Content uploaded by Melissa Anne Currie
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Melissa Anne Currie on Oct 22, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjud20
Download by: [State University of New York at Albany (SUNY)] Date: 03 February 2017, At: 07:46
Journal of Urban Design
ISSN: 1357-4809 (Print) 1469-9664 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20
A design framework for small parks in ultra-urban,
metropolitan, suburban and small town settings
Melissa Anne Currie
To cite this article: Melissa Anne Currie (2017) A design framework for small parks in ultra-
urban, metropolitan, suburban and small town settings, Journal of Urban Design, 22:1, 76-95,
DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2016.1234334
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1234334
Published online: 06 Oct 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 127
View related articles
View Crossmark data
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN, 2017
VOL. 22, NO. 1, 7695
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1234334
A design framework for small parks in ultra-urban,
metropolitan, suburban and small town settings
Melissa Anne Currie
Department of Geography and Planning, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA
ABSTRACT
Public parks contribute to neighbourhood quality of life, promote
a more public daily life, serve as important focal points for neigh-
bourhoods, and provide access to nearby nature as part of the built
environment. Parks have a special role in the range of public space
as a part of sustainable land use planning and development. Good
design helps position them for relevant cultural and ecological roles.
This research identied design principles that good, small urban parks
share – including accessibility, specicity, authenticity, functionality,
and adaptability – applicable in smaller cities, towns, and lower den-
sity areas. The framework was subsequently tested using interviews,
remote and observational analysis in locations representing this va-
riety of settings in the Southeastern, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeastern
United States.
Introduction
A frequent quote of prominent scientist E. O. Wilson is, ‘Nature holds the key to our aesthetic,
intellectual, cognitive, and even spiritual satisfaction’. Spending time in nature is instinctive
and the subject of philosophical and naturalist writings of Henry David Thoreau, Aldo
Leopold and Frederick Law Olmsted, along with numerous scientic studies. Parents take
children to outdoor places to release energy and get exercise and workers commonly take
breaks in a nearby small park or plaza. However, populations worldwide continue to shift
from rural to urban areas (Baur and Tynon 2010; UN 2014), making access to nature more
dicult to obtain. Public spaces, including streets, parks or plazas, are a vital part of embrac-
ing nature in urban settings. These neighbourhood-scale insertions provide easy, nearby
access to nature for a greater number of people and may become the basis for how nature
is experienced by some city dwellers, highlighting their importance within the urban fabric.
This idea motivated the study of small parks to identify a common set of design principles
that good, small public parks share that is transferable beyond ultra-urban locations to
smaller cities, towns or lower density suburban areas.
There is an increasing focus on the value and benets of small parks in a wide range of
disciplines, including public health, urban design and planning (Madanipour 2004;
McCormack et al. 2010; Watson and Kessler 2013; Dewaelheyns et al. 2014). Forsyth,
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Melissa Anne Currie mcurrie@albany.edu
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 77
Musacchio, and Fitzgerald (2005, 3) name small parks as ‘one of the most underrated but
potentially valuable ecological resources in a metropolitan area because there are so many
of them in each given area’. Small parks make important contributions to neighbourhoods
across the ‘spectrum of social, environmental and economic benets’ (Swanwick, Dunnett,
and Woolley 2003, 103; also Dewaelheyns et al. 2014) both in their existence value (because
they are there) and use value (their function, activity). Parks and public spaces provide a
favourite destination for walking trips in suburban neighbourhoods (Tilt 2010), enhance
aesthetics of neighbourhoods (Walker 2004), and promote public life (Duany, Plater-Zyberk,
and Speck 2000). They provide settings where people can experience formal or informal
social and ecological interactions fundamental to building sustainable communities
(Chiesura 2004).
Parks and public spaces must be viewed in terms of their cultural and ecological relevancy
to the twenty-rst century. They can, and should, provide, ‘critical ecological, educational,
and artistic roles’ in contemporary life (Karasov 1996, 7). To provide this relevancy, good
design of space is needed. Therefore, the goal of this research was not to construct a list of
recommended park amenities (such as water features or benches), but to identify founda-
tional design principles independent of personal tastes, specic amenities or surrounding
densities. Parks in ultra-urban areas such as New York City, London or Philadelphia have been
widely studied, but what of the small cities and burgeoning suburbs morphing into edge
cities, or the small towns dotting the contemporary landscape? With these aspects in mind,
the following problem statements were developed:
1. What are the design principles that good, small urban parks share?
2. Are these principles applicable in smaller cities, towns, and lower density areas?
These questions require dening the terminology used and a research scope to establish
the study context. ‘Small parks’ are dened as three acres (1.2 hectares) or less in size, a
common categorical size in US municipal systems and the minimum size recommended for
a neighbourhood park. The size limitation narrows the study to those most probably living,
working or recreating nearby and includes the mini- or pocket park that may be as small as
one-tenth acre. This park size also corresponds to the ‘Local Park’ (up to 1.2 hectares) desig-
nation used in the UK (Swanwick, Dunnett, and Woolley 2003). As Carmona, De Magalhães,
and Edwards (2002) point out, ‘good’ urban design means dierent things to the various
stakeholders associated with a particular space ‒ whether landowners, developers, author-
ities, users, designers, etc. In this research the term ‘good’ is from the designer’s perspective:
as adding social value to ‘local populations, enhancing social well being and civic pride’ (157);
and from the occupier’s/users perspectives: as enhancing social and environmental value.
Parks included in the study are located in the Eastern US and were chosen to specically
examine how small parks function not just in mega-cities, but also in smaller cities, small
towns, and newer metropolitan areas that do not have a long urban tradition or history. The
research draws from a literature review of public space, parks and urban design, and employs
a mix of qualitative methods, including on-site observation, interviews, website analysis and
research of park histories. The focus is also on public parks, which necessitates an under-
standing of what this means. Readers are referred to Mehta (2014) and Langstraat and Van
Melik (2013) for excellent reviews of the literature regarding public space. The following
discussion highlights various aspects of the discourse relevant to this research.
78 M. A. CURRIE
Public space and the role of public parks
Physical space is primarily organized into two realms: private and public, with public space
dened as ‘places outside the boundaries of individual or small-group control, mediating
between private spaces and used for a variety of often overlapping functional and symbolic
purposes’ (Madanipour 1999, 881). ‘Public space’ connotes a variety of typologies, including
markets, town greens, plazas, esplanades or interstitial spaces such as medians or trac
circles. There are numerous denitions of the terms open space, green space, park, etc. in
the literature regarding public space. This carries over to the municipal sector where local
authorities also employ a range of planning designations when describing public space.
