Hi Noelia, thank you for an insightful and stimulating post. Your analysis of Loughran’s view on public parks was concise yet thorough. I found the architectural examples you brought interesting as well, since they provided a different perspective on “the growing inequality of public spaces in contemporary cities” discussed by Loughran.
After reading your blog entirely, I began to think more deeply about the purpose of parks. As you wrote, “it’s important to question what City officials or we really want out of public areas”. That said, I think there are some ideas relevant to this discussion that Loughran doesn’t focus on. You point out that many social controls and regulations “decrease the actual public-ness of the supposed public space”, however I think many of those controls and regulations are justified and even essential to the purpose of parks.
To begin, I researched various interpretations of parks and their purpose. Many organizations and groups express different perspectives, but two stood out to me. The first, BREC, outlines several goals all public park seeks to deliver. Amongst them are “creating safer neighborhoods, promoting public health, stimulating tourism and overall economic development”. An organization that operates public park and recreation facilities in Louisiana, BREC provides in depth research on each goal listed. For example, it is the objective of parks to promote public health through “physical activity and contact with nature”. In order for people to experience emotional or physical benefit from parks they must be encouraged to go outdoors and actually utilize the facilities. Allowing homeless people to inhabit the park can literally affect cleanliness if not public perception of how clean the park is. This, in turn, can discourage city inhabitants from using the park and indirectly infringe on the goal of public parks to promote public health. Similarly, public perception of a park that tolerates homeless people may dissuade tourists from visiting that park and disrupt the effort of “stimulating overall economic development”.
The second source I found that articulately describes the purpose of public parks is a report published by The Trust for Public Land. This nonprofit organization that facilitates and funds the creation of parks released a comprehensive study that outlines many of the functions a park has. Amongst them are “public health benefits and economic growth from increased property values”. With regards to public health, the report provides studies on the link between parks and increased physical activity, reduced anxiety, and lower stress levels. The driving forces behind these trends are usage of outdoor facilities, exposure to nature, and aesthetic greenery. If people don’t access parks then, by definition, parks are not delivering “public health benefits” as best possible. Therefore, it seems that any act which would increase the likelihood that people use parks should be implemented. I think this is a valid argument for those who say the homeless should not be allowed to sleep in public parks since it can actually affect aesthetics, cleanliness, and public perception which would discourage public use of the park.
Much of the above is predicated on the idea that a homeless presence in parks strongly correlates with reduced usage of those parks. I found this premise to be true based on an article published on the National Recreation and Park Association’s website. Written by Danielle Taylor, the article recounts her experience at a conference concentrated on homelessness and its affect on parks. She describes the overall sentiment held by attendees who feared the homeless will make a camp out of the public spaces city workers spend considerable time maintaining. In one specific example, Danielle shares the case of a park near California that was so consumed by homeless individuals it effectively became “an unintended campground where others were afraid to go.”
I agree with you that homelessness is a widespread problem, and one that requires further attention. However, I do think there’s legitimacy in forbidding the homeless from consuming parks as it can affect the degree to which others utilize them and indirectly hinder the goals of “promoting public health” and “economic development”. On a similar note, I recognize your view on what the true impact of “a fresh coat of paint and new set of swings” is but think there are certainly benefits. Improving the aesthetics of underserved parks in this manner can influence public perception and encourage greater usage of parks, indirectly promoting public health and economic growth, two of the main goals of public parks.
SOURCES:
