Defining the Sustainable Park: A Fifth Modelfor Urban ParksGalen Cranz and Michael Boland

Galf n Cranz has a Masters and PhDin sociolog)' from University" ofChicago, where she specialized in the"social use of space." Since thenshe has taught architecture froma social and cultural point of viewat Princeton University and theUniversity' of California at Berkeley.The author of The Politics ofPniiiDesign (1982), she hecame interestedin the problems of sustainabledevelopment in 1991 as a reviewerfor the Riverside South PlanningDevelopment Cknp. in Manhattan.Other research interests include body-consciotis design and the sociology oftaste in interior design.Michael Boland, both a practicingprofessional and an academic, seeksto integrate human and ecologicalsystems in public open space.Currently a doctoral stndent inEnvironmental Planning at theUniversity of (.alifornia at Berkeley,he has Masters degrees in LandscapeArchitecture and in City and RegionalPlanning, and an AB in Aichitecture.

Abstract: How ran parks tontiilmie to (he overarching project of helping cities becomemore ecologically sustaitiahl^f The history of urban parks in America rei'eals moreconcern xvilh social problems than with ecological sustainability. Four types of city parkshave been identified—the Pleasure Ground, the Reform Park, the Recreation Facility,and the C)j)en Space System—and each of them respond to social issues, not ecologicalones. Yet today, ecological problems are becoming one of our biggest social concerns,so a. neiv urban park type focused on social solutions to ecological problems ivmtld beconsistent with this pattein. Using the same social and physical criteria that described theprexiious four models. Part I desnibes a fifth model, the Sustainable Park, which began toemerge in the late 1990s. Part I! postulates three gene)al attributes of this new kind ofpark: (1) selfsufftciency in regard to matnial resources and maintenance, (2) solvinglarger urban problems outside of park boundaries, and (3) neating new standards foraesthetics and landscape management in parks and other urban landscapes, ft alsoexplores poiuy impUcaticms of these attributes regarding park design and management,the practice of landscape architecture, citizen participation, and ecological education.

I n the past, citizens sawparks as an antidote to

cities, which they perceived as stress-ful, dangerous, and unhealthy placesto live. Once a contradiction interms, the sustainable city is now anintellecttially and socially recognizedgoal. Within this framework, we nowask what contribution parks canmake to the project of making cidesmore ecologically balanced and sus-tainable. Historically, urban parksresponded to social problems andexpressed various ideas aboutnature, but tbey showed little con-cern for actual ecological fitness.Today, in contrast, ecologicalproblems may be cotmted amongom" most pressing social problems.Becatise ecological and social prob-

lems are now conflated, a newurban park type that focuses on solu-tions to eccjlogical problems andexpiesses new ideas about naturecan build upon the traditional socialgenesis of urban parks in the UnitedStates to help improve the quality oflife in American cities.

Part I: A Nnv Type Of Park?

A Park Typtilogy. A classic study ofurban parks ((^ranz 1982) describedfour t\pes; the Pleasure Ground{1850-1900), tbe Reform Park{1900-1930), the RecreationFacility (1930-1965), and the Open

Space System (1965-?). This typol-og\' includes both the shifting socialpurposes that parks served avidthe corresponding variations indesigned form. Eacb park typeevolved to address what were consid-ered to be pressing urban socialproblems at that time. Table 1 sum-marizes the .social goals, socialactors, and formal characteristics foreach of the four types. The Pleasure('.round v.'iifi lypically large andlocated on the edge of the cit)'(Figure 1). Frederick Law Olmsted,the father of landscape architecturein America, designed many of them.He favored a pastoral style, neitherwild nor ntban, with cur\ilinear cir-culation aud naturalistic use of treesand water. Mental appreciation oftbe landscape was important, but

102 landscape Journal 23:2-04Landscape jmirnal 23:2-04 ISSN 0277-2426

© 2004 by the Board of Regents of the Universit) of Wisconsin System

Table 1. A Comparison of the Sustainable Park to

Social Goal

Activities

Size

Relation toCity

Order

Elements

Promoters

Beneficiaries

Pleasure Ground1850-1900

Public health Scsocial leforni

Strolling, carriageracing, bikeridiriff, picnics.rowing, clas-sical music.n(»n-fli(lacticeducationVery Large,lOOOH-acresSet in contrast

Curvilinear

Woodland &meadow.curving paths.placid waterbodies, rusticstriictuics.limited tloraldisplays

Health reformers.trail seen den-talists, realestate interests

All cit>' dwellers(intended).upper middleclass {reality)

Reform Park1900-1930

Social reform;children's play;assimilationSuperyised play.gymnastics, crafts.Americaiii/ationclasses, dancing,plays & pageants

Small, city blocks

Accepts urbanpatterns

Rectilinear

Sandlots,playgrounds.lectiliuear paths.swimming pools.field houses

Social reformers.social workers,recreationworkers

f Children,immigrants.working class

Prior Park Types after C

Recreation Facility1930-1965

Recteati<iii ser\ice

Active recreation:basketball, tennis,team sports.spectator sports.swimming

Small to medium.follow formulaeSuburban

Rectilinear

Asphalt or grassplay area, pools.rectilinear paths.standard playeqtiipment

Politicians,bureaucrats,planuers

Suburban families

Iranz (1982).

Open Space System1965-?

Participation;reyiiali7e city;stop riotsPsycliic relief.free-form play.pop music.participatoryarts

Varied, often small.irregular sites(;it)' is a work of art;network

Both

Trees, grass, shrubs.cur\ing Screctilinear paths.water features forvaew, free-foruiplay equipment

Politicians,enyironmentalists.artists, designers

Residents, workers.poor urban youth.middle class

Sustainable Park1990-present

HiuTian health;ecological hcallh

Strolling, hiking.biking, passiye &aetiye recieatiou.bird watching.education,stewardship

Varied, emphasis oncorridors.\rt-naturecontinuum; partof larger urbansystem; modelfor othersEyolutionaryaestheticNative plants.permeablesurfaces.ecologicallestorationgreen infra-structure.resourceself-sufficiencyEnvironmentalists,local commu-nities, yoltinteergroups, land-scape architectsResidents, wildlife.cilies, planet

these parks were actively pro-grammed and sports were popular,so they were not merely "passive."

The working class seldom tisedthese parks because they were farfrom the tenements. Conseqtiently,small park advocates wanted the cityto establish parks on a few sqtiareblocks in tbe inner city. Eventtiallythis movement merged with thoseadvocating playgrotmds for children,resulting in the Reform ParA with spe-cial play eciuipment for children.These parks were small and symmet-rical, with no illusioti of countryside

or natttre. Their principal architec-tural innovation was the held house,envisioned as a clubhouse for theworking class (Figtne 2a).

To jtistify their expenditures,park commissioners during tbe firsttwo eras etiumerated all the socialgoals that parks served; to reduceclass conflict, to reinforce the familytmit, to socialize immigrants to theAmerican way of life, to stop thespread of disease, and to educate cit-izens. In contrast, a new era was

claimed in 1930 when Robert Moseswas appointed commissioner of NewYork City's Park Department. Forhim, parks had become a recognizedgovernmental service reqtiiring nojustificadon (Moses 1940, 3).Instead, he and park departmentsnationwide establisbed uniform stan-dards and extended service to thestiburbs and urban areas that badnot yet received parks or play-grotmds. The major innovationswere the staditim, parking lot, andasphalt ball conrts—bence the termRecreation Facility {Figure 2b).

Cranz and Boland 103

Figure 1. Central Park, the first Pleasure Ground in the United States. (Photograph by M. Boland)

A generation later, a dialecticresponse against the perceived steril-ity of the Recreation Facilityemerged in 1965 when Lindsay ranfor mayor of New York City. He pub-lished a policy paper on parks thatreclaimed parks as a mechanism ofsocial control and reform. In defi-ance of previous notions of stan-dardization, he recrtiited landscapearchitects to design site-specificrecreational settings. A more artistic,participatory sensibilit)' flourished,part of a closer tie between park pro-gramming and popular ciilttire.Accordingly, recreation came to beseen as something that could takeplace anywhere—in the streets, on arooftop, at the waterfront, along anabandoned railway line, as well as intraditional plazas and parks. PaleyPark, for example, is a tiny site, vio-lating the standards of the recre-ation era, and emblematic of thenew ideolog)' because it embracedthe city. All parks came to be con-ceived as part of a network of dis-parate open spaces linked together,hence the term Open Space System(Figin"e 2c).

Noting that park models tendto dominate for 30 to 50 years, weconcltide that these models aregenerational. That is, each genera-tion has its own set of ideas abouthow parks can help cides, its ownexperience in putting these ideasinto practice, and its own frustra-tions and victories with those mod-

els. Accordingly, we expected thatour generation would formulate andrealize its own model. Given thecurrent attention to ecological fit-ness and sustainable development,we expected that the fifth modelwould focus on solving ecologicalproblems.

