RE: TH: Multi-functional land use (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 17:27:37
From: Jeffrey L. Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: TH: Multi-functional land use (fwd)
I am writing to comment on open space ideas and the abandonment of land.
I think sports are one aspect of parks that is overemphasized and "wild
areas" do not nearly get enough attention.
One aspect of open space that needs emphasis (IMHO) is the opportunity for
children, particularly 9 to 15 year olds to explore and experience wild
places. This is such an absent part of our park management thinking.
There is an excellent compilation of essays on the subject called "The
Geography of Childhood; Why Children Need Wild Places: by Gary P. Nabhan
and Stephen Trimble.
Most people who are in tune with environmental issues can recall a
childhood experience that crystalized their dream of working and struggling
to preserve natural surroundings.
Some other books on the subject include:
Children's Special Places: Exploring the role of Forts, Dens and Bush
Houses in Middle Childhood.
David Sobel, M. Ed.
An American Childhood
The Thunder Tree
Roots of Creativity
Ecology of imagination in Childhood
Jean Baker Miller
Listening to Nature: How to deepen your awareness of nature.
On land use and abandoned lands, your passing reference to " Legal aspects"
of free land is a major problem for cities across the country.
Corporations/Businesses which for years polluted their work sites
indiscriminately. They then realized the cost of remediation or cleanup,
filed for bankruptcy and abandoned the land/buildings etc. only to move
their operation to another site as a startup for a second business. Now
the cities are stuck with the land that is not usable because no one wants
to touch the liability of cleanup.
>To comment on Lisa's post ...
>There are many academic studies on parks and open space that
>concern "low income people." However, I've never read anything
>that makes a distinction between low income people and urban
>Justification for changing the function of urban parks (in my
>memory) can be summed up something like: "Parks were designed
>for a leisure class which no exists modern urban society."
>Hmmm... That doesn't take into account the baseball and football
>games we have in busy streets or the basketball games in alleys,
>or many other things. Shouldn't this be classified as recreation
>or leisure activity?
>Certainly there is a "group," not class, of urbanites that have
>never spent much time in, and are not comfortable in large green
>spaces (open space? forests?). Again, there have been many
>studies on what types of open space is more attractive to this
>"group" of people. Typically, the more attractive spaces are
>neat, orderly, geometric in design, and well maintained; usually
>leading to a sense of increased security. Then there are the
>studies that conclude "trees reduce crime." We just love that
>Currently, Baltimore is gaining open space at an incredible rate.
>After loosing about half our population, there are 1000s of
>vacant, decrepit buildings which are being demolitioned. Land is
>Free! Ignoring certain legal aspects that is. With no current
>use this is land presents the opportunity for multi-functional
>design. Cities are changing...
>Did I say almost nothing and follow it up with no conclusions?
>Oh well, back to work...
J L. Johnson
"Your Future is just your Past waiting to happen."
"Now Here" or "No Where"? Your Choice.
by: J. Cruickshank