Swanwick, Dunnett, and Woolley (2003) provide a useful typology of ‘urban green space’,
which they generally dene as publicly owned and managed land that provides some form
of recreation. Their park typologies are based on a hierarchy of importance in terms of a
park’s size, catchment area and the resources and facilities provided, and are: Principal/City/
Metropolitan Parks (8.0 hectares or greater); District Parks (up to 8.0 hectares and including
sports elds); Neighbourhood Park (up to 4 hectares including landscape and recreational
facilities); and Local Park (up to 1.2 hectares including play and green areas).
It is important to re-orient public space ‘towards contemporary values’, including envi-
ronmental sustainability, environmental justice, spatial justice and democratic processes in
producing space (Kahn and Walsh 2014). At their core, these values are about equity in the
built environment. To aect positive change and a return to functional urbanism, New
Urbanism theory calls for, ‘many activities of daily living [to] occur within walking distance,
[including] a range of parks, from tot-lots and village greens to ball elds and community
gardens … distributed within neighborhoods’ (Duany et al., 264). In America’s post-World
War II suburbs, however, little thought was given to the need to set aside land for parks and
public spaces. Rather, the typical single-family detached home in newly created, sprawling
developments provided a ‘park-like setting’ in the form of front and back yards. This raises
the question ‒ do public parks still matter? (Rome 1998; Baur and Tynon 2010). The study
here argues in the armative, as private yards in subdivisions do not oer the benets of
social interactions that occur in public space. Nor are they designed to provide ecological
functions or sustainable landscapes necessary in developed areas. This phenomenon is not
limited to the US, for example, Parés-Franzi, Saurí-Pujol, and Domene (2006) found a similar
trend of low-density urban sprawl associated with decreased quantities of parks in metro-
politan areas in Spain.
Landscape architect and cultural geographer Deborah Karasov (1996) observed that as
an embedded element of our communities, parks are victim to many of the same unimag-
inative and monotonous development patterns introduced with the mass production of the
suburbs:
Urban children are not the only ones who encounter prosaic and indistinguishable parks …
Suburban children … experience nearly identical landscapes, regardless of the region or eco-
logical zone in which they live … Rather than adding to this monotony, parks could ‒ and a few
already do ‒ artistically express a variety of spatial and visual experiences. (8–9)
By heeding Karsov’s advice, parks can help preserve neighbourhoods by giving them a
unique identity and creating connections through place attachment that may encourage
residents to stay as their income levels rise (Brown, Perkins, and Brown 2003; Scannell and
Giord 2010). The collective result of keeping neighbourhoods together helps uphold them
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 79
as distinct places. In more urban areas, public parks bring ‘a sense of order to living’ by helping
maintain the needed balance of open space to built space within a city (Udall 1988). They
provide elements on a smaller, more human scale to contrast with the scale and building
mass of dense urban cores. In suburban or urban areas, small parks support important human
interactions in three dimensions ‒ with cultural or political systems, ecological systems and
other people.
Human interactions with cultural/political systems
The physical denition of streets and public spaces as places of shared use is a top priority
for designers (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck 2000). Such places must be given distinctive
form and located on sites of importance so as to ‘reinforce community identity and the
culture of democracy’ (265). Public spaces, and especially parks, provide gathering space for
public expression and/or protest. In fact, the US Constitution protects them as such, as ruled
in 1939 by Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization:
… streets and parks … have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time
out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citi-
zens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient
times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. (Miller 2007, 8)
Parks have a special role in the range of public space through their ability to be catalysts for
wider community and economic development that other types of public space do not. This
is attributed to their particular ability to oer, ‘free, open, non-discriminatory access all day,
every day; and [their role as] visible representations of neighbourhood quality’ (Swanwick,
Dunnett, and Woolley 2003, 104). Access (e.g., open admission, inclusiveness) is a key
underpinning of a public park and a main emphasis in dening public space (Madanipour
1999). Parks must be open to the general public with no restrictions on race, gender,
economic status, etc. Open access communicates that a space is public, and ‘the more open
and unconditional the access, the more public it becomes’ (Madanipour 2004, 282).There is
growing concern over the increasing privatization of the public realm seen in the rise of
‘private-public’ space (Langstraat and Van Melik 2013). Minton (2006) argues that this results
in ‘over-controlled, sterile places’ lacking connection to a local context, ‘with the result that
they all tend to look the same’ (3). Private-public space is increasingly common in the
‘neoliberal economic restructuring’ of urban development (Madanipour 2004, 268), with
private ownership and management (including policing) of the public realm part-and-parcel
of urban regeneration schemes. However, it is the free-ness of truly public space that allows
it to function as democratic ground, a little parliament where people meet in a shared space
and form the bonds of community. In addition to the political nature of public space, it is
necessary for public life and natural systems to coexist as relationships between human and
ecological systems, and human social patterns, are interrelated (Warner 1993).
Human interactions with ecological systems
Public spaces play an important role at the intersection of the non-human and human envi-
ronments by building sustainable relationships with nature, and thus help move the metrop-
olis toward a more sociable place (Chiesura 2004). Parks are uniquely situated to provide
needed connections to nature for residents of crowded urban neighbourhoods (Chiesura
80 M. A. CURRIE
2004; Walker 2004; Baur and Tynon 2010). Interaction with nature has been especially chal-
lenging for residents of low-income urban communities who have lower rates of participation
in nature-based recreation due to the inaccessible locations of many parks and open spaces
(Searle and Jackson 1985; Baur and Tynon 2010). Access to neighbourhood public spaces
including parks ‘profoundly aects the poor, the immobile, and children’ (Talen 2003, 199).
Low-income and minority populations typically have fewer transportation options (as do
other vulnerable populations, including youth and the elderly), making easily accessed and
nearby public spaces extremely important (Loukaitou-Sideris and Sideris 2010).
Youth in low-income neighbourhoods also rely more heavily on local public spaces and
use them more frequently than youth living in more auent areas (Gotham and Brumley
2002; Hart 2002; Laughlin and Johnson 2011). Studies in Los Angeles show inner city neigh-
bourhoods have a greater need, but much lower acreage of neighbourhood parks and sub-
stantially poorer levels of maintenance and cleanliness compared to more auent
neighbourhoods (Loukaitou-Sideris 2006). Princetl et al. (2003) similarly found that Los
Angeles neighbourhoods where whites made up 75% or more of the residents contained
31.8 acres of park per 1000 people, African-American neighbourhoods had 1.7 acres of park
space for every 1000 people, and Latino neighbourhoods fared even worse with just 0.6
acres. Talen’s (2010) study in Phoenix and Chicago showed parks were not more prevalent
in areas with higher levels of racial/ethnic diversity, and especially in Phoenix parks tended
to be surrounded by low-density housing, making accessibility more dicult. These studies
highlight issues of environmental and social justice and the need to locate parks near people,
particularly in low-income neighbourhoods.
Human interactions with other people
Nearby parks provide easy access to nature and promote a more public daily life. Small parks
in particular provide for a ‘positive sense of intimacy’ (Forsyth, Musacchio, and Fitzgerald
2005, 14) that stimulates human interaction. Oglethorpe’s 1770 plan for Savannah, Georgia,
illustrates a town planning model built on these ideals using public space in the form of
town squares as organizers for blocks. Social networks in early colonial life were critical in
establishing a productive and successful settlement and the historic squares emphasize the
importance of designing central spaces to facilitate public gathering. The desire for a public
life also motivated the establishment of New York City’s rst public park in 1733, Bowling
Green ‒ a small space of less than one-half acre that is still widely used. Three residents
originally leased the park as an enclosed space for the purpose of ‘recreation and delight of
the inhabitants of this City’ (in Seymour 1969). New York City’s rapid growth left little land
available to the public until plans were made in 1858 to create Central Park. This began a
trend of building large parks in other American cities, often located outside the population
centre. Such locations are not as commonly frequented, but both small and large parks are
needed as each fulls dierent needs in peoples’ lives (Baur and Tynon 2010).
In 1963 the inuential landscape architecture rm Zion and Breen Associates organized
‘New Parks for New York’, an important exhibit to raise awareness for the necessity for small
‘pocket parks’ located throughout the City. Zion and Breen’s thesis helped transition the role
of the urban park from one of ornament (nice to have) to one of necessity (vital to urban
life):
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 81
[Parks] should not be looked upon as mere amenities. They have become necessities, and neces-
sities must, by denition, be close at hand, easily come by. Their presence should be felt every-
where throughout the area ‒ on the way to work, on the way home, as well as during the lunch
hour. If such a system of parks is to succeed, there must be proximity, as well as profusion ‒ one
such park for each square block. (Seymour 1969, 3)
Zion (1969) posited that parks ‘must be where the people are’ in order to function eectively,
their inuence felt everywhere in everyday life ‒ radical thinking at the time. It ultimately
led to the commission of Paley Park, one of America’s most successful, well-known urban
parks and arguably the gold standard by which small pocket parks are measured. The idea
of small, vest-pocket parks was embraced, spreading rst to large cities such as Philadelphia
and Chicago, then to other cities nationwide.
Having established the relevancy of small parks to contemporary society, the focus turns
to their proper disposition. Landscape architects and urban designers have the capacity to
translate multiple dimensions onto the land as ‘arbiters of cultural expression’. This includes
a holistic blending of environmental concerns, a site’s programming, and the needs of clients
and users. ‘There is an inherent responsibility that accompanies this task, however. Our work
[as designers] has weight and consequences ‒ ecologically, historically, socially ‒ that are
dangerous to ignore’ (Guftason, in Amidon 2001, foreword).
The design framework elements
Threads of commonality emerging from the literature were subsequently conrmed in site
visits and interviews (discussed in later paragraphs), leading to the identication of ve
complementary design principles that, when combined, form a framework for the design
of good, small public parks applicable in a range of built environments (Figure 1). These
principles are: accessibility, specicity, authenticity, adaptability and functionality. They are
Figure 1.Framework illustrating the design principles of a good, small public park, including Accessibility,
Specificity, Authenticity, Adaptability and Functionality.
82 M. A. CURRIE
not intended to represent a theoretically comprehensive list of factors but rather provide a
guiding foundation for practical application.
Accessibility1 is perhaps the most important element of a small park. As clearly spelled
out in the literature, a small park should be easily encountered in the course of the normal
day’s routine. Local parks and public spaces must be treated with importance and purposeful
planning, not as an afterthought or sited on leftover or undesirable lots (Forsyth, Musacchio,
and Fitzgerald 2005). Parks in such locations do not convey the idea that a space is ‘public’
(even if it is), fails to adequately benet its community, and is often underutilized. Frederick
Law Olmsted (1904, 19) recognized the tendency to do this, and writing over 100 years ago
stated, ‘the choice of land for parks is often made in a sadly unbusinesslike way’. This leads
to missed opportunities and non-specic spaces that do not enhance a community in the
important way they could. Small parks should also capitalize on direct ties between the
pedestrian and the street, considered the most important relationship in urban space design
(Whyte 1979).
Specicity means a site is specic to its location and users and possesses qualities that
make it special, unique and distinct. It must draw its identity from its context and if a park
is to be a socially suitable neighbourhood space, the designer must be responsible to the
user (Hester 1974; Li 2014). In biology, ‘specicity’ is referred to as the selective attachment
or inuence of one substance on another, and in terms of a public park, an attachment
develops with the user as each inuences the other. A specic reason a design is appropriate
in a specic location is needed for a symbiotic relationship to develop as the park’s users
identify with its specic characteristics. For example, specicity may be derived from the
ethnic or religious aliation of the adjacent population. It implies that ‘conditions particular
to the location also inform the making of a designed landscape’ (Treib 2001, 121). Whether
located in urban, suburban or small town neighbourhoods, those who live, work and recreate
near it must relate to the space.
Authenticity is the genius loci of a space, and is closely related to site specicity. It is a term
meaning to be genuine, real and not fake and a park possessing authenticity must be genuine
in its public representation. An analogy of the use of follies in landscape design helps elu-
cidate this principle. Follies convey a concept, rather than being functional, and ‘are built to
suggest history, provoke reactions and mimic legacies. They are not intended to be authentic’
(Chan 2006). Building upon this argument, if a park is to be authentic, it must actually be the
thing it is representing, not contrived or pre-prescribed, the downfall of some well-intended
parks. This happens when something successful in one area is replicated elsewhere (Carmona
2010) without careful thought as to authenticity. Treib (2001) cautioned of the danger of
blind copying that:
… replicate(s) patterns and forms without any real consideration of the local conditions or the
consequences of such replication …Too often, we are skillful at copying forms as portrayed in
photographs without investigating to sucient depth the ideas behind them. (123)
Therefore, authenticity is not idealization, romanticism, a caricature of something else or
mythological. Those regularly encountering a space should recognize it as one that draws
them back again, encouraging the park and user to share a collective memory and past while
making new memories in the present and future.
Adaptability in public park design encompasses the ideal of sustainability. As a living organ-
ism, a community is in perpetual motion, contracting and expanding with the rhythm of life.