Postulating A Fifth Park Model:Methods. How wotild we recognizethe fifth model if and when we sawit? General definitions may not be ofmuch help. Sustainability and eco-logical design have many differentfacets, so it is understandable thatmost definitions are very broad, butsuch definitions run the danger ofbecoming weak as guides to action.The commonly cited Brundtlanddefinition of sustainability as meet-ing "the needs of the present with-out compromising the ability offuture generations to meet theirown needs" emphasizes that aspectof sustainability having to dowith justice within and betweengenerations (Thompson 2000,12-32). However, this definition istoo broad for most landscape archi-tects, urban designers, and parkplanners who want to know how thegeneral valtie of sustainability mightbe recognized and realized in thespecific context of tirban parks. Yetwe agree with the British sociologistsSimon Guy and Graham Farmer

(2000) in their observations aboutthe early stages of searching for adefinition of green btiiklings: wemight benefit by resisting the urgeto find one "true t)r incontestable,consensual definition . . . [in orderto remain] sensitivt- to the range of. . . innovations which may surface"(73-74).

As a compromise betweenbeing too broad or too specific, westarted out with a loose working defi-nition of Sustainable Parks. A work-ing definition wotild allow tis toidentify' parks that we could re-examine in order to come up with aprogressively more refined inider-standing of what Sustainable Parksare or could be. To start, we knewthat Sustainable Parks would have tohave tt aits generally thought toincrease the ecological performanceof parks. To warrant being recog-nized as a distinctive model, weexpected thai at least some of thesetraits would not be found in any ofthe other four prioi" park types.These new characteristics includedthe tise of native plants, restorationof streams or other natural systems,wildlife habitat, integration of appro-priate technologies or infrastruc-ttire, recvcling, and sustainableconstruction and maintenance prac-tices. This working definition startedout emphasizing the ecological valtieof parks, btit we knew it would alsoinclude social \alues. After all, sus-tainability is ultimately a social con-

104 La ndscape Jou nial

- ^ _ . _ ^ J [1:

ff(a)

Figure 2. Examples of the (a) ReiormI'aik (courtesy of C.hicago Souili ParkDislrict), (h) Recreation Facilit)'(reprinietl From New York ( iiy,Dcparinieni of Parks, Rpfmrl For 1967),iiiui (c) Open Space System (cntirtesy ofNew York I'uhlit Library).

cept rather than a technical or bio-logical one becatise humans areresponsible for the ecological crisistoday.

We began the search for a new-park model using a sociologicaltechnique called content analysis.We analyzed parks published in fiveprominent landscape journals overthe previous 20 years from 1982 to2002. We stitrteci in 1982 when ThePolitics of Park Design was publishedin order to pick up where it had leftoff. (Only Landscape Architecturemagazine was analyzed from years1998-2002 due to limits of theresearch budget and because thevast majority of the articles aboutparks published between 1982 and1997 had come from LandscapeArchitecture. See Appendix A for acomplete list of publicationsreviewed.) In the publishing world,biases are inevitable regarding edito-rial selection, but the bias would pre-sumably work in favor of innovationand change—the very thing we weremonitoring. Therefore, an analysisof parks featured in these ptiblica-tions was a useful way to detecttrends or shifts in emphasis.

We found 12. parks in ouranalysis and have listed them inAppendix A. Each park was de-scribed ba.sed on the informationcontained in the published text andillustrations. We analyzed each parkon identical worksheets in terms ofphysical form, social program, pro-moters, intetided and actual benefi-ciaries, and public reaction. On thebasis of this analysis, each park wascoded as one or more of the parktypes, using a simple coding system:Pieastire Ground (I), Reform (II),Recreation Facility (III), OpenSpace System (IV), and SustainablePark (V). The physical and socialinformation gathered OTI eachpark incltided the following:Park Identifier (name, location,designer); Model (Pleastire Ground,Reform Park, Recreation Facility,Open Space System, SustainablePark); Physical Form (location, size,composition); Landscape Elements(water, land, vegetation, other);Buildings; Construction Details;

Program (designed purpose anduuintended purposes); Promoters;Beneficiaries (intended and actual);Fate of Model in Practice (imple-mentation, public reaction). Mostparks received one nutnber becausethey fell clearly into one of the parktypes, but some provisionallyreceived two numbers becatise twotypes could be discerned. Thesecases were analyzed by a group ofgraduate student researchers led bythe senior author to decide whichtype was stronger.'

We could no( determinewhether or not any of these parksactually succeeded at reducingresource use or creating self-sustaining, healthy ecologicalsystems. Moreover, we did notdistinguish between parks thatmerely evoked ecological symbolismand those that actually restoredfunctioning ecological systems. Thisis not an evaluation of specific parksor places. At this point in history,making philosophical and ideologi-cal appeals to stistainability' and ecol-ogy is enotigh to mark a significantchange in thinking about the pur-pose of urban parks.

A New Park Type Is Emerging. Ouranalysis found that all five park typeswere published during this 20-yearperiod, but Open Space Systems(46%) predominated (Table 2). Thesecond largest category (23%) wasthe new fifth category, tentativelyidentified as sustainable. Weconclude that a new model isemerging among landscapeprofessionals.

Most (86%) of the parksexhibiting traits we had determinedto be sustainableweve featured inarticles published after 1990. Thischange came 25 years after the shiftto open space ideology in 1965.Since American urban park modelshave typically lasted 30 to 50 years,and since historically park bureau-cracies havf iustitutionalizedchanges in thinking about parks(7// * landscape architects have begunto advocate them, we predict thatthe Sustainable Park will be adoptedby municipal park departmentsbetween 1995 and 2015. We havealready observed tbe number of

Cranz and Boland 105

Table 2. Parks describedanalyzed by park type.

Pleasure GroundReform P;iikRecreation Facilit\Open SpaceSustainable ParkTotal

in leading landscape architecture journals

1982-1990 1991-2002

12 (23.5%0 120 (0%) 3

12 (23.5%) 023 (43%) 344 (8%) 25

51 (100%.) 74

(16%)(4%)(0%)(46%)(34%)(100%)

Total

24 (19%)3 (2%)

12 (10%)57 (46%)29 (23%)

125 (100%)

Pleastire Grounds drop significantlyfrom 199H to 2002 while the numberof Open Space and SustainableParks have increased.

Table 1 summarizes all fivemodels so that the Sustainable Parkcan be understood within its histori-cal context. It shows that the fifthpark model is distinctive enough tomerit being differentiated from theothers.

The characteristics of theSustainable Park are both iiidticedfrom what we observed and deducedfrom theoretical writing about ccol-og)' and sustain ability regardingwhat should be in such a pai k.Working inductively from our con-tent analysis, we were able to gener-alize new ecological traits appearingin some urhan parks. Workingdeduclively, we reviewed intellectualwork about ecological design andthe sustainable design movement towiden the range of our ideas abouthow city parks inighl function eco-logically. The new model is an "idealtype" in the sense of the classicalsociologist Max Weber not necessar-ily an ideal goal but rather a colla-tion of all the ideas about differentqualities and features of actual andfuttire sustainable parks. No onepark would have all of these fea-tures. We have tried to be compre-hensive in our thinking, but we donot presume to have created anexhaustive list of characteristics. Ifthe new type is itself dcvclopmeiital,so too is our collective understand-ing of it. We invite others to add toour list of characteristics and reor-ganize them as inspired and com-pelled. We especially hope to hear

from those practitioners who will hecontributing to the continued evolu-tion of these ideas on the ground.

Part II: Policy ImplicationsBased on both inductive and

deductive approaches, we concludedthat sustainable urban parks differfrom traditional parks in regard tomany details and at least three gen-eral principles. First, SustainableParks attempt to become self-suificienl with regards to materialresotuces. Second, they can play arole in solving larger urban prob-lems outside tbeir boundaries whenthey are integrated with the sur-rounding urban fabric. Third, newaesthetic forms emerge for parksand other urhan landscapes. As wediscuss these principles, we elaborateon their many policy implications,especially those regarding the designand management of city parks, thepractice of landscape architecttire.citizen participation, and ecologicaleducation.

