai3id*nva n '0 ‘ O N n O d O A V T d 0 I 1 A I I I > > 1 > £ t - t - £ £ t - city city city U 3 N M O city o o ICITY ICITY CITY I ICITY | | | [ [ CITY I CITY I ICITY | [CITY | [ | l CITY I ICITY CITY I l ICITY ] [CITY | ICITY l ICITY I | [CITY I [CITY [CITY | CITY I I CITY I I ICITY ] | | [ CITY I | o o o [CITY [CITY [CITY I ICITY | CITY I o I | l o in 05 O CM in in in in o o> in CM in CM in CM •o* to CO 05 o Ok GO GO in GO CO 3 Z I S 00 o O) CO CO in in CM o CM CO id p j Q CO* CO CM d in CM CO 5 in CO
o s 0> CO ca> > tfi CD 0) C Q. JC Mockingbird Dr | ■ ITS p c €0 -J & < to CM *D CM o N C CM CM CO CM CO o CM O 1524 L o c u st 11468 St Manderson | I 13434 Kingswood Dr 113 N 114th St I 2808 H arrison | St I 11001 John J Pershing Dr [ 7819 Keystone Dr I 3310 S 137th St 3505 Florence Blvd | 1 9330 Ellison Ave 'J ss3aaav 4855 Bedford 3425 Ave Leavenworth St I 1 GO [1211 N 108th 11501 St N 22nd [3865 St Parkview Dr 111707 Farnam 13808 | Lincoln St 14243 Blvd I Miami | St 16405 S 142nd 1103rd I St I I I [11085 Seward St I |2304 13235 S S 135th 132nd[6011 Ave [5151 S St 13th Mary St Plaza I | I I [809 'C a r te r [6221 Lake S S ho re[3706 13th 1 Maple Dr St | St [6005 Underwood[5060 Ave N H1124th appy I Hollow & 12707 Harrison Blvd I Redick | | Ave [ I [5724 S 41 St St 1168th & Blondo I I
(0 JC Q. CO JtC Q. o £ o 0)c Harrison Heights Park | KingswoodKingswood ParkKiwanis PoolKnolls Park Kountze Golf Lake Course Park Forest Park I I I 1 Gifford River Glenn Drive Grace Cunningham Graham Young Park Park Lake H. H. Hanscom H a I rp | e r Hargleroads Park Park Park I I | I I Greentree/Parkview Parf
X U V d o O [Harper Valley[Harvey [Heartland Park Oaks iHefflinger Park Highland| Park [H illside Park iHlmebaugh | HitchcockI Little Howard| Park L Park e a I g[Hummel u e Kennedy[James Park | [John Elem. F. | [KarenLynch P. Karen *Red*I Park Park I Kellom MunnellyI Western [ Kellom I E le m e n Kellom G ta| ry Elem. r e e | n bKeystone | eI Park lt I Park | I I I [Lake Lamp James I I I Park[Leavenworth Park Park I I I
3.4 - INVENTORY - Park Lists continued. V 3 H V N C W W O O 3 3 V d S N 3 d O • *• * •• • • ♦ • 1I3V3 IV IO idS •• * * N O n i A V d • SWOOfcliSBd • •• • ••• • S U 3 1 1 3 H S •• * ••• • V3UV OINOId •••*• * * *• • • • * •••• * NOOSNH •••• XNIU 331 Nl d31N33VMN03 • • S U O S S 3 N 1 U • • O N Id W V O X O C H b Q A O d S I O 1 V U O U • * • dVW OldOlSIH •• * ** DNMIH • S H l V d 3 » l 0 * ♦ *• * * • * O N I W S H 3 1 V M 5 N L L V 0 8 • O N I H S U • JTOO Cl WIMSUOOCINI T O O d W lM S • * S I N N 3 1 N l S I N N 3 1 1 1
S I N N 3 i i n ■«T *_ CM CO CM CM CM cm CM CNJ CM CM CM CM
T I V a i 3 X S V 9 »_ »_ CM
3 0 H S 3 S U 0 H CM CO o CNJ b S O O O S »_ CO CM T i V O L O O J
c m u n v a i n »_ *- *- CM CNJ CNJ CM 013UTIV9 11 in oo C W n O H O A V T d • • • • * • • *•**•* • * • * •• •* • I ] 1 1 1 1 1 >- >- >- >- >- >- >- I >- >- t - (- £ (- (- t- £ £ £ £ £ t - city city city city fcB N M O CITY city | city city city [ [CITY [CITY [ o | [CITY [CITY O o | o I o [CITY o ICITY o I ICITY | ICITY ICITY o | | [ I [ o o [ [CITY ICITY o | [CITY | |CITY o | |CITY | [ 5 | |CITY [ o o | [ TT CO o CO in in CO ■M- o cp in in at CM in CO n CO CM CO o ■*r in m 1 7 . 7 3 Z I S CO CM CO CM 6 85 | to CM CM CO o in CM CO 1156 o | 119 7 o 1 ' n o o ' in 6 [13.1in | co
U) w 23 u . 23 co to£ 23 & Storz X-way «0 .C b CO Z k in ■M- o 8 8 S Ul 12771 Hamilton11235 F o St w le r Ave 1 I 13435 Birchwood Avenue | 14120 Pine St I NW 16th 548 548 S 26th 7802 Ave H a s c a ll St I I 7931 A rlington Dr 3012 4020 Manderson | H o c to r St Blvd 1 I 12222 West Maple Rd I 6502 3820 H artm an N 91st Ave St 3119 S 116th St I | | 13333 Pacific St I 5115 6802 Hickory Harrison St St 1 I 3110 Cornhusker Rd (Sarpy 9702 Rockbrook Rd I 9808 Harney 3625 Parkway S 10th Souttj St 1 3110FarnamSt 9310 West Center Rd | s s s u a a v a m 9545-1/2 Tomahawk Blvd [8025 Izard [3525 St S 94th St 1 I [12207-1/2 Signal Dr | [4716 S 18th St I '*r [5938 S 122nd St |6404 17737 N 1 132nd Mary St St 113909 Fowler [4711 C Ave0 N 85th St 1 I | | 1 |
.cO) X >> —i 3c JC a> P o o l 1 re £a> & 0 JC UJ c3 <® a. a a. (A £ 5 01 O Mount Vernon Gardens I Mercer MetcalfePark Miami Park Playground Mockingbird W Com. I I Morton 1 Cent. Park M yott PN. a r k P. North Dodge Northwest Oaks Memorial Park Park Park I P acific Hollow Park Meadow Lane Park I M ockingbird Hills P a r k McKinley Park 1 LeBeau Lee Park Valley Park I I Oak Heights Park Orchard Park I Oak Oak Hills Oakbrook Hills E s ta teOakbrook s E s ta te MeadowsO aks s P a Park rOne k Park ( P a a r k Pacific ( b Place Park [Memorial Park > ld V d [Levi —ICarter [Logan-FontenellePark _J [Lucas [MandanHall Park MapleI Park Village[Martin Park I L u I th er King P o o l| | 1 MillardI I I [Millard Heights Highlands MontclairI Park MI ontclair/WPark | estwood | 1 Par[ I 1 CM co o CO CM CO in CO o CNJ co in co f*. O 00 o o O’ o o o o O CO O o o 2 3 2 ON dWJ CO CO a t o> o> o> o> CM o> 200 o> a t CM 2 3CM 3 Uiij mu 1 4 4
3.5 - INVENTORY - Park Lists continued. ; j V 3 U V N O W N O O i | i : ! i l l ! | i 1 i j I 30VdSN3do|* 1 • I | I | • ! I I i | 1 ! HOVd IVIOBdS 1 • I* J j 1 i 1* I N O I l l A V d ! > ! 1 1I t S W O O H 1 S 3 H •• ; |* j • • i 1 S U 3 1 1 3 H S • i* • • '* V3UV OINOId • *• N O O S Y 1 • MNld 301 Nl U 3 1 N 3 0 I W O O • SHO SS3N ild D N Id W V O • X O O T H 3 A O • • d s i a i v u o i d h v w o i d o i s i H 9 N IX IH * S H ± V d 3 » i g • 9NIIXSH31VM 9 N L L V 0 8 • O N I H S I d • JOO o> o> IftlAAS UOOC3NI T O O d W IM S • 1* • S I N N 3 1 N l
S I N N 3 1 1 1 CM s r
S I N N S l i n CM CM CM co CM CM CM CM
n v a i 3 x s v a »_ CM 3 0 H S 3 S d 0 H
LBDOOS _ CM CO T i v a i o o d
o i s u n v a i n CM CM
c n s u n v a n CM s r O N D O d D A V ld • •• * * •• •• •• *** • * • * Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. i f 8 O. o o O CO _ i 3 _ f _ r _ l CM 1 > 1 | £ r - Xo 5 oX oX oX o L E A S E D l SCHL.OPI DOUG DOUG CO I city city city S C H L .O P | S C H L ,O P | fcB N M O S C H L ,O PS | C H L ,O PS | C H L ,O P | S C H L ,O PSCHL.OP] | CO SCHL.OP] [CITY [CITY [ | [CITY [CITY [ | [CITY 1 [ [CITY | ICITY [CITY [ | | FE I D E R A L [LEASED L E[ l A S E D l [ [LEASED][LEASED [LEASED ] [ I [SCHL.OP] o o [S CCO H L ,O P | CO CO w CO CO CO CM in o m in in in CO N f«i o CM i n CM CO in
3 Z 1 S 2 2 . 5 CM CM CM in 55 <7> 5} sz u . o 8 p u . •0 «8 CO 8 £ £ CO 8 8 co 5 114th A Maple I 12220 Burke St I 12829 West Center Rd | 14206 G r a n t St I 28th & G ra n t St I 1311 N 24th St I 330 S 120th St | 34th 417 & Ohio C e d a r S t. 2724 S t Riverview Blvd 3030 3506 Spaulding Franklin I St St | | 3104 J e ffe rso3805 n 97th St Hamilton & St Parkview Drive I | I 6224 *H* St I 2200 2504 Lothrop 5618 Meredith St N 14th Ave A v e | 8715 Pacific St 3534 S 108th St | s s a u a a v 6901 Burt St 2303 N 97th St 1 I 113931 [9808 *0* St West [12334Dodge [3377 Seldin Rd [411-1/2Lake Dr 163rd[ St S [8th & Elmwood Lamp & D o u | g Rd la s 1 |2827 | 1 Blondo St I [923 I N 38th 1 St [2811 N 45th St I [2906 N 30th St I | | Pipal PrairiePark Pulaski Lane Rambleridge ParkPark Raven Oaks Park Park(a) I I | I Park East Park P h e a s a n t Run II P a r k Raven Regency Oaks Ridgefield Park(b) ParkRlverv’iew Roanoke (Henry Park Roberts Doorly Estates Park Z( ParkRoxbury Park Pacific Meadows Park Palomino Hills Park Park Parkside Meadows Pepperwood Park Est Park Park I | I Rock GlenRockbrook Park ParkS addle Hills P a r k I Pacific Meadows II Park | Sandoz SaratogaPark Elementary I Schroeder/VogelSeymourSherman Smith Park Park Comm. Center | ShermanS ig n a l ElementarySouth Hill P a r k OmahaSpring IndustrStanding Lake Park Park Bear Lake Spaulding Park [Peterson |Pinewood Park (Pac Park Hts) (Pac | Hts)| X d V d [Stillmeadow iStorz Park Soccer Complex | CO CM CO < 0 r * . CO S t O fs . CO CM O i CO CM ST IS CO o> m CM in in 4.1 - INVENTORY - Site Analysis by author, 1991-92. Each of the regional parks of Omaha have at least 250 acres designated for camping, boating, fishing and ballfield use. These parks are generally well maintained with minimal signs of abuse or over use. They provide examples of successful park planning, management and preservation for the future. However, Standing Bear Lake has a potential environmental problem. The lake catchment area includes private property which is apparently being offered for residential development. The private property upslope and adjacent to the lake on the western side was illegally used as a trash dump in spite of the proverbial “No Dumping” signs posted on the land. The metropolitan parks of Omaha are 100 to 249 acres in size and include sports fields, 18-hole golf courses and other athletic facilities. About 16 district parks have been established in Omaha. They are 25.1 to 99 acres and feature playgrounds, tennis, and 9-hole golf courses. Another 15 or more community parks provide swimming, tennis, playgrounds, and picnic areas and average in size from 14.1 to 25 acres. These parks seem to be older, they are located in more densely populated areas, between residential and commercial land uses and show the most frequent use on a day to day basis. Considering the number of people in these park service designed for activity, only minor environmental problems were observed. Erosion of pedestrian pathways and rutted out automobile parking area were evident in these parks. Litter, dumping and vandalism were minor given the amount of use observed. Hummel Park is one of the oldest and most heavily used of the larger parks. The shelters had been vandalized, especially by a gang of less