Small parks, embedded in this life form, must change and grow along with the neighbourhood
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 83
in reaction to the forces and actions of its community. As Treib (2001, 121) noted, ‘landscape
design ‒ consciously or not ‒ always reects contemporary values and attitudes; there is no
one way to create a landscape, even at a particular time’. Such a perspective promotes a
sustainable landscape responsive to a dynamic context. Balmori (1993, 41) suggested an
adaptive direction for developing urban park programs linking park design to ‘the basic con-
dition of landscape: change over time’. Time is referred to as the fourth dimension in landscape
architecture and the natural sciences and a consideration in the design and use of public
space. Diurnal, seasonal and other aspects of time have their own rhythms and planning
must be mindful of the ‘changes that lie ahead in time’ (Mertens 2010, 102). Adaptability
therefore includes upgrading and replacing elements that have become run-down, obsolete
or unusable ‒ an aspect of park maintenance. As landscape is itself an ‘organic, evolutionary
element’, it can respond to the ‘changes in the human life cycle and in demographics, pro-
viding both exibility and continuity’ (Balmori 1993, 41), with ‘long term use by local people’
key to developing ‘distinctive places’ (Townshend and Madanipour 2008, 325). This exibility
makes such an approach the ‘most appropriate to an urban setting’ (Treib 2001, 121).
Functionality is dened by Webster’s dictionary as ‘the special purpose or activity for which
a thing exists or is used’. In terms of a public park, its function(s) should meet the specic
needs of the surrounding community. Loukaitou-Sideris and Sideris’ (2010, 101) study of 100
parks concluded, ‘the most signicant factors attracting children to parks are active recreation
facilities and sport programs, the presence of natural features, and good maintenance and
cleanliness’. Chiesura (2004) reported similar ndings. These things point squarely to a space’s
functionality. The design of space subscribes to the theory of ‘form as well as of function’ as
admonished by Garrett Eckbo. The tight relationship between form and function is certainly
true in a small park that often accommodates multiple uses upon a modest plot of ground,
what Dee (2001) refers to as a site’s ‘robustness’. A site must be ‘artistic as well as practical, in
order to produce the maximum for those who will experience [it]’, wrote Eckbo (1950, 10).
This concept typies a common conict as functionality is sometimes trumped by design
trends or a narrow interpretation of what a park should be. Design should not preempt
function, as a designer’s viewpoint is only one of many to consider when planning public
space. Parks must likewise resist sacricing design for pure function, as creative solutions
are crucial in a small space with little room for misstep.
The discussion now turns to the research methods and application of the design frame-
work for creating good, small parks in a range of urban forms.
Research methods
The research project maintained a local, in-depth focus and employed multiple methods
with direct site observation the primary measure for verifying the framework and its trans-
ferability to dierent contexts. Auxiliary methods included document and website analysis,
interviews with professionals and in-place interviews with park users. Studying the interac-
tions between public life and public space requires asking basic questions such as ‘who,
where, what and how many?’ to generate specic and useful data (Gehl and Svarre 2014).
Experiential knowledge is also gained through qualitative, people-centred methods coupled
with background research, as some relevant information cannot be ascertained without the
local knowledge obtained from neighbourhood residents. The use of interviews helps ll
these gaps and provides direct quotations of residents, with in-place interviews allowing
84 M. A. CURRIE
‘relationships with and perceptions of place and environment to be revealed’ (Evans and
Jones 2010, 850).
A hierarchal selection of cities of various sizes, ages, urban form and densities typical
of other American small towns and cities was needed to investigate the research ques-
tions. The first type is the older, ultra-urban city with strong, steady growth and a pop-
ulation greater than one million. Nine US cities exceed the population threshold, but
most have not followed this conurbation form and developed more slowly prior to the
1900s, with rapid growth in the twentieth century (Phoenix, Arizona, for example). The
second type is a large, multi-nuclear city experiencing booming growth since the early
1900s with a population less than one million and greater than 300,000. The third type
is a small, older city with a slow growth rate and population between 50,000 and 300,000.
The fourth type is the ubiquitous American small-town not connected to a large urban
area with a population under 50,000. Each of these town/city models has a corresponding
range of municipal park systems responsible for building and maintaining public parks
within their jurisdictions ‒ a major consideration when examining park principles.
Table 1 presents a sample of US cities as a reference for the three larger city types.
Referential small towns are not listed, as small towns are not well known outside of local
circles.
The choice of study locations was based on the predened criteria, but also constrained
by timeline, budget and existing contacts ‒ a limitation of the study. The ability to travel to
study sites within reasonable cost and distance expenditures was paramount, thus limiting
locations to the Southeastern, Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States (Figure 2). New
York City (population ~8.5 million) represents the ultra-urban city type characterized by
high density, strong steady growth and a longer history for urban life. Miami and Miami
Beach, Florida (combined population ~525,000) typify many modern, multinuclear US cities
with rapid growth occurring since the early 1900s in lower-density, outward spread.
Roanoke, Virginia, was chosen as a small city type (population ~100,000) with a much slower
historical growth rate. Niceville, Florida, represents the small-town model (population
~15,000).
Table 1.A sample of US cities representative of three city types studied, including Ultra-urban historic
city, Large booming city and Small older city. Samples of the fourth type ‒ the small town with less than
50,000 in population ‒ is not included in the table. (Data: US Census Bureau).
City type City 2015 Population
Ultra-urban, Historic, Fast, steady
growth Population >1,000,000
New York City, New York 8.55 million
Los Angeles, California 3.97 million
Chicago, Illinois 2.72 million
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1.57 million
San Diego, California 1.39 million
Large, Multi-nuclear, Modern, Booming
Population: 300,000 to 1 million
Austin, Texas 931,830
Charlotte, North Carolina 827,097
Denver, Colorado 682,545
Nashville, Tennessee 654,610
Miami, Florida 441,003
Small, Older, Slower Growth
Population: 50,000 to 300,000
Newark, New Jersey 281,944
Buffalo, New York 258,703
Birmingham, Alabama 212,237
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 128,109
Roanoke, Virginia 97,764
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 85
Figure 2.Locations in the study included cities of various sizes, ages, form and densities in the Southeastern, Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States and are
typical of other American small towns and cities. (Apple Maps customized by the author).
86 M. A. CURRIE
Field research was preceded in each study location with a review of the parks depart-
ment websites (including master plans, descriptions of available facilities, etc.); interviews
with park ocials to ascertain the city’s approach to park development (most also plan-
ners or landscape architects) and/or practising landscape architects and their involvement
in the design of local parks. Twenty-four sites were ultimately chosen for further study
and visited to understand how the space was used and how people related to it. The
study locations and their contexts are provided in Figure 3 and a sample of the parks
visited is shown in Figure 4. Public parks were observed on non-holiday weekdays and
weekends generally between 10:00 am and 6:00 pm. The number of users, types of amen-
ities, park appearance and maintenance was documented using eld notes and
photographs.
