An Open Space Analysis

written by Peter Harnik

Newark, New Jersey

Cover Images: Left: Nat Turner Park(Central Ward ), before. Photo by:Simone Mangili. Right: McKinleyElementary School Playground (CentralWard ) groundbreaking, December 2002.Photo by: Manuel Lebrón

The Trust for Public Land is a nationalconservation organization that conserves landfor people to enjoy as parks, community gar-dens, rural lands, and natural lands, ensuring liv-able communities for generations to come.

TPL’s Parks for People Initiative works in citiesacross America to ensure that everyone—in par-ticular, every child—enjoys access to a park,playground, or open space.

Parks are essential to the health of individualsand communities. They offer recreation andrenewal, promote exercise, reduce crime, revital-ize neighborhoods, protect the environment,and bring communities together.

In Newark, the Trust for Public Land hasalready invested $2.5 million in neighborhoodplaygrounds. TPL partnered with the city toachieve an award of nearly $1.2 million from theNational Park Service Urban Parks andRecreation Recovery Program and the NewJersey Department of Environmental ProtectionGreen Acres program to redevelop MildredHelms Park. TPL has also received grants andGreen Acres funding to develop Nat TurnerPark.

Parks for People-Newark is a response to theoverwhelming need for additional safe parks andplaygrounds in the neighborhoods of NewJersey’s largest city, particularly those mostunder-served by the traditional park system.

Author Peter Harnik is director of the Trust forPublic Land’s Center for City Park Excellence.He has spoken widely on city park policy and pol-itics and is author of two books, Inside City Parksand The Excellent City Park System, and a contributorto a third, Urban Parks and Open Space.

Mark Barksdale, Newark Department of Housing and Economic Development

Charles Beveridge, Frederick Law Olmsted Papers, Washington, D.C.

Richard Cammarieri, New Communities Corporation

Jane Canter, Newark Office of Business Administration

Charles Cummings, Newark Public Library

Joe Dellafave and Nancy Zak, Ironbound Community Corporation

Robin Dougherty, Greater Newark Conservancy

Danny Gale, Connection-Newark

Sarah Hanson, Essex County Department of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Affairs

Valerie James, Newark Division of Recreation & Cultural Affairs

Carla Lehrman, Episcopal Community Development Corporation

Kathy Madden and Elena Madison, Project for Public Spaces, New York, NY

Alan Mallach, National Housing Center

Simone Mangili, Margaret Seip, Leigh Rae; The Trust for Public Land, Morristown, NJ

Alena Maxwell, Branch Brook Park Alliance, Caldwell, NJ

Wilbur McNeil, Weequahic Park Association

LoriJeanne Moody and Andy Stone, The Trust for Public Land, New York, NY

Kevin Moore, Weequahic Park Association

Dan O'Flaherty, New York, NY

Parnell Parker, Newark Community Development Network

Justin Peyser, Community Preservation Corporation, Jersey City, NJ

Dr. Clement A. Price, Director, Institute on Ethnicity, Culture and the Modern Experience, Rutgers University

Richard Preiss, Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates, Inc.

Dan Salvante, Essex County Department of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Affairs

Annette Schultz, RBA Group, Morristown, NJ

Dr. Colleen Walton, Newark Department of Neighborhood Services

Kathy Weaver, Greater Newark Alliance

Ken Zimmerman, New Jersey Institute for Social Justice

The following people were generous with their time and knowledge regarding Newark park andopen space issues. (All are from Newark, unless noted.)

Acknowledgements

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Table 1

Park Spending Per Resident, Major Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Newark’s Parks Today. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Table 2

Acres of Parkland Per 1000 Residents; Selected High-Density Cities. . . . 3

Table 3

Parkland as Percent of City Area; Selected High-Density Cities . . . . . . . 3

Table 4

Park Playgrounds and Residents, Major Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Map 1

Park Access: Residents’ and Day Care Providers’ Proximity to Parks . . . . . . 5

Map 2

Children and Parks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 – 7

Map 3

Linking Parks: Conceptual Newark Greenway Route . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Map 4

Park-Poor Newark Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Creating a Better Open Space Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Contents

St. Columba Peace Playground (EastWard ). Photo by: Simon Benepe

1

IntroductionNewark, NJ, one of America's most venerable cities, is on a

significant economic rebound after years of decline. For

this momentum to last, the city must rebuild much of its

infrastructure, including its park system, which at one time

made headlines but has since fallen far behind expected

urban norms. This document looks at the state of the city's

park system, political factors influencing its trajectory, and

opportunities that could be explored in the future.