environmentally concerned recreators who sign their graffiti art as the Scribblers. The steps and walls of structures were old and deteriorating. Road cuts and pathways are experiencing soil erosion. One of the back entrances to the park on the northwest side of the park was an undesignated dirt (mud during wet periods) track obviously heavily used by 4-wheel drive trucks typically considered an undesirable use of park property. The entrance on the south side is an old, paved, pot-hole road, aesthetically undesirable due to litter. At the highest point in Hummel Park (an inspiring view) was littered with bits of glass, strewn from the parking lot to the edge of the steep bluff less than 50 feet from the playground. This situation presented itself as a problem concerning the safety of children using the playground. While being cut by glass would be an unfortunate mishap, falling from the bluff could be fatal. There was no lookout 1 4 6 designed for safety and taking advantage of the scenic view. On the weekday afternoon that this park was surveyed, most users were adults who remained in their cars in the parking lots. This natural scenic value of the park was really quite beautiful. Perhaps historically the location at the northern edge of town was more active or protected. Today, the location seems more isolated and inaccessible than some of the other parks. This could be contributing to the higher incidence of abuse and low maintenance. The most overwhelming environmental problem was noted a t Levi Carter Park. Problems seem to emanate from the industrial area on the south and west sides of the park property. In close proximity to the south was a large toxic chemical storage area. The residential area to the north of the park was also in unsightly condition. This should be a concern given its location. Appearance was not a s repelling as the air which often filled with the pungent smell of chemicals when the location was surveyed. This in itself would seem to be a deterrent to desirable recreative uses and experiences, especially during certain climatic conditions. Carter Lake has a nice access point and people were fishing with little evidence of concern about the potential chemical contamination of the water and air. Otherwise, the location has much potential for activity. Whether it Levi Carter Park was desirable or not was considered part of a greater a social issue. Evidence of recycled pavement in the park parking lots was an interesting resource use. Maintenance activities were underway with crews working on a variety of projects from mowing to construction to lining ballfields. It would be expected that these parks require aggressive maintenance and rehabilitation programs given the amount of use in the inner city. Still, it was indicated that these parks are well below their capacity for desirable usage. Crime and vandalism were the greatest administrative concerns in the inner city parks (Silkworth 1991). This is especially true in parks like Fontenelle which suffered from neglect over the last 20-3 0 years (Silkworth 1991). Police cars were everywhere in the area. In view of the reputation for high crime in this area of the city, police patrol seemed adequate. However, the reputation for crime and high visibility of officers, didn’t seem to affect the obviously high levels of use in Fontenelle Park. Fewer people were in the wooded areas on the south side of the park where only men were seen jogging, walking and standing around. In 1988, $300,000 in federal funds were used to rehabilitate Omaha’s parks with problems (Silkworth 1991). Another $250,000 in 147 federal funds were received the spring of 1991 to continue the rehabilitation process (Silkworth 1991). $175,000 had been allocated to replace 35 year old playground equipment in 1991 (City of Omaha 1991). Without federal moneys, replacing playground equipment would be limited to about five parks a year (Silkworth 1991). This federal assistance was a positive for Omaha’s parks in the 1990’s. Miller and Kellom Parks share a $255,500 UPARR grant. Miller Park renovations include restrooms, shelters, picnic area, pavilion, roads and playground equipment, while Kellom pool and bath house renovations are underway. Fontenelle Park, especially in the wooded areas and parking lots, has a reputation for undesirable uses. This image problem was difficult to address in terms of park planning because societal issues are beyond the scope of the park system. Levi Carter Park has similar problems with overcrowding on the weekends, people leave behind paraphernalia that indicate undesirable uses such as drug abuse, beer drinking and sexual activity. Rehabilitation of these parks was pursued on the presumption that with major changes in the Park facilities and new kinds of recreation opportunities, the parks will be used in the manner in which they were intended. Neighborhood parks, from 2 to 14 acres in size and featuring playgrounds, tennis and picnic areas were on the low end of the desirable size for parks in Omaha. Smaller parks were harder to maintain and protect from undesirable uses (Silkworth 1991; 1999). Mini-parks are up to 2.5 acres featuring playground equipment with open space. They were costly to plan and protect. Although playgrounds should one of the first recreation facilities added to parks. They really need to be supervised. The less accessible parks are under-used. Since mini parks were used by a smaller population, the old large shelter houses attract the homeless, especially during the warmer months of the year (Silkworth 1991). This unfortunate situation was also beyond the scope of park planning, but it does, in fact, present problems in maintaining and encouraging family uses of the smaller parks. For this reason, an effort has continued to locate smaller parks in areas that experience higher traffic levels with more attractive playground equipment and smaller structures. There are some small parks that are really quite innovative in the Omaha Parks System such as Pipal Park. It was an excellent concept, a park design with consideration of the needs of handicapped people in Omaha. The reachable fountains, simulated ship design, and playground equipment were most inviting to the user. Unfortunately, a playground supervisor needs to be part of this facility and many 148 playgrounds experiencing full participation. Another design which seems to be a progressive approach to park planning was the linear park concept. This design provides jogging and bike paths on undeveloped strips of land often between commercial and residential areas. Linear parks provide recreation between the two zones of land use which takes advantage of the high traffic in the area. This park type really seems to be a sign of the times and during the survey period were observed to be used by a great number of people of all ages. As urbanites incorporate recreation activity into their daily routines, parks between work and home make good sense in park planning (Silkworth 1991). Linear parks as transition zones seem more desirable than residential areas directly abutting commercial and industrial uses. Furthermore, the geography of Omaha lends itself to linear park types, trails and pathways along greenway corridors found throughout the City. 5.1 - INVENTORY - Regional Population Trends - Summary by author, 1 9 9 1 -2 . 1980 Census revealed that the population has demographic ally shifted with decline in the older more central parts of the city and rapid westward expansion. Populations moved from the central city to its adjacent suburbs during the 1970s. The southern urban corridor was developed in the 1970’s and has continued north and west in the 1980’s (City of Omaha 1981). Overall population patterns: North Omaha - black community greatly declined. - Ames, Cuming, 16th and 30th Streets, experienced a 43 percent decrease in population during the 1970’s - Blacks generally moved north and west or immediately adjacent to the older, original North Omaha (City of Omaha 1981). From 1978 to 1988, the energy shortage, changing life styles and regional and national economic factors had impact on urbanization in Omaha (City of Omaha 1981). The Urban Development Policy provides a public sector framework for reversal of the sprawl of development and the rehabilitation of the center city (City of Omaha 1981). 6.1 - INVENTORY - Economic and Employment Characteristics - Summary by author, 1991. The most basic economic activity is agriculture, however, its location eases economic swings of the nation. Diversification in employment opportunities in secondary and tertiary services extends 149 the City’s economic base to include service, trade, government and insurance industries. Given the economics of the times, this service orientation should provide stability as it has over the last several decades (City of Omaha 1981, 1990). 