Re: TH: Multi-functional land use (fwd)

> 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
> people.
> 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?

To clarify:  I didn't so much mean to distinguish between low income and
urban people as to distinguish between low income urban and low income
rural people.  Parks have a very different meaning inside and outside
cities I have found.

I think that the problem may not be so much of for whom city parks were
designed as when they were designed..  Central Park was created before
football was popular or the frisbee.  Women wore corsets and full length
skirts.  Cricket was a popular activity.

Given that we gain so little new space, is it more valuable to save
Central Park as a piece of art in its original form or to modify the
Olmsted/Vaux Plan to update it for new generations?

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
> stuff.
I think we are all more comfortable in situations which we experience as
familiar and safe.  Hence cities are "dangerous" according to rural people
and the woods are "dangerous" according to urbanites.

 > 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...
Plan for sustainability, for those lots may one day become buildings.

> Did I say almost nothing and follow it up with no conclusions? 
> Oh well, back to work...
>  -G-
>  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

No I think you said a great deal.

New York City