Newark has had a turbulent history and hasbeen in reputed decline for many years. But therevivals of such once-pilloried places as Pitts-burgh, Cleveland, and Chattanooga, and suchonce-battered neighborhoods as Philadelphia’sSociety Hill, Washington’s Georgetown, andNew York’s Chelsea, prove that stereotypes canbe challenged and failures can be reversed.And the central role that open space has playedin the revitalization of these important placescannot be overlooked. Newark is home to out-standing location and transportation resourcesthat are reasserting their pull, and a criticalmass of educational and cultural facilities thatare generating energy. Moreover, the city isbenefiting from some strategic assistance fromthe state under Governor Jim McGreevey’ssmart growth policy, which emphasizes urbanrenewal over rural exploitation. In fact, for thefirst time since the Great Depression, signifi-cant renewal is underway in Newark.

Naturally, 60 years of decline—climaxing withthe racial upheavals of the 1960s—have left the

city's infrastructure battered. Streets need tobe repaved, sewers upgraded, public buildingsrenovated, schools constructed, libraries fixed.On the “green” side, Newark’s parks, the prob-lems are at least as severe. Thetwo outstanding Olmstedian cre-ations, Branch Brook Park andWeequahic Park, need millions ofdollars in upgrades; in addition,the system as a whole—small,fragmented, inequitably distrib-uted and underfunded—coulduse reconceptualization and sig-nificant reinvestment.

HistoryThe third oldest major city in thecountry (after New York andBoston), Newark was formed bydisgruntled Puritans from Con-necticut who set out to form a“New Ark” on the “Pesayak”River. Because of its locationnear New York City, and particu-larly after the completion of theMorris Canal in 1831, the citydeveloped rapidly into New Jer-sey's prime metropolis. From itsearliest days Newark had pocketsof open space: both Military Parkand a plaza for a public market (later namedWashington Park) were established in 1667.Other fragments were set aside beginning in1696. However, as the city grew, parkland did

An Open Space Analysis of Newark, NJ

Among the most promising areas for newparks in Newark are:

The Passaic Riverfront, particularly inthe Ironbound and through the Centraland North wards.

The Second River, connecting BranchBrook Park with the Passaic River.

A corridor through the South, West andCentral wards that could provide a green-way connection between Branch Brookand Weequahic parks.

A corridor alongside the Northeast Corri-dor rail line that could provide a trailfrom Weequahic Park to the Passaic River.

Citywide, new neighborhood parks andplaygrounds as seeds for revitalization.

New Parks for Newark?

•

•

•

•

•

2

not keep pace, and in 1867 the entire county ofEssex had only 25 acres of public open space.

By the end of the 19th century, the city parksmovement that was electrifying the countryreached Newark. In fact, the enthusiasm was

so great that civic leaders in Newark and sur-rounding Essex County instituted the nation’svery first countywide park system and hired thefamous landscape architect Frederick LawOlmsted to plan it. Although never fully real-ized, the plan did result in the creation of twomajor county parks within the city limits: Wee-quahic and Branch Brook parks were extraordi-nary parcels of land upon which the Olmstedfirm worked its magic—so much so that theyhave survived as beloved spaces for Newarkersfor more than a century.

In describing Weequahic reservation in 1898,the Essex County Board of Park Commission-ers said:

“Its principal topographical feature is a marsh, formerly

salt but now fresh, with a brook, fed by springs, flowing

through it…The marsh is beautifully environed with

uplands, partly gently sloping, open farming land, but

mostly rather steep, wooded banks. At the end of the open

upland nearest the city we propose a meadow or playstead,

containing twenty-three acres…This will be the most popu-

lar, and as an investment for public health and amusement,

the most valuable part of the park.”