A total of 15 interviews were conducted (summarized in Table 2): four with landscape
architects (two in-place, one by phone, one in-person); four with park ocials (by phone);
and seven informal interviews with park users (in-place). Park users were selected at random
and interviewed using a pre-prepared interview guide. The guide was completed while
speaking with the park user in the rst four interviews. Questions were incorporated into
informal conversation in the remaining three and information recorded later. Fifteen inter-
views represent a small sample and limit the generalizability of the interview data, but aug-
ment the literature review and other research methods.
Results from practice-based research
The study cities all have some form of parks master planning document (with the exception
of Niceville, Florida) developed using community engagement such as needs assessments,
public meetings and surveys. The need to build more small parks was emphasized in these
documents and listed as a top priority, with goals to locate parks within a 10-minute walk
of homes. New York City’s ‘Community Parks Initiative’ is built on a specic commitment to
small public parks located in densely populated neighbourhoods with high concentrations
of poverty. A total of 60% of parks in Niceville (8 of 13) and Miami (72 of 127), are less than
3 acres in size ‒ a substantial proportion. Corresponding ratios in New York City (5000+) and
Roanoke (70) parks could not be calculated from published information.
Issues of maintenance surfaced in interviews with practitioners and municipal ocials,
including by a planner in Champaign, Illinois
2
who stated their park district ‘nds that smaller
parks are dicult to maintain … [and] were not considered [in its needs evaluation] … with
many (HOA)s [homeowner associations] responsible for small neighbourhood parks’.3 Thomas
Balsley, a prominent New York City landscape architect was among the practitioners inter-
viewed. Balsley’s rm has designed more than 100 public parks and plazas, two of which are
a part of this study: Capitol Plaza and Gantry Park. Balsley stressed that urban spaces need
broad appeal, but also that ‘maintenance is an issue for intensely used spaces’. An urban park
must embrace its context, be active and attractive. Balsley also underscored the need for an
urban space’s appearance to be distinct from its surroundings, and it should not seem like
an extension of the building. ‘Doing so’, Balsley stated, ‘causes the public to think of the plaza
or park as private’. Miami architects interviewed emphasized the city’s modernist style and
rapidly urbanizing form as inuential in the design of public spaces reecting their specic
location.
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 87
Figure 3.A sample of the park sites within their contexts in the four study locations: New York City; Roanoke, Virginia; Miami, Florida; and Niceville, Florida. (Apple
Maps customized by the author).
88 M. A. CURRIE
On-site observation of the design framework and interviews with park users
Good accessibility is illustrated by diverse contexts including a variety of densities, a mix of
residential, retail, oce and civic uses, and multiple ways to enter or exit a park. These features
are evident in the multiple connections in New York’s Capitol Plaza and Allen Morris Park in
Miami, Domino Park’s Calle Ocho location in the heart of Little Havana, and the ‘Magnolia
Walk’ pedestrian link (a well-used promenade and linear park space) in Roanoke’s Elmwood
Figure 4.A sample of images from study sites visited to illustrate the framework’s design principles
observed in a variety of parks, city types and contexts.
Table 2.Summary of interview data collected as part of the research project.
*Note: The city of Champaign, Illinois, was not included in the study sites visited but a phone interview with the city’s assis-
tant planner was part of an early phase of the research project.
Location Site Interviews
Miami, FL City- Landscape Architect (in person)
Parks Official (phone)
Domino Park Landscape Architect (in-place)
Enea Garden Landscape Architect (in-place)
Park user (in-place, female)
Fisher Park 3 park users (in-place; 2 female, 1 male)
Roanoke, VA -City- Parks Official (phone)
Elmwood Park 2 park users (in-place; 1 male, 1 female)
New York City Capitol Plaza Landscape Architect (phone)
Rockefeller Plaza Park user (in-place; male)
Niceville, FL -City- Parks Director (phone)
*Champaign, IL -City- Parks Official (phone)
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 89
Park. Even when located in a single-family suburban neighbourhood, good accessibility can
be achieved by locating a park along a main route. For example, Miami Beach’s Fisher Park
is bounded by the heavily used Alton Road on one side and an adjacent neighbourhood on
the other, and Niceville’s Turkey Creek Pavilion is located on the town’s main east-west state
road. A user in an open lawn area of Fisher Park stated he visits the park ‘a couple of times a
week to play with and train my dog’, and the thing he liked best about the park was ‘its
location, because I live nearby’. Accessibility is enhanced in Miami’s Allen Morris Brickell Park,
which is embedded directly into the street grid with pavement detailing used to continue
the park in all directions. Planting beds echoed on opposite sides of the streets visually
extend the park, giving it the feeling that the park, streets, crosswalks and opposite areas
are all part of one larger space, with the relationship to the street very evident.
Specicity implies a site’s design and function are specic to its location and is evident in
Enzo Enea’s Modern Rain Garden Lounge in several ways, where one of the park’s landscape
architects was interviewed. She described the space as ‘a jewelry box that when opened,
revealed its treasure inside ‒ a miniature rain forest’. The small garden space was originally
installed as a show of support for the Kyoto Protocol during 2005 Art Basel, Miami’s famous
art festival. The Enea garden is tucked into Miami’s Design District, with businesses such as
architectural and interior design rms nearby and a high school featuring a design based
arts curriculum a few doors down. True to this context, the space is elegant and modern
with luxurious materials and site appropriate plants. Comments from park-goers indicated
the park was often used for relaxation and rejuvenation by nearby workers. As one visitor
remarked, ‘Coming here takes away the stress of work and recharges my energy so I can go
back to work’.
Small towns are typically more homogenous in their population and culture, but speci-
city remains pertinent. Special features of the Turkey Creek Pavilion in the small town of
Niceville, for example, include a boardwalk that transports visitors along a nature-lled
journey. Educational signage describing native ora and fauna and distance markers
enhance pedestrians’ experience. Residents also dedicated a quiet, side boardwalk called
the ‘Path of Memories’ where names of local youth, gone too soon, are memorialized. This
area holds special meaning for that group of parents and others who have endured a similar
loss to help them reect, grieve or get away to the solace of nature and honour their loved
ones.
Site authenticity is embodied in small, specialty spaces such as waterfront parks or those
commemorating historical sites, landmarks or events. For example, New York’s Gantry Park
is a transformed industrial space where cargo from ships was once hoisted onto waiting
railroad cars. Preserved historic gantries imbue the site with authenticity and the reclaimed
space gives residents rare, direct access to the East River. Domino Park in Miami’s Little Havana
district illustrates authenticity in a created space not tied to a historic landscape. It fronts
Calle Ocho (8th Street), the main road through the tightly knit, 25-block ethnic enclave and
is abuzz with activity all day. Little Havana hosts Carnival every year and is home to many
immigrants, exiles and is well known as the cultural and political capital of Cuban-Americans.