7.1 - INVENTORY - Budget Summary 1991 - by author, 1992. The parks program was responsible for 166 city parks and playgrounds, four large complexes of four ball fields, three complexes of three ball fields, 113 ball fields, 176 tennis courts, a soccer complex of fifteen fields and a soccer complex of eight fields, two overnight campgrounds and the utility costs for twelve community centers. Total park lands maintained are over 7,000 acres and cost Omaha an estimated $3,550,219 in 1991 for day to day maintenance. The year’s budget also included $800,000 for the Zoological Society in Omaha (City of Omaha 1991). Appropriations for other activities were made separately and defined by objectives outlined in the budget. For example, the program for weed and litter control was designed to encourage property owners to comply with city ordinances pertaining to the control and accumulation of noxious weeds, grass, and worthless vegetation on private property. In cases of non-compliance, Omaha cut the weeds, removed the litter and billed the property owner. An estimated $20,000 in revenues were expected from the program in the year. However, in 1989, $28,442 was collected. The budget allocated $559,559 for the Spring Cleanup Program in 1991 while denying new equipment requests (City of Omaha 1991). The Park Ranger Program was designed to supplement the Omaha Police Department Park Patrol to reduce vandalism of park and recreation property, theft, assault on citizens and the use of illegal beverages and drugs in the park. Considering attributes necessary for individuals in this role of park protection and the salaries of other park employees, an incredible low $23,207 was considered adequate funding to address this problem in Omaha’s parks. The budget is difficult to analyze separate from implementation. For example, there were moneys appropriated ($355,489) for possible use in this purpose for part-time and seasonal employment. Also, the capital appropriation of $4,8533,161 including $175,000 for playground equipment and $10,000 for park graphics funded by the Municipal Infrastructure Redevelopment Fund was potentially available to protect the parks (City of Omaha 1991). The capital appropriation noted above seems like a tremendous amount of operation money for 150 the Parks Division when it is on paper. In reality, this amount is conservative compared to budget increases over the preceding five years. Furthermore, the budget allocations are far from the implementation process in Omaha’s parks. The Recreation Division was allocated a total of $1,939,800 in capital funds. $981,556 was budgeted for the Omaha's community center recreation programs. These centers were expected to generate approximately $116,000 in revenue during the year. The ice arenas were expected to pay for themselves in the long run. $165,948 was budgeted for their operation. $184,000 was expected in revenues. The 25 swimming pools in Omaha were expected to produce $260,000 were expected to cost $537,391 in 1991. Besides supervising leisure swimming, the pool programs included instructional swimming and water safety skills which cost about $300,000 in 1991. Swimming pools are known among recreation professionals as one of the greatest and most expensive recreation liabilities in any setting. Tennis Courts are inexpensive to build and maintain. The 1991 budget set aside $97,617 for these facilities. They experience high use and were expected to generate $149,000 in league and registration fees during the year. Other recreational activities were essentially expected to pay for themselves in 1991. The budget allocation of $157,288 was based on revenues from 1990 programs such as city wide sports, the summer day camp, senior citizen programs, therapeutic recreation, special events, summer TV program and sports clinic, music concerts, and the show wagon. The Public Arts Commission contributed $5,000 to support all these activities. The Metro Arts Council also supported these activities in the amount of $40,000 (City of Omaha 1991). The 1986 Recreation and Culture Bonds had a remaining $1,520,000 for improvements and rehabilitation projects in 1991. $75,000 was budgeted for the Near South Recreation Center. $100,000 has been set aside for Elmwood Park Rehabilitation and $200,000 for Suburban Parks Rehabilitation. $250,000 was to be used for park roads and parking lots in the city. Major facilities and neighborhood park rehabilitation programs were expected to require some $100,000 each. While the innovative Linear Trail Corridors had $695,000 budgeted in order to provide transition zones between developing commercial and residential areas throughout the city (City of Omaha 1991). The Forestry Division has been allocated $966,067 to operate in 1991. $118,488 provides for the replacement of fire extinguishers, computer equipment and office machines. $200,217 is for total care 151 of all trees within the City. $441,633 will be used to purchase chain saws and a dump truck. $205, 729 is expected to be necessary for identification and the removal of diseased and unsafe trees along City streets, traffic ways, parks and public property. An additional $746,887 has been allotted for 31 employee positions which is consistent with 1990 (City of Omaha 1991). The Central Maintenance Division will receive $2440,418 for computer hardware and software; $446,000 for maintenance of all off-road and on-road vehicles, $445,053 for carpentry and painting; $4,542,415 for electrical, plumbing and air conditioning; $3,357,649 for heavy equipment; $188,278 for preventive maintenance and winterizing swimming pools; and $154,113 for the central warehouse operations. The Municipal Infrastructure Redevelopment Fund covers $700,000 in renovations, repairs, replacements, and the installation of new playground equipment. The division total is $3,074,626 for 1991. An additional $1,626,318 is expected to be spent on labor (City of Omaha 1991). It is significant that the Golf Division is expected to generate $2,142,000 and that the appropriations reflect only the direct cost of operations which is a total of $1,506,964. Both the labor costs of $1,080,502 and equipment maintenance costs, $426,462, are reflected in other sections of the budget. For this reason, it is hard to determine if the golf courses are truly self-supportive, break-even public operations or otherwise (City of Omaha 1991). The Auditorium appropriations reflect only direct costs associated with operation and are expected to be self-supportive in that space, equipment and facilities are all provided on a rental basis and have generated about $1,680,000 each year since 1989. However, fringe benefits and equipment maintenance are not included in the $1,409,769 budget for 1991 (City of Omaha 1991). The Rosenblatt Stadium is a major athletic facility with a seating capacity of 17,400. It is the site of the annual NCAA College World Series and the home of the Omaha Royals AAA professional baseball team $341,000 and $351,000 was estimated as the annual revenues for 1990 and similar revenue figures are expected in 1991. The City has budgeted $318,854 for labor, operations, and capital improvements. $18,500 of which is expected to be subsidized by the Municipal Infrastructure Redevelopment Fund (City of Omaha 1991). The Orpheum Theater or Omaha Performing Arts Center is owned and operated by the City to provide a facility for a variety of local and national theater presentations, popular entertainers, and 152 cultural enrichment productions. Between $190,000 and $193,000 in revenues are expected in 1991, while the cost of operation is expected to be $214,963. This indicates that the general funds will be spent to subsidize this facility and its operation in 1991 (City of Omaha 1991). The budget was $980,000 for personnel, repair and maintenance of the South Omaha City Hall, Civic Auditorium, Rosenblatt Stadium, Omaha Performing Arts Center and the City’s 13 community centers. This is addition to the funds appropriated for services in these facilities (City of Omaha 1991). The Omaha/Douglas Civic Center operations are expected to cost $1,003,291 in 1991. This figure is estimated in accordance with the direct cost of maintaining the Center over the last few years for the city and the Douglas County Health Department which the facility houses (City of Omaha 1991). The Municipal Dock is expected to be self-sufficient at $17,000 in estimated revenues for 1991 (City of Omaha 1991). The purpose of this summary was to analyze the relationship between the state of the parks in 1991 and the plan of 1992 which was expected to be implemented to maintain and develop individual parks throughout the 1990s. The City budget was addressing many of the problems that were recognized in 1991. During the 1990s further inquiries proved that Omaha remain progressive according to US standards. Additionally, Omaha budget constraints have been allievated by federal funding addressing many of the problems within the parks. The planning process seems to have evolved in time to sustain development throughout the park system. More critical than budgeting seems to be the prevention of accelerated environmental deterioration caused by the less manageable natural resources, where industrial and social issues are a conflict. 