Principle f: Resource Self-sufficiency.The Sustainable Park differs fromother urban park models hy empha-sizing internal self-sufficiency inregard to matei iai resources. Pasturban park models have not beenself-sufficient, requiring insteadlarge amounts of energ), fertilizers,plant material, labor, and waterwhile producing noise, pesticide-laced runoff, wastewater, lawn clip-pings, and garbage—all of which are

disposed off-site at great cost or withnegative impacts. The heavy mainte-nance and sustained governmentfiniding leciuired for most urbanparks has endangered their long-term survival. For example, in NewYork's Central Park, Olmsted soughtto create a natuialistic landscapethat mimickerl nature in aestheticterms but not in its species composi-tion or ecological function. In theLMisuing ccntiuy. (Central Park slowlyfell into a state of disrepair, the vic-tim of declining budgets, increasinguse, and the nattiral lifespan of non-native, non-regenerating landscapes.The planted woodlands were amongthe first landscapes abandoned interms of maintenance and, as aresult, have stiffered from the spreadof invasive species such as Norwaymaple and Japanese knotweed(Cramer 1993, 106). City parks havebeen subject to the vagaries of themunicipal budgeting process andvacillating attitudes ahout the role ofgovernment. Short-term reductionsin funding have often translated intodeferred maintenance, prompting avicious cycle of ahandonmcntwhereby parks fall into a state of di.s-repair and further abandonment hythe public, both in use and funding.

Stistainable Parks employ adiverse array of strategies to redticethe need for resources and toincrease self-sufficiency. These strate-gies are woven into every aspect ofpark design, construction, and man-agement. Sustainable Parks manageto increase their ecological healthin the face of funding cuts andchanging recreational demands. Weidentified recurring strategies forincreasing resource self-stifficiency,including sustainable design, con-struction and maintenance prac-tices, plant choices, composting,water harvesting, public-privatepartnerships, and coinmmiitystewardship.

Sustainable design practicesthat redtice resource use and main-tenance are increasingly employedin Sustainable Parks. A strong exam-ple of the benefits of recycling isCrissy Field (Figure 3). The 230,000cubic yards of soil removed duringconstruction of a tidal marsh wereused to elevate the historic airfield

/ 06 I,a ndscape Journal

M. Bohmd)many exainples of resource seif-siilfkieni.y. (Fhoiogiaph ijy

and new group picnic area instead(»r being dumped off-site or in theBay. The plan lor the restoration of(aissy Field attempted to balancenatural and human history with amodern desire for active recreationand ecological restoration. The proj-ect inchided the restoration ofunique and ecologically valuable saltmarsh and (hnie habitats intermin-j^led with a heavily tised promenade,a board-sailing facility, beachfrontage used for off-leash dog use,and a 2H-acre restored historic air-field to be used for public eventsand active lecreation. The 15.000tons of rubble removed from thebeach were ground atid re-used inlandscape features (Figure 4). Over45 acres of asphalt were removed,crushed, and used beneath pathwaysand parking lots as road base andstructural fill.

StriK tin es btiilt withinStistainable Parks are sited anddesigned to minimize the ecologicalcosts of their cotistrtiction and ongo-

ing use. BtiiUlings are solar-facing.relying on natural lighting and venti-lation systems. They use recycled orless energy-intensive constructionmaterials. One implication of theconcern for the ecological ftmctionof materials is that park departmentswork with materials experts to evalu-ate which materials—metals, post-consimier plastics, bamboo, wood,porous concrete vs. asphalt, fly-crete—have the least long-termenvironmental costs under variouscircumstances. Swimming pools usethe latest non-toxic pm ification sys-tems. Tn practice we found exatiiplesthat emphasize one feature oranother. The Spring Lake ParkVisitor Centei" in Santa Rosa,(Jalifot nia, niinimi/es both con-struction and operating costs(Henderson 1993). The simplepyramidal structure was carefullyinserted into the wooded site, sothat only three trees had to beremoved. The pyramid form waseasy to frame and was angled tomaximize the efficiency of solar pan-els. The structine was partially setinto the earth to minimize its visualimpact and increase energy effi-ciency. The structtire is largelyheated tising the stui and cooledusing simple, natural systems. Onlyon the coldest winter days is a wood-burning stove fired up to take offthe chill.

Sustainable design practiceshave been useful in the restorationof historic Pleasure Grounds, suchas New York's Ontral Park andBrooklyn's Prospect Park (Figme 5).The historic North Woods andRamble in Central Park are slowlybeing converted to self-regeneratingnative woodland while preservingliistoric and recreational values. Forexample, invasive exotic Norwaymaples that were originally plantedare being replaced hy non-invasivehorticultural species. To leducemaintenance and increase habitatvalties, park managers haveadopted an attitude of letting "na-ture do as much of the work as possi-ble" (Cramer 1993, 110). Historicpaved edges around water featuresin C'entral Park such as the TurtlePond have been softened andreplaced with plantings of bog andmarginal wetland species that arenot invasive {Figure 6). Similarstrategies have been employed inProspect Park and other Olmstedparks.

Instittiting these changesreqtiires re-educadng park staffs anddeveloping new maintenance skills.Landscape architect Rolf Sauer(1998) emphasized this while he wasworking on Louisville's landmarkpark system restoration. After 20years of training maintetiance staffto "sweep concrete," they wereinstead trained to restore and stis-tain landscape as a living .system.Additional management changes willbe required in order to recruit scien-tifically trained staff, coordinate vol-unteers, and develop the reportingmechanisms and responsivenessexpected for privately ftuided proj-ects. For example, the Central Park

1' igurc 4. The West Bluff picnic area atCrissy Field was built with earth exca-vated to restore wetlands. (I'hotographhy M. Roland)

Figure 5. This sign identifies natuie as apartner in the management of historicProspect Park. (Photograph byM. Bolaiid)

Cranz and Boland 107

C^onservancy, working with the Cit\'of New York, has developed a zone-gardeiier program in which respon-sibilily for a section of a park andcoordination of volunteers for thatsection is assigned to an individualgardener. This allows for staff andvolunteer training related to the spe-cific requirenients of each landscapetype, whether a restored woodland,lake, meadow, or manicured historicsite.

Sustainable Parks depend onnative, or non-invasive, environ-mentally appropriate plant choices..\lthough many parks have heendesigned in the image of nature,they were rarely designed to pre-serve or restore ecological function.Instead, their designers often usedexotic species to create the desired,naturalistic effect. Some of theseexotic species, like Norway maple,Scotch broom, and water hyacinth,have invaded adjacent natural areas.Mass plantings of regularly discardedanntial exotic plants were used atpoints of interest. Wliere designersdid use native species, their naturalsuccession was arrested at a particu-lar point for aesthetic effect. Byworking against rather than withecological processes, the resources(fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides,and labor) reqtiired to maintaineven naturalistic landscapes aregreater than if native trees andplants were used. (However, we

Figure 7. In non-turf areas at Crissy Field, onlyscrub species were planted. (Photograph by M.

acknowledge that some nativespecies can take considerably moreeffort than a more conventionallandscape to establish, particularly informerly weedy areas or areas adja-cent to degraded sites.)

Sustainable Parks not. only useecologically suitable plants (native,appropriate exotics), but plantingsare done in such a way that second-ary plant succession can proceed.Planting schemes use tirought-resistant plants in dry climates andtise water-loving plants in wet ones.Correspondingly appropriate animallife—lizards and frogs, foi example,whose future might otherwise beendangered—are able to live here.

Figure 6. The "softened" edge of Central Park's Turtle Pondprovides improved wildlife habitat. (Photograph by M. Bolaiul)

native foredime, hack dune .md duneBoland}

The resulting regional variation inthe palette of plant materials is awelcome change from the homoge-neous lot)k of most municipal parksnationwide. Planting decisions madeat Crissy Field have produced a sus-tainable, self-regenerating landscapethat requires establishment irriga-tion and weeding only for the firstfew years and does not reqtiire theapplication of polluting pesticides,herbicides, or fertilizers (Figure 7).With the exception t>f two treespecies, all of the plant species arenative to the Presidio and werepropagated from locally collectedseeds and cuttings.

Flowers still have a place in theSustainable Park. Ihe United Statescotild follow the example ofChinese parks wheie flowers areharvested as medicinal herbs. F-venwhen strictly ornamental, flowersare also home to birds, bees, andinsects. Designers can still dazzlevisitors with native plants if (hey tisethem in special plant combinationsand planting schemes. For example,the senior author remembers as ateenager at the Seattle World's Fairof 19(i2 that onions plantedformally were more distinctive andspecial than a hothouse of exoticorchids.

New attitudes abotit mown turfwere observed in Sustainable Parks.For recreational tises, we did not seesubstitutes f'oi" mown, irrigated ttirf,liut we observed some experiments

lOH Landsiapi' Journal

regarding grass type and mainte-nance. Conventional turf can bereplaced with less resotuce-intensivenative giass species. At (Vissy Field,conventional ttirf grasses cotild notbe used because of the dangei" thatthey might spread into the adjacentrestored tidal marsh. Consequently,planners chose a mix of nativegrasses, the species varying depend-ing on the conditions and expectedlevel of use (Figure 8). Salt tolerantnative rye grass and salt grass wereused lor turf near the shore whereboard sailors bring their salt-coveredboards for rigging. Planners chosenative red fescue and Pacific hairgrass ior the 28-acre historic airfieldand dune-like landforms becausetbey require little irrigation and tol-erate foot traffic. Although mownlike conventional turf, these nativespecies have flourislied undei" harshconditions with less water and nopesticides. The tradeoff is a some-what less uniform ttn f with moreseasonal color variation than a con-ventional lawn.