Domino Park contains an enclosed space with tables set under open cabanas for playing
dominoes or chess. An open plaza space is used for other games, people watching, eating,
simple gathering or connecting Calle Ocho to the adjoining neighbourhood. The park is
directly relevant to its context by providing activities the population wants and is as natural
a part of this community as nearby Cuban cigar shops and restaurants. Authenticity is also
90 M. A. CURRIE
evident in parks that highlight nature within urban environments featuring a native plant
palette, as in Miami’s Brickell Park.
An easily recognized example of adaptability is the use of interstitial spaces as small parks,
monuments or city landmarks. Such spaces are created when diagonal roads are inserted
into the street grid such as Washington, DC’s DuPont Circle and Manhattan’s Herald Square.
Another common adaptation of space is the reuse of abandoned city lots, as at Miami’s Enea
Garden that was previously a parking lot. Roanoke’s Elmwood Park, established around 1900
in traditional Olmstedean fashion, exemplies the adaptability of a small park in a smaller
city. It originally contained the Terry family homestead with the feel of an upper-class country
estate featuring undulating terrain, a pond, mountain views and winding paths. The old
Terry House became the town’s rst library in 1920 and other major renovations were under-
taken in the 1960s. The pond was refashioned in the 1980s as a site for festivals and perfor-
mances and the country manor-style landscape was converted to open space. A rainwater
harvesting system was completed in 2013 and 35,000 new trees and plants were planted.
Interviews with park goers revealed that nearby workers often used Elmwood Park for exer-
cise, lunch breaks or relaxing, and frequent community-wide events and festivals. Pedestrian
connections such as the park’s ‘Magnolia Walk’ are an important way that older spaces can
be infused with new life by providing easy access to the park and connecting surrounding
locations, also demonstrating good functionality. Elmwood Park has remained a galvanizing
force for its community for over 100 years and continues looking forward to a vibrant future.
Functionality is highlighted in Miami Beach’s Fisher Park multi-use playground, a neigh-
bourhood park lled with children and adults in its active and passive areas when visited.
The park is fully accessible for those with disabilities and its variety supports multigenera-
tional visitors. Park goers commented, ‘We love to come here. It’s really convenient to stop
by after school’, and ‘This is a great place for my kids to burn o energy’. In the small town
of Niceville, Florida, the rustic-style Turkey Creek Pavilion features an open-air pavilion, stone
replace, picnic tables and barbeque grills. Turkey Creek’s highly social space provides for
gathering and physical activities residents enjoy such as canoeing, tubing and swimming.
It is the most popular of the town’s 13 parks with approximately 35,000 visitors annually. In
addition to its functionality, Turkey Creek Park exemplies specicity and authenticity
through its cultural, educational, and artistic elements. The park was constructed by city
employees as in-kind matching for state funding later used to build a three-quarter mile-
long boardwalk along the ow of Turkey Creek, demonstrating its adaptability. The town
also contains a well-used children’s park and a two-and-one-half acre youth centre featuring
skateboarding, BMX bike tracks and in-line skating geared toward older children and teens.
These examples illustrate how a small town has added quality parks to its built environment
despite limited resources.
Discussion
The design framework proposed is complementary to other research of public space.
Carmona (2015) ‘re-theorises public space discourse’, and presents 10 normative principles
of good public spaces. They include: evolving (renewal/reinvestment); balanced (trac/
pedestrian); diverse (inclusionary); delineated (public vs. private); social (public life); free (to
all); engaging (opportunities/consumption); meaningful (creates experience); comfortable
(safe); and robust (resisting homogenization). There is some degree of overlap between
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 91
Carmona’s 10 principles and the framework identied in this study. These areas of agreement
should be viewed as independent, conrming works as the studies were conducted in dif-
ferent continents, cultural contexts and urban typologies.
Forsyth, Musacchio, and Fitzgerald (2005) also present design elements needed in small
public parks, including level of naturalness, connections to other open spaces, maintenance,
setting, location and trade-os. Mehta (2014) further proposes a theoretical framework to
evaluate public space and names ve elements as the basis for a public space index: inclu-
siveness, meaningful activities, safety, comfort and pleasurability. The current framework
provides a practical approach to the planning and design of small parks in a range of
ultra-urban to small town settings. The cited studies provide validation of these concepts
as they t within the larger context of public space research, as well as conrmation and
support of the proposed principles on an international level. Table 3 presents a matrix
of the public space design elements described above and how they t within the
framework.
Once recognizing the common elements of good small parks it is noticeable when they
are missing. Such spaces are not well used and often fall into neglect or become little more
than public yards requiring upkeep but oering scant benet to the surrounding community.
Empty parks become a draw for society’s ‘undesirables’, typically found where other people
are not. Jane Jacobs (1961) named insucient diversity in immediate surroundings, repli-
cation of parks that are too similar to each other, and locations where people do not pass
by and probably never will, as reasons why urban spaces do not succeed. These things fall
into the categories of accessibility, authenticity and specicity. Underutilized parks are detri-
mental in many ways and provide fuel for the re of detractors who point to unused public
spaces as examples of why it is not feasible to build and maintain them.
For example, Harkrader Park in Roanoke is an attractive space with appealing features,
but virtually no access and a poor location. The author was directed there by an interviewee
in Elmwood Park who warned it would be ‘hard to nd, and most people don’t know about
it’, (and it was). Park boundaries include an interstate, a small oce building and parking lot,
and two busy highways. Sidewalks or crosswalks to help pedestrians reach the park are
missing and its only visitors are probably those working next door. Another example is
Waverly Park on Biscayne Bay in Miami Beach, a primarily empty space lacking function,
specicity and authenticity despite fabulous views of the Miami skyline. Its only tangible,
functional elements include a brick walkway adjoining the seawall and a few xed benches.
However, fences interrupt the walkway and cut o connections to neighbouring properties.
A quick stop by a dog walker was the only other park goer encountered at the site. Neither
of the above examples conveys the space is ‘public’, and they lack the framework elements
needed for good use of public space.
Table 3.Overlap in research findings of public space elements with the framework presented in this
paper.