153 8.1 - “Acres per 1000” Park Facility Prescriptions by author, 1995. ------1------1------DADI/ DDCCrDIDTIAklC lOflC ixLoumr i i j j ACRES PER THOUSAND FACHJUES LOCATION PEOPLE 1 playground Central Park Mall 2 2 open space 2 3 Rec. Center with parking; open space 4 4 Soccer Complex with parking , basketball 11 5 playground, open space 4 6 basketball James F. Lynch Park* 2 7 ballfield with parking 10 8 ballfield with parking , basketball 11 9 playground with open space 3 10 open space 1 -2 acres 2 11 tennis, basketball, open space Fontenelle Park 5 12 Basketball Miller Park* 1 13 playgroundwith open space 3 14 playgrounds w/open space; adds to 28th and Craig Park 16 15 playground with open space adds to Florence Park or Community Center 3 16 basketball Myott Park or Cottonwood Heights Park 1 17 basketball; playground with open space Orchard Park 3 18 open space Benson Park 1 19 basketball with open space 3 20 playground with open space 3 21 Tennis Complex; playground with open space Benson Community Center 6 22 basketball with open space 3 23 playground with open space 3 24 open space Roberts Park or Hillside Little League 1 25 playground with open space 3 26 basketball in or near Memorial Park or north side of Elmwoo 1 27 Soccer Complex adds to Elmwood or near Lexington Street 10 28 playground with picnic area and open space 3 29 basketball; tennis; playground with picnic area and open space 6 30 playground w/picinic area and open space Golf - 9 Hole 35 31 open space 2 32 playground with picnic area and open space 3 33 playground; basketball Pulaski Park 3 34 playground; basketball; picnic area and open space 5 35 basketball South Omaha Industrial Park 1 36 Golf 9/18 open space 60 37 playground picnic area and open space 3 38 playground Karen Park 1 39 basketball soccer 6 40 playground picnic area and open space 3 41 open space 1 154 8.2 - “Acres per 1000” Park Facility Prescriptions continued. 42 Swimming Pool 5 43 basketball playground - Regency Park 2 44 playground picnic area and open space 3 45 basketball w/open space 1 46 basketball Maple Village Park and Warren Swiggart Golf Cou 1 47 basketball; playground picnic area and open space 5 48 playground picnic area and open space 3 49 basketball; playground; picnic area and open space 5 50 2 playgrounds - east/west sides; picnic area and open space, basketball, soccer, Recreation Ce 16 51 playground w/picnic area, tennis Recreation Center 6 52 playground w/picinic area and open space add to Escalante Hills 3 53 playground w/picnic area and open space west end of Knolls Golf Course 3 54 playground w/picnic area and open space Recreation Center with accessible parking 8 55 playground w/picnic area and open space adds to Brookside Park 3 56 basketball; playground w/picnic area and open space 5 57 open space Mockingbird West Community Center 1 58 playground w/picnic area and open space west of Harper Valley Park 5 59 playground w/picnic area and open space 3 60 playground w/ picnic area and open space 3 61 basketball; soccer Tennis Complex 9 62 basketball adds to south end of Timber Creek 1 63 basketball w/open space 2 64 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball, soccer, Tennis Complex 20 65 2 playgrounds w / picnic area and open space (east/west), basketball, Recration Center 20 66 basketball w/ open space 3 67 playground w/ picnic area and open space adds toTrendwood Park 3 68 basketball adds to West Fair Acres 1 69 basketball w/ open space west side of Boy's Town 3 70 ballfield 10 71 playground w/ picnic area and open space southeast side of Willow Wood Park 3 72 playground w/picnic areas and open space 3 73 playground southeast section of Tranquility Park 1 74 basketball near Fort Street in Tranquility Park 0.5 75 basketball northwest section of Tranquility Park 0.5 76 playground w/ shelter house(s), open space ; I 5 77 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball and ballfield(s) | 14 78 playground w/shelter house(s), picnic area and open space, basketball, Youth Ballfield Compie: 25 79 playground w/ picnic areas and open space 6 acres south east with other facilities planned 3 80 playground w/picnic area and open space 3 81 ^playground w/picnic area and open space 3 82 ^playground w/picnic area and open space 3 83 **playground w/picnic area and open space 3 84 ^playground with shelter(s), picnic area, open space, basketball tennis, accessible parking 14 85 ^playground w/picnic area and open space, soccer 10 86 **playground with picnic area and open space, basketball, tennis, Recreation Center 10 87 ^playground with picnic area and open space j 3 155 8.3 - "Acres per 1000” Park Facility Prescriptions continued. 88 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space 5 89 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball, Tennis Complex 9 90 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 91 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball, ballfield 14 92 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball, Youth Ballfield Complex, accessible parki 28 93 playground w/picnic area and open space 3 94 playground w/picnic area and open space, ba playground w/picnic area and o.s., basketball 5 95 playground w/picnic area and open space, b north side of Boys Town 14 96 playground w/picnic area and open space, b west side of Boys Town 5 97 basketball with open space 3 98 basketball, Tennis Complex Project underway in Zorinsky Lake S 99 basketball Walnut Grove Park 0.5 100 playground w/picnic area and open space, ballfield 12 101 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 102 2 playgrounds w/picnic area and open space, basketball, soccer, Swimming Pool w/accessible 14 103 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball, tennis, Recreation Center, with accessibl 9 104 playground w/ picnic area and open space, basketball 5 105 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball, Swimming Pool w/ accessible parking 9 106 playground w/p[icnic area, basketball Harvey Oaks Park 3 107 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 108 playground w/picnic area and open space 5 109 basketball with picnic area and open space 3 110 playground with picnic area and open space 3 111 playground with picnic area and open space 3 112 basketball, open space, tennis adds to Seven Pines' 6 acres 5 113 playground w/picnic area and open space adds to Huntington Park 4 114 basketball w/open space 4 115 Soccer Rec. Ctr. w/access. parking, Youth B 30 116 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 117 playground with picnic area and open space, basketball 5 118 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball, tennis, scoccer, ballfield, S. Pool w/ acc 24 119 playground w/ picnic area and open space, tennis 5 120 ♦♦playground w/picnicarea and open space, basketball j 5 121 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space, Rec. Ctr. w/ access, parking, ballfield 14 122 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space, north side of intersection 8 123 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space , basketball 5 124 ♦♦playgrounnd w/picnic area and open space, basketballm, tennis, soccer 10 125 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 126 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 127 ♦♦playground w/shelter house(s), picnic area and open space, basketball, tennis, Rec. Ctr. w/j 32 128 ♦♦playground w/ picnic area and open space, basketball I 5 129 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball, Tennis Complex | 8 130 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball j 5 131 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball j 5 132 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball j 5 133 ♦♦playground w/picnic area and open space | 3 156 8.4 - “Acres per 1000” Park Facility Prescriptions continued. 134 **playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball, tennis 7 135 ^playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 136 playground w/picnic ara and open space, basketball 5 137 basketball, Golf 9/18 hole, 60 138 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 139 **pl ay ground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 140 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 141 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball, Tennis Complex 8 142 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 143 tennis Zorinsky Lake 1 144 playground w/picnic area and open space, Rec. Ctr. w/ access, parking 7 145' playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 146 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 147 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 148 playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 149 playground on southside, basketball, soccer, Ridges Park 90 150 **playground on southeast side of intersection w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 151 **pl ay ground w/picnic area and open space, basketball, Rec. Ctr. w/ access, parking, ballfield 16 152 **pl ay ground w/ picnic area and open space, basketball 5 153 **playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 154 **playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 9 155 **playground w/picnic area and open space, ballfield 12 156 **playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 157 ^playground w/picnic area and open space, basketball 5 158 **playground with picnic area; openspace; Rec. Ctr. w/ access, parking 8 159 **pl ay ground w/picnic area and open space, Swimming Pool w/ access, parking 8 ** = optional facility development until after 2010 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY 158 BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Agnew, John A., and Janies Duncan, eds. The power of place. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Bannon, Joseph J. Leisure resources: Its comprehensive planning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc, 1976. ______. Problem solving in recreation and parks. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1981. Barber, Gerald M. Elementary statistics for geographers. New York: The Guilford Press, 1988. Barclay, George W. Techniques of population analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958. Berry, Brian J.L, Edgar C.Conkling and D. Michael. Ray E c o n o m ic geography: Resource use, locational choices, and regional specialization in the global economy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1987. Berry, Brian J.L. and John B. Parr, et.al. Market Centers and Retail Location: Theory and Applications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1987. Berry, Brian J.L., and Duane F. Marble, eds. Spatial analysis: A reader in statistical geography. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. Bourne, Larry. Internal Structure of the City. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971. Brunn, Stanley D. and Thomas R. Leinbach, eds. Collapsing space and time: Geographic aspects of communications and information. London: Routledge, 1991. Burchell, Robert W. and George Sternlieb, eds. Planning theory in the 1980’s: A search for future directions. New Brunswick, NJ: The Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, 1978. Choate, Pat, and Walter, Susan. America in ruins: the decaying infra structure. Durham, N.C.: Duke Press, 1983. Chapin, Jr. Stuart F. and Kaiser, Edward J. Urban Land Use Planning. 3rd ed. London: University of Illinois Press, 1979. Clarke, Keith C. Getting started with geographic information systems. Upper Saddle, NJ: Printice-Hall, 1997. 159 Doell, Chas. E., and Gerald B. Fitzgerald. A brief history of parks and recreation in the United States. Chicago: The Athletic Institute, 1954. Duncan, S. “What is locality?” New models in geography, Vol. I, ed.. R. Peet and N. Thrift, pp. 221-252. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Entrikin, J. Nicholas, and Brunn, Stanley D., eds. Reflections on Richard Hartshorne’s The Nature of Geography. (Occasional Publications of the Association of American Geographers). Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers, 1989. Faludi, Andreas, ed. A reader in planning theory. New York: Pergamon Press, 1983. Fein, Albert, ed. Landscape into city scape: Frederick Law Olmstead’s plans for a greater New York City. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1968. Foust, J. Brady and Anthony R. deSouza. The economic landscape: A theoretical introduction. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1978. Gidley, Mick and Robert Lawson-Peebles, eds. Views of American Landscapes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Golledge, R. G. and Gerard Ruston. “Spatial choice and spatial behavior.” Geographic essays on the analysis of preferences and perceptions. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1976. Gould, Peter, and Rodney White. Mental Maps. 2nd ed. Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1986. Gould, Peter. The geographer at work. Boston: Routledge & K. Paul, 1985. Gregory, S. Statistical methods and the geographer. 2nd ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co. LTD, 1968. Griffith, Daniel A. and Carl G. Amrhein. Statistical analysis for geographers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1991. Grumbine, G. Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1994. Guggenheimer, Elinor C. Planning for parks and recreation needs in urban areas. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1969. Gutkind, Erwin Anton. Community and environment: A discourse on social ecology. London: Watts, 1953. Haggett, Peter, Andrew D.Cliff and Allan Frey. Location analysis in human geography. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1977. 160 Hammond, Kenneth A., George Macinko and Wilma B. Fairchild, eds. Sourcebook on the environment: A guide to the literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Hammond, Robert and Patrick McCullagh. Quantitative techniques in geography: An introduction. London: Oxford University Press, 1974. Hartshorn, Truman A. “Perception and Quality of Live”. Chapter 10 in Interpreting the City. New York: Wiley. (1980):200-217. Hartshorne, Richard. Perspectives on the Nature of Geography. 5th ed. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Co., 1969. Havitz, Mark E. ed. Models of change in municipal parks and recreation: a book of innovative case studies. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, 1995. Haworth, J.T.,and Smith, M.A. Work and leisure: An inter-disciplinary study in theory, education and planning. Princeton: Princeton Book Company, Publishers, 1976. Heckscher, August. Open spaces: The life of American cities. New York: Harper & Row, 1977. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden cities of tomorrow. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1965. Hudson, Susan D. How to conduct community needs assessment surveys in public parks and recreation. Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons, Inc., 1988. Hultsman, John, Richard L. Cottrell and Wendy Zales Hultsman. 2nd. ed. Planning parks for people. State College, PA.: Venture Publishers, 1998. Isard, Walter. Introduction to regional science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975. Isard, Walter, et. al. General theory: Social, political, economic, and regional with particular reference to decision-making analysis. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1969. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. Discovering the vernacular landscape. N e w Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1984. Jakle, John A. The visual elements of landscape. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1987. Jakle, John A., Stanley Brunn and Curtis C. Roseman, Human spatial behavior: A social geography. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1985. Jensen, Clayne R. Out Door Recreation in America. 4th ed. Minnesota: Burgess Publishing Company, 1985. Johnson, Elvin R. Park resources for recreation. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1972. 161 Jubenville, Allen. Outdoor Recreation Planning. Philadelphia, London, Toronto: W.B. Saunders Company, 1976. Kaing, Ying Cheng. Urban Geography. Charleston, IL: Illinois University Press, 1964. Kaiser, Ronald A. and James D. Mertes. Acquiring parks and recreation facilities through mandatory dedication: A comprehensive guide. State College, PA.: Venture Publishing, Inc., 1986. Kaplan, Rachel, Stephen Kaplan and Robert L. Ryan. With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1998. Karlqvist, Anders, et. al. Spatial interaction theory and planning models. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co., 1978. Kelly, John R. Recreation trends. Champaign, IL: Management Learning Laboratories, Ltd., 1987. Kelsey, Craig. 1986. The feasibility study process for parks and recreation. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance. Kelsey, Craig, and Howard Gray. Master plan process for parks and recreation. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 1985. Kilbridge, Maurice D. Urban analysis. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1970. Kobayashi, Audrey and Suzanne Mackenzie, eds. Remaking human geo g ra p h y. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Krueckeberg, Donald A. and Arthur L. Silvers. Urban planning analysis: Methods and models. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1974. Lancaster, Roger A., ed. Recreation, park and open space standards and guidelines. Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, 1983. Larsen, Lawrence H. and Barbara J. Cottrell. The gate city: a history o f Omaha. USA: Pruit Publishing Company, 1982. Laurini, Robert and Derek Thompson. Fundamentals of Spatial Information Systems. London: Academic Press, 1992. Lavery, Patrick. Recreational geography. Newton Abbot, England: David & Charles, 1974. Leahy, William H., et al., eds. Urban economics: Theory, development and p la n n in g . New York: The Free Press, 1970. 162 Levy, John M. Contemporary urban planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991. Ley, David. A social geography of the city. New York: Harper & Row, 1983. . “Modernism, post-modernism and the struggle for place.” The power of place. John A. Agnew and James Duncan, eds. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989. Lloyd, Peter E., and Dicken, Peter. Location in space: A theoretical approach to economic geography. 2nd ed. London: Harper & Row, 1977. Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. Urban fortunes: the political economy of a place. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Lounsbury, John F. and Frank T. Aldrich. Introduction to geographic field methods and techniques. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 1986. Lowenthal, David, and Bowden, Martyn J., eds. Geographies of the mind: Essays in historical geosophy in honor of John Kirtland Wright. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976. Lynch, Kevin. Site Planning. 6th ed. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 1989. MacCormack, Carol P. and Marilyn Strathern, eds. “ Nature, culture, and gender.” Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Machlis, Gary E., and David L. Tichnell. The state of the world's parks: An international assessment for resource management, policy, and research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985. McCay, Bonnie J. and James M. Acheson, eds. The question of the commons: The culture and ecology of communal resources. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1987. McLean, Mary, ed. Local planning administration. 3rd ed. Chicago: The International City Managers’ Association, 1959. Milbrath, Lester W. Envisioning a sustainable society: Learning our way out. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, Albany, 1989. Morrill, Richard L. The spatial organization of society. 2nd. ed. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press, 1974. Murphy, Raymond E. The American city: An urban geography. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. (1974): (101-110, 294-302). Nash, Dr. Jay B. Philosophy of Recreation and Leisure. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co. Pub., 1960. National Geographic Society. Americans and the outdoors. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 1987. 163 National Parks and Conservation Association. Investing in park futures: A blueprint for tomorrow. Washington, D.C.: National Parks and Conservation Association. (1988): 1-9. Neal, Larry L., ed. Leisure: No enemy but ignorance. Reston, VA: The American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 1983. Northam. “The City in History.” Chapter 3 in Urban Geography. npb:np (1998):31-62. Oates, David. Earth rising: Ecological belief in an age of science. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 1989. Owings, Laren C. Environmental values, 1860-1972: A guide to information sources. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1976. Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W. and McKenzie, R.D. The City of Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, (1925): 47-62. Platt, Rutherford H. Land Use Control: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Printice-Hall, Inc., 1991. Rapoport, Amos. Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man-environment approach to urban form and design. New York: Pergamon Press, 1977. Reed, David J. and Richard R. Perdue. “Park planning and design: An evaluative approach.” Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, 1979. Rutledge, Albert J. and Donald J. Molnar. Anatomy of a park: The essentials of recreation area planning and design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1986. Sack, Robert David. Conceptions of space in social thought: A geographic perspective. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980. . Human territoriality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Sargent, Frederick. Human ecology: A guide to information sources. Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1983. Shaffer, Ron. Community economics: Economic structure and change in smaller communities. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1989. Shattuck, J. Bruce. Vandalism in public park facilities: A guide for park m anagers. Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons, 1987. Short, John R. An introduction to urban geography. London: Routledge, 1984. Smardon, Richard C., James F. Palmer and John P. Felleman, eds. Foundations for visual project analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1986. 164 Smith, Douglas C. Urban parks and roads. Washington, D.C.: Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, Planning Department, 1971. Smith, Edward Ellis and Durwood S. Riggs, eds. Land use, open space, and the government process: The San Francisco Bay Area experience, a study. New York: Praeger, 1974. Smith, Stephen Leonard. 1973. Dimensions of Urban Recreation 113 Selected United States Cities: An Exploratory Analysis. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University. So, Frank S., and Judith Getzels, eds. The practice of local government p la n n in g . Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association, ICMA Training Institute, 1988. Steele, Fritz. The sense of place. Boston: CBI Publishing Company, 1981. Stein, H. Developmental time, cultural space: Studies in psychogeography. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987. Stein, H., and Neiderland, W. Maps from the mind: Readings in psychogeography. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989. Stensrud, Dr. Carol. A Training Manual for Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance in Parks and Recreation Settings. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, 1993. Sternloff, Robert E., and Warren, Roger. Park and recreation maintenance management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984. Stoddard, Robert H. 1977. Defining critical environmental areas: One phase of land use planning in Nebraska. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, Department of Geography. ______. Field techniques and research methods in geography. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1982. Stokes, Samuel N., Elizabeth Watson, Genevieve P. Keller, and J. Timothy Keller. Saving America's countryside: A guide to rural conservation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. Sutton, S.B., ed. Civilizing American cities: A selection of Frederick Law Olmsted’s writings on city landscapes. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1971. Taaffe, Edward J., Howard L. Gauthier and Morton E. O’Kelly, Morton E. Geography of Transportation. 2nd. ed. New Jersey: Printice-Hall, 1996. Tuan, Yi-Fu. Segmented worlds and self: Group life and individual consciousness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982. ______. “Literature and geography: implications for geographical research.” Humanistic geography: Prospects and problems. David Ley and Marwyn Sammuels, eds. Chicago: Maroufa Press, (1978): 194-206 165 ______. Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1977. ______. Literature, experience and environmental knowing. In Environmental knowing: Theories, research, and methods. G. Moore and R. Golledge, eds. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., (1976): 260-272. ______. Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1974. van der Smissen, Betty. 1972. Evaluation and self-study of public recreation and park agencies: A guide with standards and evaluative criteria. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association. van der Smissen, Margaret Elizabeth. 1979. Bibliography of theses and dissertations in recreation and parks, 1979. Washington, D.C.: National Recreation and Park Association. Walker, Theodore D. Designs for parks and recreation spaces. Mesa, AZ: PDA Publishers, 1987. Walsh, Richard G. Recreation economic decisions: Comparing benefits and costs. State College, PA.: Venture Publishing, Inc., 1986. Winton, Harry N. M., ed. Man and the environment: A bibliography of selected publications of the United Nations system, 1946-1971. New York: Unipub, 1972. Woods, Robert. Population Analysis in geography. London: Longman Group Limited, 1979. Wortham, Sue C., and Joe L. Frost, eds. Playgrounds for young children: National survey and perspectives. Reston VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 1990. Yeates, Maurice H. An introduction to quantitative analysis in economic geography. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, (1974): 175-179. PERIODICALS Alonzo, William. “A Theory of the Urban Land Market”. Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association. 6(1960): 149-157. Bennett, Paul. “Planning-The Park Process - The Master Planning of St. Louis’s Forest Park fosters the human-ecosystem design method.” L a n d sca p e Architecture. 88(1)(1997): 1-26. Bourassa, Steven C. A paradigm for landscape aesthetics. Environment and behavior 22(1990):787-812. 166 Bourne, Larry. “Urban Structure and Land Use Decisions.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 99 (December 1976):531-547. Brown, William Edward. Islands of hope: parks and recreation in environmental crisis. Washington, D.C.: National Recreation and Park Association, 1971. Caesar, Betsy, M.ED., CPSI. A matter of child’s play. Parks and Recreation. Ashbum, VA: NPRA. 34(6)(1999):67-73. C aneday, L ow ell. Parks, recreation and the environment: allies or adversaries? Parks and recreation. September (1991): 88-93, 133-134. Christiansen, Monty, CLP, CPSI. An evaluation of playground management. Parks and Recreation. Ashburn, VA: NPRA. April(1999):74-82. Chakrovorty, Sanjoy. A Measurement of Spatial Disparity: The Case of Income Inequality. Urban Studies. University of Glasgow. Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Carfax Publishing Company. 3(9):November (1996):1671-85. F an tino, Julian. taking crime prevention “Back to the Future! Police Chief. Alexandria, VA: Official Publication of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. LXVI(5) (1999):18-21. Findlay, A., R. Rogerson and A. Morris. 1988. In what sense "indicators’ of quality of life? Built environment 14 (2)(1988):96-106. Fine, David. “Running out of space.” Western American literature 26(1991):209. Fitzsim m ons, M . The matter of nature. Antipode 21 (2) (1989): 106-120. Fogg* George E. Park planning guidelines revised. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, 1981. . A site design process. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, 1986. Fogg, George E. and William J. Shiner. Management planning for park and recreation areas. Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association, 1981. Foster, Larry N. “GOT POOLS? GOT PROBLEMS? GET A PLAN!” Parks and Recreation. Ashburn, VA: NRPA. (February 1999):(57-65). Gerckens, Larry. “Ten Events that Shaped the 20th Century American City.” Planning Commissioners Journal. 30(1998). Gimblett, Randy. “Linking perception research, visual simulations and dynamic modeling within a GIS framework: The Ball State experience.” Computers, environment and urban systems 13(1989): 109-123. 167 ______. “Environmental cognition: The prediction of preference in rural Indiana.” Journal of architectural and planning research 7(1990):222-234. Gantt-Wright, Iantha. “Breaking Barriers: The park system must reflect the changing face of America and extent an open invitation to all.” N a tio n a l Parks. 