The 360-acre Branch Brook Park is famous forits four-mile park loop roadway, romantic lakeand streams, huge northern division meadow,the walled remains of the original NewarkReservoir, stunning views of massive SacredHeart Cathedral, and 2,000 flowering cherrytrees (a larger number than at Tidal Basin inWashington, D.C.) that attract 10,000 viewersper day for the Cherry Blossom Festival.

Despite the excellence of Branch Brook andWeequahic, the City of Newark did not devel-op a complete citywide park system. For onething, in the early 20th century the city becamefocused on zoning to encourage more commer-

Table 1.

Park Spending Per Resident, Major Cities

City Dollars SpentPer Resident* (2001)

Seattle $214San Jose $185Denver $170Minneapolis $164Washington, D.C. $155Cincinnati $132Chicago $131Kansas City, Mo. $122Las Vegas $122Virginia Beach $121Phoenix $120Sacramento $109Honolulu $107Long Beach $103Portland, Ore. $99Tampa $98Mesa $92Atlanta $88San Diego $83Austin $79Tucson $75Oakland $73Columbus $72Colorado Springs $69Fort Worth $67Cleveland $64Boston $58San Antonio $54New York $54Milwaukee/Milwaukee County $54Charlotte/Mecklenburg $52Nashville/Davidson $52Philadelphia $50Miami $49Oklahoma City $48Fresno $47Dallas $45Arlington,Tex. $44New Orleans $43Baltimore $42Memphis $42Louisville/Jefferson $42Los Angeles $37Newark $35Toledo $34Houston $33Indianapolis $32Jacksonville $28St. Louis $6Average $80

* Spending includes both operatingand capital dollars.

3

cial and industrial uses. Also, by failing toincorporate Military, Washington, Lincoln, andthe other small parks into the Essex Countysystem, the city developed a two-tier park sys-tem that became more and more unbalanced ascity finances deteriorated after the 1930s.Moreover, because park oversight was splitbetween the county and the city, neither entityaccepted responsibility for the strengths andweaknesses of the Newark park network andhow the populace was being served.

Newark’s Parks TodayToday, Newark has a total of 803 acres of park-land—742 acres operated by the Essex CountyDepartment of Parks, Recreation and CulturalAffairs and 61 acres run by the Newark Depart-ment of Neighborhood and Recreational Ser-vices. Total spending by the two agencies on cityparks was an estimated $9.6 million in 2001, oronly $35 per resident—far below the nationalbig-city average of $801 (see Table 1).

Even with its population loss, Newark is dense-ly settled; in fact, it is today the fifth mostdensely populated large city in the UnitedStates (after New York, San Francisco, Chicago,

and Boston). However, it has feweracres of parkland per resident thanany of the 55 biggest cities in thenation: only 2.9 acres per 1000 resi-dents (see Table 2). Measuredanother way, only 5.3 percent of thecity’s area is devoted to parks—lessthan all but one of the high-popula-tion-density cities in the country(see Table 3).

It is hard to overstate Newark’sdearth of park acreage and facilities.Besides the two big ones, there arefive medium-size parks operated by

Essex County and 55 very small spaces (10acres down to the size of a house lot or less)run by the city. (Many of these are, in fact,traffic triangles and medians.) Even counting ahypothetical quarter-mile radius around eachsmall park and half-mile radius around the bigparks, large numbers of Newarkers are notclose to greenspace. The situation is particular-ly dire for children: 34 percent of Newark’schildren under age 14 do not live within one-quarter mile of any parkland at all, and a curso-ry look at the location of the city’s 51 day care

Table 3.

Parkland as Percent of City AreaSelected High-Density Cities

City Area Parkland Percent (acres) (acres) Parkland

San Francisco 29,884 5,916 19.8%Washington, D.C. 39,297 7,576 19.3%New York 194,115 36,646 18.9%Boston 30,992 5,451 17.6%Minneapolis 35,130 5,694 16.2%Philadelphia 86,456 10,621 12.3%Baltimore 51,714 5,749 11.1%Oakland 35,875 3,822 10.7%Los Angeles 300,201 30,134 10.0%Camden, N.J. 5,632 507 9.0%Long Beach 32,281 2,792 8.6%Chicago 145,362 11,676 8.0%Newark 15,232 803 5.3%Miami 22,830 1,138 5.0%Average 12.2%