Framework Element Carmona (2015) Forsyth, Musacchio, and Fitzgerald (2005) Mehta (2014)
Accessibility Balanced, Free Location, Connection Inclusiveness
Specificity Robust Setting Meaningful
Authenticity Meaningful Naturalness (native plants) Pleasurability
Adaptability Robust Trade-offs, Maintenance
Functionality Social, Engaging Safety/Comfort
92 M. A. CURRIE
The parks described as poor examples are not meant in criticism of any particular park
system or city’s public realm, but rather to further demonstrate design principles fundamen-
tal to the success of small parks. It must be acknowledged that limited resources present
real problems for those responsible for the creation and maintenance of public parks. This
is especially true for small parks that can be more expensive per acre to maintain than larger
parks due to their size and scattered locations (Forsyth, Musacchio, and Fitzgerald 2005). On
the other hand, land for small neighbourhood parks can be more aordable to acquire
compared to the larger parcels needed for large parks (Loukaitou-Sideris and Sideris 2010).
Conclusion
Parks can add uniqueness to built environments in a way that is responsive to its local context
and works to re-orient it toward contemporary values, for example, through land use patterns
that resist sprawl, promote a local focus, provide free, democratic space and create sustain-
able landscapes. It follows that relevant public spaces including parks require good design
that is ecologically, historically and socially appropriate. This study conrms that a successful
small public park is about much more than its amenities. A framework including the foun-
dational elements of authenticity, specicity, accessibility, adaptability and functionality was
identied to promote good design in small public parks. The connection to local context
was a key part of this research, as there is much less study of parks in small town or suburban
areas. Identifying design principles common in a wide range of contexts helps address this
gap. Well-designed parks are valuable assets to their neighbourhoods and address the fun-
damental needs of those using them. Examples of dierent scales, adjoining densities and
park types tested the transferability of the framework and demonstrated that public parks
are germane to cities, small towns and our increasingly urban and suburban society.
The longevity and success of innumerable public spaces is a testament to the important
role they play in people’s lives. New York’s Bowling Green and Zuccotti Park are examples of
small parks as major focal points for signicant historical events, political revolutions and
social protest. Small spaces are frequently used for memorials, such as London’s historic
Postman’s Park. Parks function as democratic ground for surrounding neighbourhoods, and
especially in dense urban areas they form a community’s collective back yard. A well-de-
signed, small park is better positioned to provide relevant social, cultural and ecological
roles in society.
This paper presented an amalgamation of various ideas related to the design and use of
small parks by formalizing critical aspects into actionable qualities that can be practically
applied when considering new development proposals, writing/modifying land use policies
or retrotting or upgrading existing parks. New development should create an environment
where people interact with, rather than withdraw from one another and natural environ-
ments through a more public life. As promoted by New Urbanism and other urban design
theories, public parks and green spaces can be introduced into preexisting communities to
link neighbourhoods via a network of green infrastructure including trails, squares or small
parks. This ribbon of green can incorporate public art, the preservation of culturally signi-
cant places, natural areas or plazas. Such a network can enhance or reintroduce nature into
the urban fabric, aording a multi-layered experience to walkers, joggers or bikers and alter-
nate routes to destinations. These things demonstrate the principles of sustainable devel-
opment within urban design and the role of public space in it.
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 93
A more equitable provision of local parks can lessen the disparity between wealthy and
poor neighbourhoods and address environmental justice issues. Therefore, planners and
parks departments should evaluate where they are missing in their communities and develop
plans to alleviate imbalances. Parks, community gardens, playgrounds or other types of small
public spaces can be more readily inserted into built environments and should be located
for free, easy access by the greatest number of people. Parks adhering to the design frame-
work presented respond to local contexts, meet the needs of the surrounding population
and possess the ability to adapt to future needs ‒ important elements in creating spaces
people care about.
Notes
1. ‘Accessibility’ is also used when describing the physical design of space that accommodates
disabled individuals, such as ramps or entrances without steps.
2. Champaign, Illinois was not among the sites selected for further study due to location and
budget constraints.
3. Homeowner associations (HOA)s are legal organizations that comprise the homeowners in a
particular neighbourhood, each of which has an equal share in, and pays annual dues to the
HOA. Common areas (such as parks, clubhouses or planted medians) are deeded to HOAs, which
are responsible for their upkeep and maintenance. HOA-maintained parks are not open to the
general public and serve only the families living in the particular neighbourhood.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author.
ORCiD
Melissa Anne Currie http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7921-5359
References
Amidon, J. 2001. Radical Landscapes. Reinventing Outdoors Space. NY: Thames & Hudson, Inc. Foreword
by Kathryn Gustafson.
Balmori, D. 1993. “Park Redenitions.” In The Once and Future Park. 1st ed, edited by H. Muschamp,
39–45. NY: Princeton Architectural Press Inc.
Baur, J. R., and J. F. Tynon. 2010. “Small-Scale Urban Nature Parks: Why Should We Care?” Leisure Sciences
32 (2): 195–200.
Brown, B., D. D. Perkins, and G. Brown. 2003. “Place Attachment in a Revitalizing Neighborhood:
Individual and Block Levels of Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 259–271.
Carmona, M., C. De Magalhães, and M. Edwards. 2002. “Stakeholder Views on Value and Urban Design.”
Journal of Urban Design 7 (2): 145–169.
Carmona, M. 2010. “Contemporary Public Space, Part Two: Classication.” Journal of Urban Design 15
(2): 157–173.
Carmona, M. 2015. “Re-Theorising Contemporary Public Space: A New Narrative and a New Normative.”
Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 8 (4): 373–405.
Chan, E. C. 2006. Reviewing and Reworking Industrial Ruins: Gathering Grist for a Cautionary Tale. Paper
presented at Fifth National Forum on Historic Preservation Practice. Goucher College, Baltimore, MD
Chiesura, A. 2004. “The Role of Urban Parks for the Sustainable City.” Landscape and Urban Planning
68: 129–138.
94 M. A. CURRIE
Dee, C. 2001. Form and Fabric in Landscape Architecture. London: Spon Press.
Dewaelheyns, V., E. Vanempten, K. Bomans, A. Verhoeve, and H. Gulinck. 2014. “The Fragmentation
Bias in Valuing and Qualifying Open Space.” Journal of Urban Design 19 (4): 436–455. doi:
10.1080/13574809.2014.923741.
Duany, A., E. Plater-Zyberk, and J. Speck. 2000. Suburban Nation. the Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of
the American Dream. NY: North Point Press.
Eckbo, G. 1950. “Landscape for Living.” In Theory in Landscape Architecture. a Reader, edited by
S. Swaeld, 9-11. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.(2002).
Evans, J., and P. Jones. 2010. “The Walking Interview: Methodology, Mobility and Place.” Applied
Geography 31: 849–858.
Forsyth, A., L. Musacchio, and F. Fitzgerald. 2005. Designing Small Parks. a Manual for Addressing Social
and Ecological Concerns. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
“Function.” dened in Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster. n.d. http://www.merriam-webster.com/
dictionary/function.