73(l-2)(1999):47-48. Godbey, Geoffrey and Diana R. Dunn. A critique of “Public Urban Recreation: An Investigation of Spatial Relationships” by Lisle S. Mitchell and Paul E. Lovingood, Jr. Journal of leisure research 18( 1986):61-67. Gould, Peter. Dynamic structures of geographic space. In Collapsing space and time: Geographic aspects of communications and information, ed. Stanley D. Brunn and Thomas R. Leinbach, London: Routledge. (1991):3-30. Hart, John Frazier, ed. “Toward A Theory of Public Urban Recreation.” Proceedings of the Association of American Geographers. 1(1969): 103-108. Harris, Chauncy. “A Functional Classification of Cities in the U.S.” Geographical Review. 1(1943): 86-89. Harris, Chauncy D. and Ullman, Edward L. “The Nature of Cities.” Readings in Urban Geography. Edited by Harold M. Mayer and Clyde F. Kohn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (1959):277-286. Hendy, Teri, CPSI. Beyond public playground safety standards: designers, purchasers, and providers of playground equipment and play areas have a responsibility to provide a safe, challenging play environment that is more than simply compliant. Park and Recreation. Ashburn, VA: NRPA. (April 1999):(84-7). Higgs, Eric S. A space between planning and technology. Man environment system s 17(1987):128-200. Hillestad, K. O. Landskapsforming (Landscape formation). Kraft og Miljo - Norges Vassdrags - og Energiverk 17(1989): 1-152. Hull, R. Bruce, and Grant R. Revell. Cross-cultural comparison of landscape scenic beauty evaluations: A case study in Bali. Journal of environmental psychology 9(1989):177-191. Iglitzin, L.B. 1995. “The Seattle Commons: a case study in the politics and planning of an urban village.” Policy Studies Journal. 23(4)(1995): 620-635. International Playground Equipment Manufacturers Association. IPEMA: “Committed to Safety.” (1999): 60-67. Isaak, Robert. Greenlogic: ecopreneurship, theory and ethics. West Hartford, CN: np, (1999). Jalowiecki, B. “Society - space - time.” Concepts & methods in geography - Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan 3(1988):47-56. 168 Jen sen , M ogens. “Playground safety: Is it child’s play?” Parks and R ecrea tio n (August 1990):36-38. K ates, R obert W. “The human environment: The road not taken, the road still beckoning.” Annals of the association of American geographers 77(4)(1987): 525-534. Keil, Frank C. “Constraints on constraints: Surveying the epigenetic landscape.” Cognitive science 14(1990): 135-168. Kellert, S. R. and J.K. Berry. Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife society bulletin 15 (3)(1987):363-371. Kennedy, C. B., J.L. Sell and E.H. Zube. Landscape aesthetics and geography. Environmental review 12 (3)(1988):31-55. Knox, Paul. Planning and Applied Geography. Progress in Human Geography. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (1991): 541-48; 564-548. Knox, P. L., E.H. Bartels, B. Holcomb, J.R. Bohland and R.J. Johnston. The United States: A contemporary human geography. Essex, England: Longman Scientific & Technical, 1988. Krackhardt, David. “Assessing the political landscape: Structure, cognition, and power in organizations.” Administrative science quarterly. 35(1990) :342-369. Lee, Youngkhill. “How Do Individuals Experience Leisure? O ffic ia l Publication of the National Recreation and Parks Association. February Issue. Ashburn, VA: NRPA, 1999. Lovingood, Paul E. Jr., and Mitchell, Lisle S. “The structure of public and private recreational systems: Columbia, South Carolina.” Journal of leisure research 10 (1) (1978):21-36. ______. Response to a critique of “Public Urban Recreation: An Investigation of Spatial Relationships.” Journal of leisure research 18(1986):68-72. Martin, S. R., McCool, S. F., and Lucas, R. C. “Wilderness campsite impacts: do managers and visitors see them the same?” Environmental management 13 (5)(1989):623-629. McAvoy, Leo. “An environmental ethic for parks and recreation.” Parks and R ecrea tio n (September 1990):68-72. Mitchell, Lisle S. and Paul E. Lovingood, Jr. “Public urban recreation: An investigation of spatial relationships.” Journal of leisure research 8 (l)(1976):6-20. Munn, R. E. “Towards sustainable development: an environmental perspective.” Development (2-3)(1989):70-80. 169 Muntemba, S. “Research for sustainable development: the role of NGOs.” Development (2-3)(1989):65-67. Myers, J.A., M. Martin, R. Ghose, “GIS and neighborhood planning: a model for revitalizing communities.” URISA Journal. 7(3)(1997): 63-67. Neal, Lisa K. “Water Quality 2000 Builds A Consensus: A National Water Agenda for the 21st Century.” Environmental Protection. Carol Mouche’ ed. Los Angeles, CA: Environmental Issues Education Program, (EIEP), 1994. Nelson, Howard. “A Service Classification of American Cities.” E c o n o m ic Geography. 31(1955): 189-210. N issan, E. “An alternative index for quality of life in urban areas.” Review o f regional studies. 19 (1)(1989): 77-86. Oestreicher, Michael. “Accessible recreation: 20 years behind the times.” Parks and Recreation. NPRA (August 1990): 52-55. Olsson, Gunnar. Distance and human interaction: A review and bibliography. No. 2, Philadelphia, PA: Regional Science Research Institute. (1965). O’Riordan, T. “The challenge for environmentalism.” New models in geography. R. Peet and N. Thrift, eds., Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1(1989): 77- 102. O’Sullivan. “Marketing for Parks, Recreation and Leisure. ” State College, PA: Venture Publishing, (27):(1991). Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District. “Keystone and Bellevue Loop trails now in use; work begins soon on second phase of the Bellevue Loop trail.” Spectrum 19 (3)(1991): 5. Phillips, Hal. “Golf Course Renovation 101.” Park and Recreation. Princeton, NJ: NRPA, (June 1999):81-85. Platt, Rutherford H. The open space decision process: Spatial allocation of costs and benefits. (Research Paper No. 142) Chicago: Department of Geography, University of Chicago, 1972. Recreation Executive Report. 1999. Washington, D.C.: Leisure Industry/Recreation News. XXIX(l-3): 1-3, 1-4, 1-7. Richwine, Dirk. “Innovative Land Acquisition For The 21st Century.” P a rk s and Recreation. Ashburn, VA: NRPA. (January 1999): 70-74. Rogerson, R., A. Findlay and A. Morris. “The best cities to live in.” Town & country planning. 57 (10)(1988):270-273. 170 Saarinen, Thomas F., David Seamon and James L. Sell, eds. 1984. Environmental perception and behavior: An inventory and prospect. Research paper No. 209. Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of G eograp h y. Shafer, Craig L. “Profile - US National Park Buffer Zones: Historical Scientific, Social and Legal Aspects.” Environmental Management. 23(1)(1999): 1-49. Tuan, Yi-Fu. “Ambiguity in attitudes toward environment.” Annals of the association of American geographers. AAG, 63(1973):411-423. ______. Topophilia: personal encounters with landscape. Landscape 11(1961): 29-32. Ullman, Ed., Harris Chauncy. “The Nature of Cities.” Annals of the American Accademy of Political and Social Science. 242(1945): 1-717. Varnes, Paul R., and Steve Holland. “Looking out for the environment.” Parks and Recreation. (September 1991):84-87. Wicks, Bruce E., Kenneth F. Backman, Jeffery Allen and Donald Van Blaricom. “GIS: A Tool for Marketing, Managing and Planning Municipal Park Systems.” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. A publication o f the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration. 11 (1)( 1993): 9. Wilkinson, Bill. “Making Communities ‘Bicycle Friendly.’” P la n n in g Commissioners Journal. Burlington, VT: (10) (May/June 1993). Zube, Ervin H. “Landscape research: Planned and serendipitous.” H u m a n behavior and environment advances in theory and research 11(1990): 291- 313. Zube, Ervin H., and Busch, M. L. “Park-people relationships: an international review.” Landscape & urban planning 19 (2) (1990): 117-131. INTERVIEWS AND PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS American Academy for Parks and Recreation Administration in cooperation with the James Foundation. Parks and Recreation 90: Public parks and recreation in the next decade; proceedings of a workshop held in St. Louis, Missouri. September (1985): 15-17. Association of American Geographers 87th Annual Meeting Program. 1991. Miami, FA: Association of American Geographers. ______. 1993. Atlanta, GA: AAG Conference. Klein, Karen. 1991. Interviews, professional contact with author during the course of an internship with the City of Omaha, Planning Department and interaction with the City Council from the Fall of 1991 through Fall of 1995. 171 . 1999. Interview by author April 1999. City of Omaha, Planning Department, Omaha, Nebraska. Silkworth, Delores. 1991. Interview by author Fall of 1991, City of Omaha, Recreation, Parks and Public Properties Office (from which employment ensued with the Planning Department through 1995), Omaha, Nebraska. . 1999. Interview by author April of 1999, City of Omaha, Recreation, Parks and Public Properties Office, Omaha, Nebraska. U.S. Department of the Interior. Guidelines for UPARR Recovery Action Planning. National Park Service. Recreation Assistance Program. (Letter from Acting Assistant Regional Director of Recreation Assistance Program to Larry N. Foster, Administrator, Parks, Recreation and Public Property of Omaha/Douglas County Civic Center with enclosure). (June 1991): 1-3. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Benack, Richard A. 1989. An improved method of assigning spatial characteristics in a raster environment. Masters Thesis, University of Nebraska at Omaha: Omaha, Nebraska. Engelbrecht, Kenneth W. 1986. American Residential Structure, Testing The Adams Model in Omaha Nebraska. A Dissertation. University of Nebraska, Department of Geography, Lincoln, Nebraska. Juracek, Kyle E. 1986. A geographic information system for residential development plans: Generating physical “desirability” surfaces. Masters Thesis, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Kerr, Don John. 1976. A quantitative method for using an inventory of the soil and water resources of the state of Oregon to determine human population carrying capacities for two acceptable qualities of life. Ph.D. Thesis. Oregon State University. Limbaugh, James Pennington. 1987. User attitudes toward establishing a neighborhood park. Masters thesis. Southeast Missouri State University. Ralston, Linda S. 1986. A needs assessment for indoor and outdoor park and recreation facilities for the Platte County Parks and Recreation Commission. Masters thesis. Central Missouri State University. Ross, John. 1984. The feasibility of using a geographic information system to monitor change in a portion of the rural-urban fringe in Omaha, Nebraska. Masters Thesis, University of Nebraska at Omaha. Suzuki, David, with McConnell, Amana. The Sacred Balance: Rediscovering our place in nature. 1998. University of Nebraska at Omaha: Omaha, N ebraska. 172 PUBLIC DOCUMENTS Allan, Barbara L, Moffett, Frank C. Accessibility design for all: an illustrated handbook. Washington State Regulations. 3rd. ed. Olympia, WA: AIA Washington Council, 95(1998). City of Omaha. 1942. 1942 manual of civic improvements. Omaha, NE: Mayor Dan B. Butler and Omaha City Council. ______. 1972. Open space plan and program. Report No. 106. Omaha, NE: Metropolitan Area Planning Agency. ______. 1973. Central business district plan: Riverfront study area. Omaha - Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area Planning Agency, Missouri River Development Program Sub Element 905. Omaha, NE: Omaha City Planning Department: ______. 1975. South Omaha Community Park. Omaha, NE: Community Development Center, Inc. ______. 1976. Report of the Citizens Committee on the urban development policy. Omaha, NE: Citizens Committee for the City of Omaha, Nebraska. ______. 1977. Environmental resources inventory. Omaha, NE:City of Omaha Planning Department. . 1981. A comprehensive program for historic preservation in Omaha. Omaha, NE: Landmarks Heritage Preservation Commission. ______. 1981. An action plan for Omaha’s parks and recreation system. Omaha, NE: Omaha City Planning Department. ______. 1981. An assessment of Omaha’s parks and recreation system. Report No. 212. Omaha, NE: Omaha City Planning Department. ______. 1985. A public facilities plan for the city of Omaha. Report No. 230. Omaha, NE: Omaha City Planning Department. ______. 1986. A study of the city of Omaha’s parks and open spaces for the League of Women Voters of Greater Omaha. Omaha, NE: League of Women V oters. ______. 1988. A comprehensive plan for the city of Omaha: City development plan. (Draft). Omaha, NE: Omaha City Planning Department and the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Policy Development. _ . 1989. Capital improvement program: 1990-1995. Report No. 254, Omaha, NE: Omaha City Planning Department. ______. 1989. Directions for change: The 1989 neighborhood workshops on the city development plan. Omaha, NE: City of Omaha Planning Department. ______. 1989. Parks and recreation plan. (Preliminary partial draft). 173 ______. 1990. Annual budget of the city of Omaha, Nebraska for the calendar year 1991. Omaha, NE: City of Omaha Elected Officials. . 1990. Capital improvement program: 1991-1996. Report No. 256, Omaha, NE: Omaha City Planning Department. __. 1990. Community development plan: A comprehensive plan for the city of Omaha. Report No. 251. Omaha, NE: Omaha City Planning Department and the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Policy Development, P.J. Morgan, M ayor. . 1990. Community development in Omaha: A catalogue of programs. Omaha, NE: City of Omaha Planning Department. ______. 1990. Sixteenth program year community development block grant: Statement of objectives and proposed use of funds. Omaha, NE: City of Omaha Planning Department. Colorado State Parks. The effect of greenways on property values and public safety. The Conservation Fund and Colorado State Parks. State Trails Program. Denver, CO: Colorado State Parks, 1995. Gillespie, Glenn A., ed. Leisure 2000: Scenarios for the future. Colum bia, MO: College of Public and Community Services, Department of Recreation and Park Administration, Extension Division, University Printing Services, University of Missouri, 1983. Mertes, James D. and James R. Hall. Park, Recreation, Open space and greenway guidelines. Alexandria, VA: NRPA. (1995): 1-164. Metropolitan Area Planning Agency. MAP A region 1990 census tract data by age and sex. Omaha, NE: Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (MAPA), 1991. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 1994. Handbook for public playground safety. Washing ton D.C.: USGPO. (32). Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy D evelopm ent and Research. 1976. A playground for all children. (H U D - Pdr-331-1) Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS Environmental Systems Research Institute. Getting to know Arc View GIS: the geographic information system (GIS) for everyone. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Geoinformation International, a dvision of Pearson Professional Limited, 1997. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1999. Floodplain Management S ervices, (world wide web): available at: http//w ww.usuce.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwp fpms.htm 174 Letter on Repetitive Flood Losses July 2, 1999. (world wide web): available at: http://www.fema.gov/nfip/nfip702.htm High Risk Areas, (world wide web): available at: http://www.fema.gov./pte/6 ch b.pdf. Lusk, Anne. “Planning Paths for Your Community.” Planning Commissioners Journal. (10) (May-June 1993). [world wide web] available at: www.web.com/pcj/trends/6roads.html McMahon, Edward T. “Smart Growth Trends.” Planning Commissioners Journal. (33)(Winter 1999): [world wide web] Available at: www.webcom.com.pcj/trends/5opensp.html ______. “Environmentally Sensitive Development.” P la n n in g Commissioners Journal. (24):(Fall 1997). . “What’s Next for ISTEA?” Planning Commissioners Journal. (27):(Summer 1997). . “Green Enhances Growth.” Planning Commissioners Journal. (22)4: (Winter 1996). National Park Service. Planners Information Exchange: A continuing catalog of second-generation UPARR planning grants. Washington D.C.: Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program. 1(29)2(1999):UR. [world wide web] Available at: www.dol.gov/esa/public/regs/compliance/whd ______. “Consumer Safety Performance Specifications for Playground Equipment.” American Society for Testing and Materials. Arlington, VA: NPRA, 1995. ______. “National Park Service and external development: addressing park boundary-area threats.” Environmental Affairs Law Review. Boston College, 20(4)( 1993): 1-761. . “Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program: Ten-Year Impact Report 1979-1989.” National Park Service. Recreation Grants Division. Washington D.C.: NPS, (1-4):(1992). ______. “Park Maintenance Standards.” Alexandria, VA: NRPA. (1986): 1- 59. Neubauer, Ronald S. “President’s Message: Community Partnership-The Key to Maintaining Safe Communities.” Police Chief. Alexandria, VA: The Official Publication of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. LXVI(5)(1999):(6-8). [world wide web] Available at: http//www.theiacp.org. Planners Web. Planning Commissioners Journal. Wayne M. Senville pub. [world wide web] Available at: www.plannersweb.com 175 Untermann, Richard. “Sidewalk Essentials.” Planning Commissioners Journal. (27) (Fall 1997). [world wide web] Available at: www. web. com/pc j/article s/untOO 2.html ______. “Taming the Automobile: How we can make our streets more ‘pedestrian friendly.’” Planning Commissioners Journal l(l)(Nov/Dec 1991). [world wide web] Available at: www.web.com/pcj/articles/untOO-.html Department of the Interior. 1999. National Park and Recreation Recovery Program. http//aspe.usdhhs.gov/cfda/pl 5919.htm. (Application Guidelines at any NPS Field Office). ______. 1999. 1999 Ammendment to UPARR March 7, 1999: http//www.house.gov/resources/06cong/energy/ocs/hr701 sec by sec htm. ______. 1999. Carrying Capacities: [world wide web] available at: http//www.doi.gov/nrls/findings/carry cap.htm ______. 1999. National Park Service. Nebraska UPARR web site: http//www. ncrc.nps.gov/uparr/Neb. htm http//1.1.200 OK ______. National Park Service Announces Awards of $4.9 M illion In Grants For Innovation Urban Recreation Programs. National Park Service. News Release: (April 10 1999):A-2. ______. 1998. National Park Service Manual. U.S. Government Documents: Superintendent of Documents. (308-28). [world wide web] available at: http://www/dol.gov/esa/public/regs /compliance/whd/ ______. 1995. 1995 Acres per 1000 Inhabitants: [world wide web] available at: http//cres.cagov.planning/genplan/gp Chapter 3 html ______. 1993. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: [world wide web] available at: http//www.dol.gov/nrls/fingingsmeasures.htm