Table 2.Acres of Parkland per 1000 ResidentsSelected High-Density Cities

City Population Park Acres perAcreage 1000 Residents

Minneapolis 383,000 5,694 14.9Washington, D.C. 572,000 7,576 13.2Oakland 399,000 3,822 9.6Boston 589,000 5,451 9.3Baltimore 651,000 5,749 8.8Los Angeles 3,695,000 30,134 8.2San Francisco 777,000 5,916 7.6Philadelphia 1,518,000 10,621 7.0Camden, N.J. 80,000 507 6.3Long Beach 462,000 2,792 6.0New York 8,008,000 36,646 4.6Chicago 2,896,000 11,676 4.0Miami 362,000 1,138 3.1Newark 274,000 803 2.9Average 7.5

Maple Avenue School Playground (SouthWard ). Photo by: Robert Cadena

centers reveals that many of them are too farfrom open space to make park visits feasible(see Map 1, page 5). The situation is particu-larly dire in the South, Central and Westwards. All in all, the 1990 Master Plan statesthat Newark is short about 750 acres in neigh-borhood open space, with the least-servedcommunities being Ironbound, Clinton Hill,Weequahic, Broadway, and Springfield-Bel-mont-West Side (see Map 4, page 9).

The litany of parks and park facilities that havebeen closed and lost is disheartening. Play-grounds in parks are also remarkably scarce,with each one serving an average of 27,000people, compared to a national big-city average

of about 6,4002 (see Table 4, this page). Evengiven Newark’s large amount of vacant landpotentially available, the creation of communitygardens hasn’t generated the widespread inter-est seen in New York and Philadelphia.

Of course, good things are happening and invest-ments are being made. The city has been award-ed nearly $1.2 million from the National ParkService Urban Parks and Recreation RecoveryProgram and the New Jersey Department ofEnvironmental Protection Green Acres programto redevelop Mildred Helms Park. WeequahicPark is benefiting from $3 million of U.S. Envi-ronmental Protection Agency funds. Nat TurnerPark, which is undeveloped and next to a brown-

field, could benefit from$900,000 in Green Acresfunding and, when it’s com-pleted and opened, will beused jointly by three schoolsand the neighborhood. JesseAllen Park, near a demol-ished public housing site, wasawarded a $277,500 grant bythe U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Devel-opment. The NationalFootball League recentlyawarded a $100,000 grantto refurbish the locker roomand other facilities at WestSide Park. And, probablymost significant, in 1998, thevoters of Essex Countyapproved a property surtaxthat generates $4.5 millionper year for open spaceacquisition and preservation.

Despite the gains, Newarkcontinues to have major

4

Table 4.

Park Playgrounds and Residents, Major Cities

City Number of Playgrounds Number of

Playgrounds per 1000 Residents per

Residents Playground

Cincinnati 108 0.33 3,065Minneapolis 108 0.28 3,546Atlanta 109 0.26 3,817Austin 156 0.24 4,212Jacksonville 170 0.23 4,329Tulsa 92 0.23 4,272Cleveland 110 0.23 4,345Tampa 68 0.22 4,456San Francisco 162 0.21 4,796Baltimore 129 0.2 5,047Kansas City, Mo. 86 0.19 5,140Wichita 67 0.19 5,134Chicago 504 0.17 5,746Indianapolis 116 0.15 6,828Dallas 183 0.15 6,497Nashville/Davidson

County 74 0.13 7,703Houston 250 0.13 7,816Arlington,Tex. 39 0.12 8,538New York 958 0.12 8,359Washington, D.C. 71 0.12 8,056Long Beach 52 0.11 8,885Los Angeles 372 0.1 9,933Charlotte/Mecklenburg

County 68 0.1 10,221Phoenix 100 0.08 13,210Newark 10* 0.04 27,400Average (not incl. Newark) 0.18 6,415

* Only park playgrounds are included in table. Every city has addition-al playground facilities on school properties, operated by the educa-tion department.

5

Map 1: Park Access: Residents’ and Day Care Providers’ Proximity to Parks

6

Map

2:C

hild

ren

and

Park

s

7

8

Map 3: Linking Parks: Conceptual Newark Greenway Route

9

parkland and park funding needs. The city isalso in need of greater park and open spaceleadership from both the political and the pri-vate sectors.