In Sttstainabic Parks wherelawns were not usetl recreationally,native meadows have replaced con-ventional tnrf. Rolf Saner ofAndropogon calls turf "greenasphalt" because it is mowed .soclosely and uniformly that waterruns off of it—like asphalt. As partof the restoration of the historicLotiisville park system, mown mead-ows and savannas of heterogeneous,indigenous grasses have replacedclosely mowed lawns (Figure 9).Meadows are allowed to grow l-Sfeet high, and even pathways andheavily used fields are mowed to5-7 inches rather than 3-4 inches.Mowing was significantly reduced,thereby saving resources and pro-tecting ecological processes. Todaymowing is used in only two condi-tions: to maintain lierhareons mead-ows (to keep them from eventuallyreverting to woodlands), and inpathways around or through mead-ows. These mowed pathways play animportant role. By defining tlieedges of meadows and making themperceivable as an /H^ra^ion^/land-

Figure 8. Planners chose native red fescue and Pacific hair grass for the 28-acre liistoritairfit'ld because thev require little irrigation and tolerate foot lr;iffi(\ (Photograph byM. Bolaii(l)

scape, tbese pathways allow tisers toappreciate thai the natural strandsof grasses represent a desired effectand not a lack of maintenanceor care.

(Composting is an increasinglyimportant practice because it recy-cles resources in a way that simulta-neously improves the lieahti of thelandscape and lowers the cost ofmaintaining urban parks. For exam-ple. New York's Central Park com-posts its green waste and debris at acomposting facility on Manhattan'sUpper Fast Side, tising its waste toimprove soil quality rather thanpayiug to ha\e it shipped offManhattan Island, (-ompost can begenerated on-site from leaves,pruned branches, and from animalwaste (Figtire 10). San Francisco'sPresidio annually composts 1500cubic yards of green waste andforestry debris, which is used toimprove moisttire retention in thePresidio's sandy soil. The compost isproduced for less than it would costto ptirchase it conmiercially. Sheepand other ruminants could be re-introduced to eliminate mechanicallawn mowing, produce natural fertil-izer, and educate cbildren. (One ofthe aesthetic implications is thatcompost could be elevated to thestatus of an art form, an idea devel-oped ftuther below.) On-site restau-rants should also collect compost.

Sustainable Paiks tieatstormwater and grewater as aes-thetic and ecological resotirces, asjiiod lather than waste to be dis-posed. On-site water managementincludes the use of natural systemsto clean stormwater and grey-water,while also creating habitat forwildlife. Water rnnoff has been aproblem in conventional parksbecause they have a great deal ofasphalt, hard-packed soil, and mownturf. Becatise rainfall cannot pene-trate the groiuid, it runs off intocity sewers and causes erosi(jn.Sustainable design practices such ason-site stormwater retention basinsand permeable asphalt do doubleduty by accommodatiug visitor useand reducing riuiofl. At the DuPontheadqnai ters in the BrandywineValley, the firm AndropogonAssociates installed a porous asphalt

Cranz and BoUind 109

FiguiT U. l u r t ill Louisville's Suiniiiit Firld (abuvcj was ifpiaeed with iialivL* prairie grassto reduce runoff and increase ecological value (below). {Courtesy of AndropogonAssociates)

parking lot for cars that absorbswater on site. By combining thesefimctions. woodland that was to becut to build an on-site stormwaterretention basin was preserved. Withthe money saved by not cutting tlieforest, nature trails were built andthe woodland was restored (Hiss1991).

The 20-acre tidal marsh atCrissy Field was btiilt to restore afragment of the large salt marsh sys-

tem that originally spanned thenorth shore of San Francisco. Inorder to increase groundwater infil-tration and reduce off-site storm-water flows into tbe bay, 70 acres ofaspbalt and hard-packed dirt wererennned (Figure 11). Eventually,the complete restoration of the

Tennessee Hollow watershed willbring three buried streams back intothe open. (In regard to wildlife, themarsh fills a gap in the PacificFlyway; prior to its construction,migrating birds bad no stoppingplaces in San Francisco. The marshrestoration was also used as anopportimity to re-establish a locallylimited native plant community, tbeback dune swale.) Tbe SustainablePark tises water efficiently, so sprin-klers do not waste water throughevaporation by sbooting it into tbeair, but occasionally fountains mightexpress the joyful final stages ofwater ptuification.

Siistainability refers not only totangible resources, but also to socialand cultiu al viability. Public-privatepartnersbips are one kintl of newsocial structure wbereby the commu-nity may directly support urbanparks. Organizations like tbe CentralPark (Conservancy, the Golden CiateNational Parks (>)nservancy, and theYosemite Fund were created in thelast twenty years to compensate forthe steady decrease in the amountof public fuuding allocated to parks.Tbe non-profit Central ParkConservancy was created in 1980to 1 aise private fimds to supple-ment public funding used by theNew York Parks and RecreationDepartment to rebuild and maintainCentral Park. Over the past twodecades, the Conservancy has playedan increasingly large role in thereconstruction of Central Park, bothraising funds and implementingthe restoration of the park. The(xjnservancy has raised nearly $300million to ftind the reconstructionof Central Park and endow ongoingtnaintenance and operation of thepark. The San Francisco-basedGolden Gate National Parks Con-servancy laised over $32 million inprivate philanthropic dollars to fundthe transformation of (Prissy Fieldand proceeded to manage every ele-ment of its implementation, includ-ing planning, design, construe tion,and stewardsliip programs.

(Conununity stewardship pro-grams bring human resources toparks that governmental entitiesare nnwilling or unable to access(Figure 1^). Volunteer programs at

11(1 Landsrupe journal

Figure 10. Compost is a subjerl "ripe" for collaboration betwccii cn\iromnfiital artists and maintenantf trews. (Photograph byM. Boland)

Figure 11. The C rissy Field tidal marshfilters storm water that formerly flowedimtreated iiilo SHTI Francisco Bay.(Photograph by M. iloliind)

the (iolden Gate NationalRecreation Area in San Franciscoannually provide over 100,000 hoursof stipport to the restoration andstewardship of native plant commu-nities and seveial endangeredspecies in the park (Fariell 2001).The restoration ofOnt ra l Park'sNorth Woods started with a < oiimui-nity advisory hoard that cralted avision for the north woods andgtiided the planning process.Voltniteer groups and the educa-tional programs of nearby institu-

tions implemented the vision.Ongoing ctjmmunity-hased steward-ship programs still guide the res-toration and engage the localcoTiimiinity in the maintenance andrejtivenation of the woodlands.Wiiile stich programs clearly rely onhelp from otitside their horders,they are self-stifficieut in the sensethat they rely so little on govern-ment ftmding. This raises a largerisstie ahotit the role of human lahor,whether paid or voltinteered. Strictlyspeaking, an ecologically seif-suffkient park might not requirehuman labor, but a StistainablePark thai is both ecologically self-sufficient and culturally satisfying

Crariz and Boland 111

Figure 12. Presidio Stewardship Program volunteers planting a former U.S. Aitnylandfill. {Photograph by M. Boland)

still requirt-s human care in plantingand maintenance.

Privnple II: An Integrated Part of theLarger Urban System. Insofar as Stis-lainable Parks are conceptualized aspart of the larger metropolis, theycan help resolve urban problemslocated outside park boundaries.Pleasure Grounds like New York'sCentral Park were conceivedas an antidote to urban life, anopporttmity to address the poor airquality, lack of access to sunlight,limited opportunities for exercise,and other problems associated withclose urban quarters. Enstiing parkmodels had equally well-developedsocial agendas and problem-solvingroles for the city as a whole.

The Sustainable Park builds onthis history. We identified severalsocial and environmental urbanproblems that Sustainable Parksliave been designed to address.These problems fall into four broadcategories: intrastructure, reclama-tion, health, and social well-being.This list is not exhaustive, but it doessummarize those strategies and tac-tics we encountered most frequently.

The first of these problems,the integration of tirban infrastruc-ture (waterways and roads) intoparks, is in some ways a very oldidea. Pleasure Grounds often playeda key role in the city's transportationsystem by incorporating parkwaysthat provided relatively unfetteredroutes for movement. Boston'sEmerald Necklace is a network ofroadways and parklands that shapeda significant expansion of the urbanfabric. At the same titiie it was anelaborate stormwater retention sys-tem designed to solve a majordrainage and water quality problemcreated by urbanization. However,the Emerald Necklace is the excep-tion and not the rule; in many olderexamples, the park is only a con-tainer through which the infrastruc-ture system passes. Rarely does thepark landscape itself function as acomponent of the larger infrastruc-ture system.