Gehl, J., and B. Svarre. 2014. How to Study Public Life. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gotham, K. F., and K. Brumley. 2002. “Using Space: Agency and Identity in a Public–Housing
Development.” Journal of the American Planning Association 32: 86–95.
Hart, R. 2002. “Containing Children: Some Lessons on Planning for Play from New York City.” Environment
and Urbanization 14: 135–148.
Hester, R., Jr. 1974. “Community Design.” In Theory in Landscape Architecture. a Reader, edited by
S. Swaeld, 49–56. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. (2002).
Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. NY: Modern Library Edition. (2002).
Kahn, M. E., and R. Walsh. 2014. Cities and the Environment working paper, National Bureau of Economic
Research, Inc.
Karasov, D. 1996. “Introduction.” In The Once and Future Park, edited by D. Karasov and S. Warlyan, 7–10.
NY: Princeton Architectural Press.
Langstraat, F., and R. Van Melik. 2013. “Challenging the ‘End of Public Space’: A Comparative Analysis of
Publicness in British and Dutch Urban Spaces.” Journal of Urban Design 18 (3): 429–448. doi:10.1080/
13574809.2013.800451.
Laughlin, D., and L. Johnson. 2011. “Dening and Exploring Public Space: Perspectives of Young People
from Regent Park.” Children’s Geographies 9 (3–4): 439–456.
Li, C. 2014. “Ethnicity, Culture and Park Design: Case Studies of Urban Parks in American Chinatowns.”
Journal of Urban Design 19 (2): 230–254.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. 2006. “Southern California Environmental Report Card, 2006.” Urban Parks. http://
www.environment.ucla.edu/reportcard/article1455.html.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A., and A. Sideris. 2010. “What Brings Children to the Park? Analysis and Measurement
of the Variables Aecting Children’s Use of Parks.” Journal of the American Planning Association 76
(1): 89–107.
Madanipour, A. 1999. “Why Are the Design and Development of Public Spaces Signicant for Cities?”
Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design 26 (6): 879–891.
Madanipour, A. 2004. “Marginal Public Spaces in European Cities.” Journal of Urban Design 9 (3): 267–286.
McCormack, G. R., M. Rock, A. M. Toohey, and D. Hignell. 2010. “Characteristics of Urban Parks Associated
with Park Use and Physical Activity: A Review of Qualitative Research.” Health and Place 16: 712–726.
doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003.
Mehta, V. 2014. “Evaluating Public Space.” Journal of Urban Design 19 (1): 53–88. doi:10.1080/13574809.
2013.854698.
Mertens, E. 2010. Visualizing Landscape Architecture. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, publisher.
Miller, K. F. 2007. Designs on the Public: The Private Lives of New York’s Public Spaces. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=328386
Minton, A. 2006. The Privatisation of Public Space. What Kind of World Are We Building? London: The
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. http://media.wix.com/ugd/e87dab_c893a52a18624a
cdb94472869d942a09.pdf.
Olmsted Brothers. 1904. Report upon the Development of Public Grounds for Greater Baltimore. Baltimore,
MD: The Lord Baltimore Press.
JOURNAL OF URBAN DESIGN 95
Parés-Franzi, M., D. Saurí-Pujol, and E. Domene. 2006. “Evaluating the Environmental Performance
of Urban Parks in Mediterranean Cities: An Example from the Barcelona Metropolitan Region.”
Environmental Management 38 (5): 750–759.
Princetl, S., J. Wolch, J. Wilson, and T. Longcore. 2003. Toward a Sustainable Los Angeles: A Nature’s Services’
Approach. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Center for Sustainable Cities. http://
www.usc.edu/dept/geography/ESPE/documents/report_haynes.pdf.
Rome, A. W. 1998. “William Whyte, Open Space.” Geographical Review 88 (2): 259–274.
Scannell, L., and R. Giord. 2010. “Dening Place Attachment: A Tripartite Organizing Framework.”
Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (1): 1–10.
Searle, M. S., and E. L. Jackson. 1985. “Socioeconomic Variations in Perceived Barriers to Recreation
Participation among Woud-Be Participants.” Leisure Sciences 7 (2): 227–249.
Seymour, W. N., Jr. 1969. Small Urban Spaces. the Philosophy, Design, Sociology and Politics of Vest-Pocket
Parks and Other Small Urban Open Spaces. NY: NY University Press.
Swanwick, C., N. Dunnett, and H. Woolley. 2003. “Nature, Role and Value of Green Space in Towns and
Cities: An Overview.” Built Environment 29 (2): 94–106.
Talen, E. 2003. “Neighborhoods as Service Providers: A Methodology for Evaluating Pedestrian Access.”
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30: 181–200.
Talen, E. 2010. “The Spatial Logic of Parks.” Journal of Urban Design 15 (4): 473–491. doi:10.1080/13574809.
2010.502335.
Tilt, J. H. 2010. “Walking Trips to Parks: Exploring Demographic, Environmental Factors, and Preferences
for Adults with Children in the Household.” Preventive Medicine 50: S69–S73.
Townshend, T. G., and A. Madanipour. 2008. “Public Space and Local Diversity: The Case of North East
England.” Journal of Urban Design 13 (3): 317–328.
Treib, M. 2001. “The Content of Landscape Form [The Limits of Formalism].” Landscape Journal 20 (2):
119–140.
Udall, S. L. 1988. The Quiet Crisis and the Next Generation. Salt Lake City, UT: Peregrine Smith Books.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Aairs, Population Division. 2014. World
Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.a/352).
Walker, C. 2004. “The Public Value of Urban Parks. from the Series.” In Beyond Recreation. a Broader View
of Urban Parks. The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/sites/default/les/alfresco/publication-
pdfs/311011-The-Public-Value-of-Urban-Parks.PDF.
Warner, S. B., Jr. 1993. “Public Park Inventions: Past and Future.” In The Once and Future Park. 1st ed,
edited by H. Muschamp, 39–45. NY: Princeton Architectural Press Inc.
Watson, G. B., and L. Kessler. 2013. “Small Changes—Big Gains: Transforming the Public and Communal
Open Spaces in Rundown Neighbourhoods.” Journal of Urban Design 18 (4): 565–582.
Whyte, W. H. 1979. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Municipal Art Society of NY, Los Angeles, CA:
Direct Cinema Limited.
Zion, R. L. 1969. “Parks Where the People Are—The Small Midtown Park.” In Small Urban Spaces: The
Philosophy, Design, Sociology and Politics of Vest-Pocket Parks and Other Small Urban Open Spaces,
edited by W. N. Seymour, 73–78. NY: NY University Press.