Newark Mayor Sharpe James has been in officefor a quarter-century and is also a New Jerseystate senator. While James has presided overthe beginning of the city’s renaissance, with the

opening of the successful New Jersey Perform-ing Arts Center (1997) and Riverfront Stadi-um (1999) for the minor league Newark Bearsbaseball team, parks have not been at the top ofhis priority list. This is not surprising, since themajor parks are the responsibility of EssexCounty rather than the city.

James’s position on parks is mirrored by many

William H. Brown Academy Playground(South Ward ). Photo by: Ken Sherman

Map 4: Park-Poor Newark Neighborhoods

10

residents who feel that Newark’s other pressingproblems should be dealt with first. However, inother cities, park improvement efforts haveoften turned out to be seeds that grow intorebuilt communities.

As a matter of fact, one example of a park lead-ing a community’s revitalization is right inNewark—in the South Ward, where thedynamic Weequahic Park Association has spent10 years turning around a rundown park andusing it as a springboard for broader communi-ty development. Another standout is the Iron-bound neighborhood—a vibrant and denselypopulated section, tightly hemmed by railroadtracks and the Passaic River—which is particu-larly short on playing fields or even snippets ofun-built land sometimes called “urban breath-ing space.” Residents of the Ironbound arefired up about the need for parks.

The most significant park in the Ironbound isRiverbank Park, owned and operated by EssexCounty. Riverbank was the site of a major bat-tle over the location of a new minor leaguebaseball stadium, with the mayor and the for-mer executive of Essex County in favor, and theIronbound Community Corporation opposed.Ultimately the Ironbound Community Corpo-ration won, and the stadium was moved a mileupstream. The park was saved, but in theprocess heavy metal residues were discoveredon the site and it was closed for remediation.(In Phase I Remediation, the contractor mis-takenly brought in fill that was itself contami-nated, but the city did a second remediationand the beautifully upgraded park officiallyreopened in November 2003.) As evidence ofthe Ironbound’s level of community organiza-tion, the park’s support organization, Friends ofRiverbank Park, stayed in existence and contin-ued to be the leading advocate for the park

even during the period the park was closed.

In dollar terms, by far the largest driver thatcould impact open space planning in Newark isthe 1998 legal decision in the so-called “Abbott”case governing school construction. Because ofthe decision, Newark will receive a total of $1.6billion in school construction funds to bring thedistrict up to conformity with those in the rest ofthe state. (Twelve other districts will also receiveAbbott funds.) The bulk of the money, ofcourse, will just cover the cost of constructingand renovating buildings and, unfortunately, var-ious restrictions on the funding prevent its usefor outdoor recreational spaces. With the imple-mentation of the ruling now in its early stages,several communities are beginning to voice dis-may over the fact that the new facilities beingdesigned lack adequate outdoor spaces. It is pos-sible that by involving constituents for parks inthis huge planning process and by leveragingother funding sources, some creative strategiesfor developing outdoor spaces that serve bothschool and neighborhood needs could arise.

On the flip side, the push to find sites for newschools is a concern for parks in neighborhoodswhere land is scarce. Already in some cases,parks are being targeted as sites for new schoolfacilities, a trend that would only aggravate theparks situation in Newark.

Creating a Better Open Space NetworkDespite the challenges, Newark has manyopportunities to create a better open space net-work. Most notable is the confluence of largetracts of vacant land with an economy that isreviving and expanding. Like an infusion ofsunlight and rain upon a barren field that hasbeen fertilized and seeded, the result could bean economic rebound that could generateenough wealth and energy for new parks—if

St. Columba Peace Playground (EastWard ). Photo by: Robert Cadena

11

McKinley Elementary School Playground(Central Ward ), participatory design.Photo by: Yola Monakhov

they are planned for properly.

The two most fruitful areas for this greeningare along the Passaic River and through theCentral Ward, west of downtown. The Passaicis a woefully underused resource that couldbecome the city’s “front porch” and also serveas the focal point of an expanded Newarkpark system—similar to what’s been donewith such far-flung waterways as the SouthPlatte River in Denver and the Woonasque-tucket River in Providence. Although the 6.6miles of the Passaic within the city limits ofNewark have historically been ignored, theNew Jersey Performing Arts Center andother institutions have recently begun focus-ing on this stretch, promoting not only shore-line parks with pedestrian access over Route21, but also a new environmental educationcenter on a refurbished ferry to be dockednear Penn Station. They are also discussingthe construction of a new rowing center.