The Sustainable Park changesthis bv using parklands to treat citywastewater and stormwater. This

strategy' has valuable secondary ben-efits, including the creation ofwildlife habitat as well as recre-ational and scenic settings. We noteddifferent approaches to incorporat-ing wastewater infrastructure intoparks. Some titilize existing ripariansystems for the treatment of urbanwastewater or stormwater. JacksonBottom Park in Hillsboro, Oregon,incorporates an existing riparian sys-tem and tises a system of ponds toretain and treat effluent, stormwater,and other types of urban rimoff(ALSA Merit Award 1992, 75).

At historic Xochimilco Parkotitside of Mexico Gity, work to pro-tect the ancient system of chinampasor floating farms not only protectedan endangered historic landscape,btit it also addressed water qualityconcerns in the area and improvedwildlife habitat. (Additionally, thescheme preserved threatened farm-land by increasing farm profits, mak-ing it more lucrative to farm than tosell the land for development).

In contrast, some theoristshave proposed synthetic ecologicalsystems to address water qtialit>'issues. The example we know thebest is a 1991 proposal for New YorkCity's Riverside South. DonaldTrump proposed this large develop-ment for an abandoned rail yard onManhattan's Upper West Side. Theproject had as its centerpiece a 23-acre park, which a consultant (thesenior author) proposed should beused to address negative environ-mental impacts of the development(Figtire 13). The proposal was toconstruct wetlands to treat bothstormwater that might otherwise bedumped untreated into the HudsonRiver and sewage from 9000 new res-idential units. Ornamental plantingsof water hyacinths and bull rushes inthe park would have created a beau-tiftil setting while quietly removingheavy metals and other toxics ft omthe water. Inside each apartmentbuilding, biologist John Todd's(1984) "living machines" would treatwastewater. These ideas were intro-dnced and discussed by the ptiblicand the Trump organization In1991-1992, but they were ultimatelyrejected as "untested" at such alarge-scale.

712 Landscape fournal

Figure 13. The park was a cenu al component of the Riverside South Devetopmcnl pro-posal, (( loiiriesy of Riverside South Development Corporation)

A second urhan problem thatSustainable Parks tackle is tirbanland reclamation.' After a century ofrapid industrialization and de-indnstrialization, many cities containlarge derelict sites within theirboundaries, including former mili-tary bases, landfills, indtistrial yards,and obs(jlcte transportation systems.The soil at these sites is often con-taminated with heavy metals, leadpaint, petroleum products, pesti-cides, and other toxic materials;otherwise it is tuiconsolidated andunstable. These conditions oftenmake these sites tuisuitable for newconstrtictioti. Considering that theyare often the last tindeveloped siteswithin the urban environment, theyoffer an excellent opportunity fornew parks. ITI this sense, park-making itself becomes a form ofland reclamation.

Several Sustainable Parks ad-dress problems of leclamation inmore specific ways. Mel (Jiin's bio-remediation art project outside ofDenver, Colorado, made art of sci-ence. By using plants that extractheav\' metals from earth, he set anexample for park landscapes. Thedesigneis of both Bixby Park in PaloAlto, California, and Dyer LandfillRestoratioti in Palm Beach Cotttitv,

Florida, used a combination of e cological process atid technology in anattempt to restore former landfillsites. At Bixby Park, landscape archi-tect Cieorge Hargreaves used nativegrasses to clothe a series of sculp-tural landforms (Figure 14). Earthen

dams in swales control erosion; bytrapping water they also createmicro-environments for native plantspecies. Yet fragments of industrialculture along witli nietlutne extrac-tc rs and other infrastructure relatedto the decommissioning of the land-fill remain visihle, left as interpretiveanrl mnemonic devices (Rainey1994). The Dyer Landfill goes a stepfm tiier by re-creating a wetland at aformer landfill. Native cypress. Hveoak, Florida slash pine, and saw pal-mettos wore planted at the same ele-\ations one might hud them innearby nattual landscapes. Accord-ing to landscape architect George(ientile, native vegetation has be-gtiu to reseed itself, and many nativewildlife species (the kite, ibis, rac-coon, armadillo, and alligator) nowuse the site (Hess, 1992).

A third urban problem thatSustainable Parks address is health.The idea of u.sing parks for teachingand maintaining public health isan old one. Medicinal gardenshave been identified with ancientEgyptian, Greek, and Roman sites,and in America, the idea of theurban park as ati a.sset to the overallhealth of communities is deeplyembedded in otir national ctilture.

Figure 14. Bixhy Park landforms are representations of, but not the product ot, iiaiuralprocess. (Photograph hy M. Boland)

C.uiiiz rin/l fiotaiul in

Part of the program for each of theprevious four models iiickideci aneffort to improve the hcaltli ofurban residents.''

What is distinctive about theSustainable Park is that it might beused to improve and maintain physi-cal and psychological health evennn)re directly than has been tradi-tional in the U.S. For example. se\-eral parks in Germany, such as tliel()-hectare health park near Bottrop,have heen built specihcalH' forpatients fiom hospitals in nearbycomnumities. These parks facilitateinpatient and outpatient rehabilita-tion, support conununity self-helpgrotips, and assist in the aftercare ofacutely ill hospital patients. In theUnited States, such specializedgrounds have been associated onlywith hospitals or other medical facil-ities. Physician (and architecturestudent) Scott Prysi proposedintegrating a heahh clinic into ancighboihood Park in SouthBerkeley, claiming ihat this wotiklmake the park more broadly eco-logical than it has ever been.Cranz (1982) anticipated (hat parkprogranuning might eventuallyoffer holistic health classes, forexample, yoga, tai chi, BodyMindC-entering, Alexander Techuiqtie,Feldenkrais, etc.

A fourth problem is lubanalienation, which Sustainable Pai ksaddress by seeking to increase socialwell-being. Many worry that urbanresidents feel alienated from nattneand natural processes—and fromeach other. Contemporary parkadvocates believe that expanded citi-zen involvement in the stewardshipof urban parks and urban farmingcan generate a sense of belongingand communit)' {Franck andSchneekloth 1994, 361-302).Similarly, they claim that expandedawareness of and contact with eco-logical processes in the urban envi-ronment increase one's sense ofconnection to the local and regionalenvironment. Stistainable Parksencotirage reconnection of citizensto each other and to the land byproviding new vehicles for directptiblic participation in the concep-tion, creation, and stewardship ofparks. The design of Strawberry

Creek Park, located in Berkeley,Califoi nia, is based on this idea(Figure 15).

Advocates of the fifth tnodelbelieve that this tise of native plantsand the re-establishment ofCcologi-cal process in the lu ban environ-ment can generate a sense ofregional ideTitity even in densecities (Hough 1990). Conununity-based stewardship programs inurban parks, sticli as the PresidioStewaidship Program at GGNRAand the North Woods in New York'sOntra l Park, prtnide a vehicle forurban residents to rediscover ecolog-ical processes and wild places Iiid-den in the urban environment andto play a role in their preservation.However, we prestune that users fedless connected to the region, thepark, and nature when plant restora-tion schemes like those in ProspectPark must rely on permanent fenc-ing to keep people off of therestored slopes (Taplin 2001).

Service learning programs,middle school and high-school stew-ardship programs, and in-schoolnursery programs affiliated with

13. hi Berkeley, most ciceks havebeen put under ground, veiling a criticalecological process. Strawberry CreekPark wa.s organized around a newlyrevealed streith of Strawberry Creek.(Photograph by M. Boland)

Sustainable Parks may deepen citi-zens' understanding of ecologicalprocesses. The Presidio StewardshipProgram not only engages tbotisand.sof stttdents in ecological restoration,but also edtuates them about eco-logical cycles and pre-Columbianlandscapes in San Francisco neigh-borhoods (Figure 16). As part of theconstruction of Crissy Field, over3000 voltmteers collected seed for,propagated, planted, and weededover 100,000 native plants represent-ing 73 native species (Prince 2001).The staff has reported a demandfor native plantings in nearby resi-dences and schools genei ated bythis program (Fanell 2001). This in-volvement has also created moreresponsible park tisers. C-learly,engaging yotmg people in the stew-ardship of nati\e plantings in parkshas the poti'iuial both to reduceintentional vandalism and toincrease responsible use, therebyredticing imintentional damage aswell. Reducing both t\pes of datiiageis essential to protect ecologicalprocesses in urban environments.

Fducation plays a big role inimproving the quality of life. Stis-tainable Parks edticate by exposingthe ptiblic directly to new ideas andattitudes about nature and theurban landscape. They do this in ahost of ways. At Crissy Field, signageand educational waysides thatexplain nattiral processes at work,environmental cdtication programsthat interpret ecological and ctilttiralsystems, and the Crissy f^enter build-ing itself have all been designed togenerate a greater level of tnider-standing. appreciation, and commit-ment in visitors. Even the benches,pathways, and promenade are on-ented to give visitors a direct experi-ence of the nattiral forces at play.

Some educational strategiesare self-consciously didactic. Forexample. Blueprint Fartu in Laredo,Texas, designed by the Center forMaximtini Potential BuildingSystems, is conceived as an educa-tional landscape where technologyintegrates htiman and nattiral sys-tems into a "metiibolic utiit" (Hess1992). The park includes organicfarmland, sediment ponds to cleanstormwater, cisterns to gather water

114 IM rid \aipe Journal

Figure 16. Presidio volunU't-r moiiiioring a Presidio pilot project testing the survival ofnadve species growing under non-native eucalyptus. (Pholograph by M. Boland)

for use, windmills and other appro-priate teclinolog)' systems to gener-ate power, and structures built fromrecycled oil rigs and other salvagedmaterials.

Other strategies are more pas-sive, operating as object lessons inhow to manage the interlace be-tween human culture and ecologicalprocess. Temporary barrier lencingto protect 'Mother Natme at work'on restoration sites offers a simplelesson. Seasonal maintenance events

can also be educational. For exam-ple, prescribed burns simtiltaneouslycreate more \'ital natural systems andeducate by virtue of their drama. Atthe Orosby Arboretum in sonthernMississippi, prescribed burns havebeen useful both to study the use offire as a management tool and toeducate the public using a combina-

tion of direct action followed byinterprelive exhibits (AndropogonAssociates 2003).

Sustainable Parks also improvequality of life by mitigating conflictsbetween adjacent land uses. Forexample, Fxton Brook Linear Parkin Northampton, England, protectsa stream corridoi" and at the sametime functions as a buffer betweenhigh-density housing and adjacentagriculiural land, deflecting poten-tial conflicis regarding noise, foottraffic, pesticides, and child safety.Native plantings along the 2.5 kmpark have increased the densit)' ofthe btiffer between htnnan uses andhave increased the park's value towildlife, ser\'ing as conduits for themovement of wildlife and the distri-bution of native plant species. Insuch instances, both htjinocentricand ecocentrif ideas about ecologi-cal qualiU' are fulfilled.

In the near ftiture. conuiumity-based urban fai lning effbi ts couldbe instituteci in parks to improvesocial well-being in many differentways. Right now, the San FranciscoL-eague of Urban (iardeners and theSan Francisco Jail Garden Projectteach job skills and fight malnutri-tion, thereby diminishing aspects ofnibaii poverty. Moreover, by creatingvenues for collective neighborhood-hased activity, they build comnui-nity and fight crime. At the EdibleSchool Yard at Martin I.nther KingJr. Higti Scliool in Berkeley, teachersuse gardening as part of the schoolcurricukini. The San FranciscoLeague of Urban Gardeners oper-ates the St. Mary's/Alleniany \<>uthgarden in conjimction with theAllemany public housing project toprovide jobs and Job training foryouth: they run a business thatmakes jelly, salsa, and vinegar, usingproduce grown in the urban farm.In Santa Cruz, the Homeless GardenProject employs and feeds the home-less, coordinating their efforts withsocial service agencies that providesupport to the homeless affiliatedwith their farm (Lawson ^000). Theidea of pulling agricullnral pro-grams into parks proper may be anext step in the development of theSustainable Park.

Cmiiz and lioland

Principlf III: Netu Modes of AestheticExpression. New types of aestheticexpression are emerging in Sustain-able Parks. The form of the parkitself and its relationsliip to the city,its style, and its management prac-dces have moved in a more eco-logical direction, developing anevoluiioiKuy at-stheiic, a new spalialrehilionship to the city, and a newrole for designers. This new typemay serve as a model for otherurban landscapes, private gardens,and tiltimately, the city itself.

Some landscape critics suggestthat truly ecological parks must tran-scend the traditional notion of stylepredicated on a fixed, static imageof the landscape and develop an nio-hUionary aesthetic. Louise Mozingo(1997) has aigued that ecologicallandscapes should incorporate anaesthetic oi' "temporality" that movesbeyond the fixed \ision of the land-scape and incorporates change.Similarly, JusuckKoh (1988) hasadvocated an evolutionary approachto design that offers a "dynamic viewof aesthetics" and a shift in focus"away from the tiaditional orderingof "form' following positivistic aes-thetics toward an ordering of'process"" (185, 186). His aesthedcof "complementarity" lets the natu-ral landscape complement, rather

than hide, htinians and buildings.Both landscape architect Lyie (1994)and landscape architect Thayer(1994) have emphasized that weshould not camouflage technology'.A number of artists and landscapearchitects have created landscapesthat speak ahout ecological process(Figure 17).

Yet process-oriented thingsoften appear messy in our currentculture, so Joan Nassauer (199.5) hasdescribed how designers can providecues that an apparently tintidy land-scape is part of a larger plan. Theiniporliitice of providitig such cuesbecame clear in a recent 2002 com-petition for Railyard Park in SantaFf (where the senior author servedas a juror). The program was explicitin calling for sustainable designs,requiring special atteiuion to waterand drought-resistant native species.Otie of the five short-listed entriesfollowed an evolutionary aesthetic(Figme 18). It did not win in partbecause the jury considered it hardto sell to the public. More deliberatesigns of ititentional care would havetipped the balance in favor of thisscheme.

An evolutionary aesthetic itselfmay have to become accepted instages (jr steps. The first step is asimple change in materials: dioitght-

tolerant, low-tiiaintenance nativespecies; recycled yard waste forsoil amendment; wood chips fromdehris for paths and mulch; recycledplastic Itnnber for benches; low-maintenance, local, or renewablematerials. At the next stage, design-ers manipulate plants and topogra-phy less as static materials aiid moreas landscapes that emerge as thebyproduct of dynamic ecologicalsystems. Taking a cm^ from resto-ration ecology, designers in a fewStistainahle Parks have createddiverse plant communities thatemphasize both the ornatuental andecological value ot plants. This is astep beyond merely replacing orna-mental exotics with native species.This way of managing vegetationallows for" f\<)ltitionary change instructure and species diversity overtime as a result of either anthro-pogenic or biotic factors. CentralPark's Nortli Woods and Crissy Fieldare two park landscapes where thisshift from a focus on species to plantassemhtages has meant emphasizingthe spatial qualities of differentplant coinnutnities and has necessi-tated new approaches to plantingand managing park landscapes(Figme 19). In ! 0()2, park competi-tions for Santii Fe and for Fresh Killson Staten Island have had winning

Figure 17. Alan Sonfist's 'Tiim- l,;iiHiMa|H' rcconstiiicts a linyfragmenl of M:inli:ittan"s prc-c(intact landscape and explores tfieacsthcLic dimensions of secondary plant suc^cession in tlie urbanlandscape. (Photograph by M. Bolaiid)

Figure 18. For Riiilyard Park, Ruddick Associates proposed aseries (»f swales to slow water down, crt-ating niicro-environinentsin which plant sticcessioii would occur. (Courtesy of RuddickAssociates)

116 L(uiils((ipe Journal

Figiiif 19. Thf lorm givtTs in lliis Crissy Field Lindscapf are fcologkal variablL-s likewind and depth lo grtmnd water. (Photograph by M. Boland)

and short-listed entries thai empha-size evolutionary processes in iheirplanling sclienies. The recentness ofsuch examples that demonstratehow an authentic evolutionary aes-thetic might he integrated intourhan parks suggests that the profes-sion of landscape architecture hasjust barely hegun this particular aes-thetic exploration.

hi contrast, sonic artists at-tempt to explore the idea of ecologyin parks in primarily formalisticterms. The Village of Yorkville Parkin Toronto, (-anada. is a downtownplaza organized into 17 sections,each containing plants from a differ-ent local plant conimtmity. By identi-fying and ceiehrating local plantcommunities and local ecology', thispark brings an awareness of theregional landscape into downtownToronto. Yet these are disembodiedfragments of plaul conmumitieswithout reierenee to the underlyinggeoniorphological, climatological,and siiccessional processes that cre-ated them in the firsi place. Thisdesign also gives the false impressionthat these plant commitnities can beeasily replicated anywhere, can livein close proximity to each otlier,and are nnchanging. Similarly,Hargreaves Associates landfortnsalong the Guadeloupe RiverParkway, at Bixby Park and CrissyField—although inspired by themovement of water, wind, and soil indynamic natural .systems—are notcreated as the byproduct of thosesystems, nor are they dynamic in anyecological sense. Instead they are

very precise, liighly controlled repre-sentations or symhols of ecologicalprocess. Although perhaps imperfectmodels for how latidscapes mightincorporate ecological process, theseevocative landscapes contain the firststirrings of an ecological (if not evo-lutionary) aesthetic and suggest thatart can play a role in educating thepublic about ecological process inthe tuban environment. Moreover,formal designs have the potential toserve ecological purposes, Formalgardens may be better than pastoralEnglish gardens for some animaland plant life because humansare restricted to fixed pathways{Figure 20). Birds, for example cannest and reprttduce in the safety ofhedges. Formally speaking, theSustainahle Park is stylistically open;it can be either naturalisdc or for-malistic in appearance.