With the progress that’s been made cleaning upthe Passaic’s pollution, the new attention to itspossibilities, and with the Army Corps of Engi-neers rebuilding the bulkheads between theStickel Bridge (I-280) and Riverbank Park, thePassaic’s time may finally be at hand.

The bulkhead project is a three-phase, $75-mil-lion project. Phase I involves shoring up theriverbanks; Phase II will build a walkway; andPhase III will construct Joseph Minish Park,two miles long, from I-280 to Brill Street.Fashioned by the Army Corps, it will be a citypark, although it has not been decided who willoperate it. East of there, further downstream,there is a proposal to create a new Essex Coun-ty park for active recreation called RiverfrontPark. Beyond that, in the highly industrialneighborhood near the New Jersey Turnpike,

there is a desire to install at least a narrow stripfor walking and cycling. It is unclear who wouldmaintain it and whether the strip would bepurchased or consist only of an easement.Conceivably, the entire greenspace along thewaterfront could become an Essex County parkor even a New Jersey state park. (There areonly two urban state parks in New Jersey, Lib-erty State Park and the Delaware and RaritanCanal State Park, but there is a newfoundinterest in developing others, particularly alongrivers.)

There is another important park connectoropportunity along the Passaic River, on the farnorth side of town, where a stream known asSecond River flows into the Passaic. Much ofthe Second River corridor is green and envi-ronmentally attractive (which is appropriatesince it forms the northern boundary ofBranch Brook Park and is owned by the EssexCounty Parks Department), but the last2,000 linear feet, between Broadway and thePassaic, are not passable. Acquiring this landand adding it to the Essex County park sys-tem would provide a valuable link betweenBranch Brook Park and the river.

The Central Ward—the section of Newarkmost impacted by the pivotal 1967 riot and thesubsequent exodus from the city—has largetracts of vacant and abandoned properties. Italso sits between the two great Olmsted cre-ations, Weequahic Park and Branch Brook Park.Connecting these 700 acres of greenery is aconcept that goes back 100 years. In the early20th century, John C. Olmsted proposed aparkway system for Essex County that includeda “Weequahic Parkway” running up to BranchBrook. Today the city is talking of a “NewarkGreenway Project” in the vicinity of West SidePark that would involve traffic-calming,

12

streetscape improvements, and bike lanes.While now envisioned purely as an on-road sys-tem oriented toward bicycles, it conceivablycould be routed along and through the greenspaces of Woodland Cemetery, West Side Park,and Fairmount Cemetery. (In addition, theGreater Newark Conservancy is constructing anenvironmental education center at the intersec-tion of Springfield Avenue and Prince Street,which could make an ideal “hub” for a greenwayvision.) Alternatively, the link could go the“long way,” using Belleville Park, Second River, aPassaic River Greenway, and a trail alongsidethe Amtrak corridor through Ironbound. Thelatter concept is in the Ironbound master planput together by the Wallace Roberts Todd plan-ning firm (see Map 3, page 8).

There is a third possible way of connectingBranch Brook and Weequahic parks—not geo-graphically, but politically. Each of these twospecial parks has its own support conservancy—the Branch Brook Park Alliance and WeequahicPark Association. By combining forces, the sumcould be greater than the parts. Together thesegroups, plus the Trust for Public Land and per-haps several other organizations, could develop aleveraged marketing effort that would promote(1) the existing parks, (2) a future connectinggreenway system that links the parks to the Pas-saic River, and (3) a revitalized Newark generally.

ConclusionWhen it comes to parks, Newark has two over-riding challenges. On the macro level, the cityhas no master plan for increasing its parkacreage, making needed capital improvements,and working out a joint park managementagreement with Essex County. On the microlevel, there is a widespread lack of public confi-dence that any individual park project can bebrought to successful completion.

The Trust for Public Land proposes a three-point plan to help overcome these challenges:

1. Promote Balanced Development in

the City’s Neighborhoods

On the neighborhood level, Newark needs to fixexisting parks and strategically create new onesin underserved areas. This job will require thecollective work of many institutions. TPL iscommitted to helping, and it plans to raise andspend approximately $10 million to build orreconstruct community parks including MildredHelms Park in the South Ward, Nat Turner Parkin the Central Ward, and Kasberger Field andRafael Hernandez School Playground in theNorth Ward. (This will compliment and expandthe seven playground projects, totaling $2.5 mil-lion, that TPL has completed at six school sites.)By the end of the project, TPL will have addedalmost 20 acres of high-quality outdoor recre-ational land in neighborhoods.

2. Build a Constituency for Open Space

The need for an open space master plan thatfunctions as part of the overall city planningprocess is more critical than ever. Equallyimportant is the need for an organizationalstructure within the city that supports buildingand sustaining a parks system and a collabora-tion between the city and county that wouldresult in information sharing, economies ofscale in maintenance, and improved program-ming. In this effort, the Trust for Public Landproposes: 1) to assemble a broad cross sectionof leaders from public agencies, corporations,foundations, and private nonprofits in a facili-tated roundtable discussion that will focus ondeveloping a set of shared values and objectivessurrounding open space, and 2) to create andimplement a marketing campaign withNewark’s outdoor recreational needs andopportunities as the centerpiece.

The Central Ward's McKinley ElementarySchool Playground, before and after renova-tion. Photos by: Manuel Lebron (top),Clark Jones ( bottom).

13

The North Ward's Louise A. SpencerSchool Playground, before and after renova-tion. Photos by: Eric Leshinsky.

3. Develop Greenways to Connect

Newark’s Isolated Gems

Now is the time to optimize Newark’s existingresources—the Passaic River, Weequahic andBranch Brook parks, the cemeteries, the Sec-ond River—by establishing a comprehensivegreenway system. The Trust for Public Land’srole in accomplishing this would be: 1) to assistwith land acquisition for parks, 2) to featureNewark’s environmental assets in a marketingcampaign, 3) to continue to mobilize publicand private financial resources around theparks and open space issues in Newark, and 4)to continue to forge innovative partnershipswith public land stewards that can be replicatedby others to augment Newark’s open spaceresources.

The Trust for Public Land has long been deeplyinvolved in Newark and is highly committed toworking in the city. TPL accomplishmentsinclude staging participatory playground designprocesses that engage students, teachers, admin-istrators and community members; developingsix community playgrounds; and infusing $2.5million in new capital investment into economi-cally disenfranchised neighborhoods. Theimpact is being felt: TPL’s completed projectsalready serve more than one in seven Newark-ers—over 41,000 people, more than 10,000 ofwhom are children under the age of 14.3

Other organizations are also laboring hard onsuch issues as housing, retail, employment, cul-ture and more. Some initiatives have bornefruit, and others have failed. Now is the timefor these fragmented efforts to be pulledtogether so that the synergy helps them all. Toaugment the city government’s planningprocess, the private, nonprofit communityshould stimulate this important conversationabout the physical design of Newark.

For many people Newark is already a desirableplace to live, work, and socialize. With judi-cious investment, it could better serve andattract many more. That investment shouldinclude a much-improved system of parks,playgrounds, recreation centers, communitygardens, and passive open space. The Trust forPublic Land fully recognizes that this course ofaction will be neither quick nor inexpensive,but it is essential for a successful city and TPLis committed to sticking with this effort—andhelping to fund it—over the long haul.

Endnotes::1. Both agencies have larger mandates. Essex CountyDepartment of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairsalso operates thousands of acres of parkland outside thecity of Newark. Newark Department of Neighborhoodand Recreational Services is a large agency with suchdivergent responsibilities as public works, sanitation andcode enforcement. The budget estimate is solely for thetwo agencies’ work on parks within the city of Newark.2. This counts only playgrounds in parks; every city hasadditional playgrounds in schoolyards, but that data is notavailable.3. Figures are calculated based on a service area of one-quarter mile from each park.

printed on recycled paper

The Trust for Public LandNew Jersey Field Office20 Community Place, 2nd FloorMorristown, NJ 07960 (973) 292-1100, Fax (973) 292-6272www.tpl.org