Jtist as the Sustainable Parkmodel stiggests variety among theparks themselves, the model alsostiggests variety in the spatial rela-tionship to the city between the parkand the stirrounding urhan fabric.Instead of being conceived as anantidote set in contrast to adjacenttuban life, the Sustainable Parkbtiitds on the ideolog)' of the OpenSpace System by attempting tointegrate open space into the citv.However, it goes beyond the OpenSpace System by not only preserving,hnt also restoring open space forhtiman \'iewing- and activity; more-over, its ecological impnise goesdeeper than Open Space ideologybecause it serves other species in thetnban environment. Creating anunderpass for wildlife, for example,is a recent proposal to join two tractsof land for a new park in BaldwinMilLs, Los Angeles.

Eventnally, this emphasis onsystem could have a centripetaleffect on the form and distribtitionof parks, hideed. the very idea ofthe park as a discrete locus of naturein tfie city may become obsolete intruly sustainable tirban settlements.Instead of overall shapes predicatedon aesthetic consideration or prop-erty ownership that has given rise torectilinear or chunky parks, the con-figtirations of Sustainable Parks willvary as an expiession of the role thatthe land, water, air, vegetation, andanimals—including humans—playin the local ecological system.

Because Sustainable Parksinvolve the community hroadly and

Figure 20. Birds can nest and reproduce in the safety of hedgesin formal landscapes like this at Paic de Sceaiix. (Phoiograph byM. Boland)

Cranz and Boland 117

in mjinad ways, they are no longerthe specialized domain of expertsand managers. Commimit\ involve-ment necessarily brings a diffeient setof form-giving forces to bear on parkde.sign and management, suggestingthat the idea (jf a dcveNjpmental orevolutionary aesthetic has enormoussocial application (Figtire 21). Anevolutionary aesthetic necessarilyshifts the purpose of desigti and therole of the designer from artisl-visionary to a incdinm throngbwhich the forces of nature and soci-ety express themselves. If designerssee themselves as weaving new, tmex-pected developments into a pattern,even shitting the pattern itself, tlieywould embrace a role that has beenlikened to jazz and other improvisa-tional performance arts. The park,gardening, and landscape profes-sions may attract tht)se who are grati-fied by working with laypeople andother experts over time to createtjrban harmonies on the spot.

The National AIDS MemorialGro\e in San Francisco owes its exis-tence and its form to this new rolefor designers and evolutionary aes-thetic. A group of concerned citi-zens who had lost many friends toAIDS and at the same time werekeenly concerned about the sorrystate of parks in San Francisco con-tfived of ihe project. For them thedrove was both the restoration (if aderelict portion of Golden GatePark and a tribute to lost friends andloved ones. Members of the commu-nity, instead of municipal employees,have coordinatecJ all aspects of tbedesign and construction. The designwas evoltitionary, tinfolding slowlyover seven years. The overall appear-ance and indi\ idtial elements of theGrove are not the product ot a sin-gle designer's vision. Rather, theGrove has evolved fi om the interac-tion of C{jmrnunity and site overtime (Figure 22). Simultaneously,the Grove has brought AIDS educa-tion and awareness to the largercommnnity in a non-threateningway. This project fxeniplifies thedevflopmental and emergent natureof the Sustainable Park.

Wliere to lifgiii ? We encourage parkdepartments everywhere to realize

Figure 21. Volunteers played a central role in defining the scope and design of theNational AIDS Memorial (irove. (Photograph by M. Boland)

Figure 22. Stones in the dry stream, "bowls" carved in houlders and inscriptions encour-age direct manipulation of the National AIDS Memorial Cirove landscape hy visitors.(Photograph by M. Boland)

these principles for SustainablePark design. With broad policyimpleiTU-ntiition, this new standardwill move from the avant-garde andcutting edge to best practice. Buteven as it becomes more broadlydisseminated, this new model willnot produce uniformity because in

each bioregion, the standards will beexpressed in ecologically distinctiveways. Over time, the model can beevaluated in eacb bioregion andcontinuously elaborated and refinedthrotigh practice on the grojind.

Since c"colog\' and sustainabilityare complex, people often ask whereto begin and bow to intervene.We recommend starting with thebiggest, most expensive, most trou-blesome problem as tbe starting

118 I Mndsrape Journal

point. In many parks today, mainte-nance is the biggest probU-mbecause it is the higgest expense.Therefore, we first recommendimproving maintenance practices,rethinking them radically. Thismeans focusing on resource self-sufficiency and developing a newaesthetic from that focus. Does thispriority mean that solving largeriirhan problems may have to wait?Not if we consider that modeling atiew aesthetic that derives from self-stifficiency would also solve prob-lems for other urban landscapes. Bygetthig started, eventually tlie entheurban system will be transformed forthe better.

Appendix A: Parks by Park Type(secondary rankings shown inparentheses)

Pleasure Ground {I)Almada Park. Almada, PortugalAndie Citroen, Paris, France {I\')Astoria Park Extension, Queens, NYBattersea Park, London, EnglandBay Adelaide Park, Toronto. (lABiddy Mason Park. Los Angeles, ( ABryant Park. New York, NY (rVOC^entral Park, Sha Tin, Hong Kong,

China (V)Chase Palm Park, Santa Barbara. CADelamt)nt Country Park. Strangford

Lough, United Kingdom (IV)Fair Park, Dallas, TXForest Hill Paik, Cleveland, OH (III)Cllehe Park, Canberra, Australia(ireat Park, Louisville, KY (IV)Henry Moore Sculpture Garden,

Kansas (-it>; MOHudson River Park, New York, NYLechmere C anal Park, East

Cambridge, MAMile End Park, London, EnglandNorth Point Park, Boston. MA (IV)Olympia Fields, Olympia Fields, ILPatriots Square, Phoenix, AZRoyal Botanic Garden, Kew.

London, England (IV)Socrates Sculpture Park, Queens, N^Washingt<ni Market Park, New York,

NY

Reform Park (If)Allegheny Riverfront, Pittsbtirgh, PALandscaftslehipark, Erttiit, Germany

(IV)Princess of Wales Memorial Park,

United Kingdom

Facility (III)Academy Courts, The Bronx, NYAlbert Park, Melbourne, AustraliaBurgess Park, London, England (IV)Gin Drinkers Bay Park, Hong Kong,

(^hinaLake Hico Park. Jackson, MlLastenlehto Park, Helsinki, EinlandMerrylands Park, Sydney, AustialiaMidtown Park, Duluth, MNPaloheinan Hippu Park. Helsinki.

EinlandPearl Street Park, New York, NYRichard Oastler Park, Leeds,

EnglandSouthwest Corridor Park, Boston,

MA

Open Space System (fV)24th Street Park, Virginia Beach, VAAll Peoples Trail, Shaker Height,

OHBicentennial Plaza, San Jose, CABotithorpe Park, Norwich, EnglandBL'GA, Magdebtug, GermanyCambridge Center (iarage Roof

Ciarden, Cambridge, MACandlestick Point Park, San

Erancisco, CA(Charleston Waterfront Park,

Charleston, SCChildren's Park, San Diego, CACleveland Meadows, Cleveland,

OHColumbia LInion Marketplace,

Brooklyn, NYCourthouse Square, Toronto,

(CanadaDocklands, London, EnglandDunhari Close Garden, Edinburgh,

ScotlandEcton Brook Linear Park, England

(V)Elcho Gardens, Caltoi), ScotlandEirst Interstate Plaza, Dallas, TxFoothills Community Park, Boidder,

COFreeway Park, Seattle, WACiene Cottlon Beach Park, Renton,

WAGore Park, San Jose, CA

Haas, Sherover, & TrotnerPromenades, Jerusalem

Holyoke Heritage Park, Holyoke,MA

Imperial Beacb Pier Plaza, ImperialBeach, CA

Japanese-American Plaza, Portland,OR

Jose Marti Riverfront Park, Miami,FL

Lafayette Park, Oakland, GALandesgartenschau, Lunen,

GertnanyLaumeier Sculpture Park, St. Louis,

MOLiverpool Garden, Liverpool,

EnglandLok Fu Park, Hong Kong, Chinal,os Angeles Rivei Park, Los Angeles,

CALouisville Waterfront Park,

Louisville, KYMartin Luther Kingjr. Promenade,

San Diego, CAMemorial to the 56 Signers of the

Declaration of Independence,Washington, DC

New Kirkgate. Edinburgh, ScodandNordsternpark, Cielsenkirchen.

GermanyPost Office Square, Boston, MAPromenade Plantee, Paris, EranceP^-rmont Point Park, Sydney,

AustraliaRisley Moss, Warrington, England

(V)River Promenade, Indianapolis, INRiverfront Plaza, Hartford, CTRoyal Park, Melbourne, Atistralia

(V)S. Graham Brown Park, St. Mathews,

KYSan Antonio River Walk, San

Antonio, TXSkyline Park, Denver, GOSouth (Cove, Battery Park Cit\, New

York, NYSouth Waterfront Park, Hoboken,NJ

Thames Barrier Park, London,England

The Belvedere, New York, NYTiffany Plaza, The Bronx, NYTom McCall Park, Portland, ORVOA Park, West Chester, OHWestlake Park, Seattle, WAWestlands Park, Greenwood Village,

COWolden Berg Riverfront Park, New

Orleans, LA

C^rnnz and Boland 119

Sustainable Park (V)Alex Wilson Garden, Toronto, CABaldwin Hills Park, Los Angeles, C'VBlueprint Farm, Laredo, TXByxbee Park, Palo Alto, CACherokee, Iroquois Sc Shawnee

Parks, Louisville, KYDenver Botanic Garden, Denver, CODyer Landfill, Palm Beach County,

FLFishti ap Creek Park, Abbotsford,

CanadaFreedom Parkway, Atlanta, GAFreshkills Landtiil Park, Statcn

Island, NYGesiindheitspark, Biittrop, GermanyGuadeUipe Riverfront Park, San

Jose. CAHorseshoe Park, Avnora, (-OJackson Bottom, Hillsboro, Oregon

(IV)Landscaftspark Duisbiirg-Nord,

(iermanyLiberty State Park, Ellis Island, NYLong Nose Point Park, Sydney,

AustraliaNorth York Moors Park, FnglandNorthside Park. Denver, COOld School Forest Preserve,

Libert)'ville, ILPresidio of San Francisco, San

Francisco, (L\River Torreus Linear Park, Adelaide,

AustraliaRoss Landing Public Plaza,

Cbattanooga, TN (I\0Samuel Love Greenway. Englewood,c:o

St, Lotiis Forest Park Restoration, St.Louis, MO

Stadtpark West, Bochuni. GermanyStrawberry Creek Park. Berkeley, CAVillage of YorkNille Park, Toronto,

CanadaWest Point Park, Seatde, WA

AcknowledgmentsA major porlion of this study was funded by agram from The Graham Foundation forAdvanced Study iii Architeclure.

Rosa Lane, Lothar Maier, Jay Rambo, NicolaProbst, Scott Prysi, and Steve Middleton—suidenis m [w«» graduate seminars held byDr. (iaien Cranz in the Departineni ofAichiiecHirc at ihe L'niversity nf Calilmnia atlierkclev in ihe fall of 1997 and spring ot1998. Addiiionalh, graduate sUideiU Rcnui")esi worked wiih llr. Crau/ in ihc summer of2()()2 to conduc t ihe analysis for the years

2. The most widcly-k(u)wn precedcnl for the(ransf()ruialiiiii of industrial land into park-land is Rich Haag's Gasworks Park in Seattle,bui il exemplifies Open Space ideolo^' morethan Sustainable ideology, Tbis project trans-formed a dangeious. derelict indtisiriai land-scape inio a socially ti,seltil park, emphasizingt!ie Opeti Space idea that re(ieation cotild beanuvhere. It did not claim ecological restora-tion, nor was it einirely successful as a recla-maliun project in that pottions of the parkwere closed dtie to residual high levels ofchemical contamination.?i. Pleastire Grounds were conceived as the"lungs of ihe city," facihtaiing the mo\eii)entan<l piirifit aiion of dirty uibaii air. TheReform t-lra iniroducer! public bathing via theenticement of sivintining as a public healthmeastire. Reform parks provided opporiimi-ties for active recreatioTi and exercise toensure the health of urban dwellers, particu-larly children, while Reireaiinn Era ein]>ha-si/ed exertise for tlie entire family. OpenSpa<e Systems are retniniscetil of PleastireGrouuds in their devotion to providing freshair into the heart of cities, btU their plannersshowed more inteiest in mental and socialheallli. They emphasized re-cieation. balance,and "keeping C(HII.' Tbe extensive open spacesysiein developed in post-war Stuttgart is aliteial example of this, tising convection enr-rents to britig cool air from surrotnidingridges down into the boi. dense core o( cen-tral Stuttgart (Cran/ 1982. Spirn 1984).

liefeiences.'\ndropogon Associates. Ltd, 2003. I'roino

tional matetials. Philadelpliia:Andropogoii Associates, Ltd.

ASLA Merit Award. 1992. LamlsmpeArrhUerliire Magazine \*i'l(\\): !'•>.

Cramer, Marianne. 1993, Urban renewal:Restoring the vision of Olmsted andVaux in (Centra! Park's w'oodlands.lii'sUtralirin and Management Noles 11 (2):106-1Ifi.

Gran/, Cialen, 1982, The Politics oj Park Design:A History ofVrlian Parks in Amnim.(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Earrell. Sharon. 2001. Personal communica-lion with plant ecologist at the GoldenGale National Recreation .\iea(GGNRAj..-^ August,

1. Members nf ihe research team wereMichael Boland, Erika (^onkling. Chris

Kranck. k;uen, and Lynda Schncekloth. 1994.(hdcrinji Space: Types in Architfriuif nndDrsi^. New York: Van NostrandReinhi>l<l.

Guy, Simon, and (iiaham Farmer, 2000,G(;nlesled constrtictions: The com-peting logics of green buildingsand ethics, hi t'.lhirs and Ihe BuiltErwirinimi-nt. edited by Warwick Fox.London: Ri)ntledge.

Hetideisoii, Justin. 199'V Pyramids of the stni,Aniulertine ({\): 82-8.^^.

Hess. Allan, 1992, Technology exposed. Lnnd-srape Aiihilrr/iirr Magazine 82(,')): !'8—48.

Hiss, Tony. 1991 (inardians of the gieen.Cimnliwide (Spriiig): 41-4;i

Hough. Michael, 1990, Oul nf Place: RfsfiriiiigJdenlily In the Reuioiuil Landscape. NewHaven: Yale L'niversiiy Press.

Johnson, joiv. 1996, Updating Oltnsted,Landscape Aichilfcliirr Magazine 8(i(3):80-98.

Roll, Jusuck, 1988, /\n ecological aesthetic.Landscape Journal 1 d): 177-I9L

Liiwson. Laura. 2000. The cotntnutiity-gardenmovement, I97()s to pre.sent, PliDDi.ssertiUion. Oepartmeiii of Lands(apeAI•chitec^tu•e, University' of California,Berkeley.

[.yie.j. T. 1991. /iegrncralii'i'De.^ign for Siif>-laiitiible Dereliijimml. \ ew York: Wiley.

Mi)ses. Robert. 1940. Six Years nfPark Progress.New York Giu: Department of Parks,

Moxingo, Louise, 1997 The aesthetics of eco-logical design: Seeing scietice ascuittue. LandstapcJuurnal 16(2): 4<)-.'i9.

Nassauer, Joan. 199."!, Messy eci>svstems, or-derly frames. Landscape Journal 14(2):i6l-17O.

Prince, Garol 2001, Personal communicationat Golden Gate National Parks (Con-servancy, 3 Match.

Rainey, Rtiben. 1994. Environmental ethicsand park design: A case study ofBixby Park. Journal of Garden History14 (3): 171-178.

Sauei. Rolf, 1996, Master plan for renewingLouisville Kentucky's (ilni.sted parksand parkways: A guide lo sustain-alile lan<lscape management. I-tirum13(1): 04-75.

Spirn, .'Vnn. 1984, The Granite Cardm: Vrbni)Nature and Human Design. New Vnrk:liasic iionks.

Tapliii. Dana, 2001. Art, nature, and people:Landscape values of an urban park.Ph.D. Dissertation. KnvironmentalPsychology, C:ity L'niversity ofNew Yolk.

Tha\er, R. C;ia\: 1994. World. Greeri Heart:Teclinology, Sature nnd the SustainahleI.nndsciipe. New York: Wiley.

rhotnpson. Ian, 2000. The ethics of siistain-ability. hi Landscape and Su.stainahiiily,edited by John Betison and MaggieRoe, London and New York: SponPress.

Todd, Nancy, andjohn Todd. 1984, From hco-Cilies to Livitig Maihines: Priniiples njLcologicat Design Berkeley: NorthAtlantic Books.

120 Landscape jou mat