This is part 4/6 in a series overviewing The Normal Requirements of American Towns and Cities in Respect to Public Open Spaces, an article written by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. and John Nolen that appeared in Charities and the Commons journal of social work in 1906.

Boston’s Public Garden is a wonderful neighborhood park enjoyed by people from across the city.

Under this heading may be included grounds of from 10 to 100 or even 200 acres in area. Except in extent such parks are not essentially different in the purpose they serve and the character of their design from city squares and gardens. But this difference in extent affords an opportunity for a degree of breadth and freedom that is unobtainable in the smaller grounds.

Hundreds of acres seems rather large for a “small or neighborhood” park.  Oklahoma City’s new “Central Park” will only be around 30 acres, so it would fall into this class in terms of size, but will likely include programming that serves a much broader audience than would be normal.

On the other hand the seclusion from the city and the broad and beautiful natural scenery that characterize the larger “rural” parks can not here be had.  Yet small passages of interesting and agreeable scenery are often possible. This scenery can seldom be natural in appearance but it can often be quite beautiful, a certain elaboration, elegance and even magnificence taking the place of the more quiet and restful simplicity of the large park in a way that appeals yery obviously to many people. And there is, therefore, more or less tendency to develop large parks in the same direction. It is unfortunate that it should be so, for these ends can be attained almost as well upon small parks as upon large, and therefore it is clearly a mistake to treat a large park in this style. It is because more cities have small parks of this elaborate and what might be called gardenesque character than have large and simple rural parks that many people have a perverted conception of what constitutes a park.

Okay, so small parks are more formal and programmed, while large parks do not have to be so programmed.  Rather wordy, but apparently the point was important in the park design and planning world of the early 1900s.  And it is a point well taken: it is difficult to create a pastoral experience in a small park that is of any use.  You can’t hide the fact that you are still in the city.  Likewise, it is all but impossible to formally program every inch of a large park, which is more suited to serving as an escape from the city.

These small parks are frequently used for the display of interesting and showy flowering shrubs and trees and make a feature of fountains, statues and other sculpture. In moderation such objects, together with terraces and other architectural work, are entirely appropriate and desirable in parks of this class and add much to the effect of elegance and richness, for the enjoyment is closely related to that offered by architecture and decorative design and other pleasures forming a part of daily city life.

The neighborhood park is thus one that provides a place for contemplation, memorialization, the appreciation of beauty, etc; but remains connected to the urban fabric that it serves.  The park may be a garden, such as Boston’s Public Garden.  Or, contain a mixture of programming that includes some elements of a playground, such as Oklahoma City’s Memorial Park on the corner of 36th and Western:

This is one category in which Oklahoma City seems to grade fairly well – at least in the close in parts of the city developed prior to WWII.  There are actually a number of great neighborhood parks and even more that have all of the potential and just need a little TLC.

This just in…Oklahoma City has been ranked the #2 Fattest city in America by Men’s Fitness.  That means amidst all of the dieting we have been doing, we have still managed to slide six spots in the rankings and are just a few burgers away from becoming #1.  A couple of the magazine’s comments that hit closest to home:

Basketball courts are practically nonexistent here, among the fewest per capita in our survey. There’s just one court here for every 12,162 residents; the national average is one court per 6,909 people.

Even recreational walking – about the easiest fitness activity anywhere – can’t attract participants in Oklahoma City, where people are 14 percent less likely than average to go for a walk, the 4th lowest rate of any city in our survey.

Hmm…are planning and public health related?  It appears so.  This does remind me that I need to get back to finishing the series on parks and public-space.  But until then, here is more info on the rankings…

OKLAHOMA CITY’S FITNESS REPORT CARD

• Fitness Centers & Sport Stores: C+
• Nutrition: F
• Sports Participation: C+
• TV Viewing: F+
• Overweight/Sedentary: F
• Junk Food: C-
• Air Quality: B-
• Geography: F+
• Commute: A
• Parks & Open Space: F+
• City Rec Facilities: D-
• Access to Healthcare: A-
• Motivation: F+
• Mayor & City Initiatives: C-
• State Obesity Initiatives: D+

They add:

Oklahoma City lost points in our Motivation category for poor participation rates in running, biking and walking despite high air quality.

Ouch Charlie! That hurts! And a F+ in parks and open space!  That really hurts and its still hurting.

ALL THE FATTEST CITIES

So who was number one?  Miami, yeh, who would have thought.  We are fitter than Miami!  Hooray, this is great news! I mean Miami has the sun, the ocean, and salsa music…and we still dominated them.  But other than that, all of the news for OKC is pretty dismal.  Here is the complete list of fattest cities:

1. Miami, FL
2. Oklahoma City, OK
3. San Antonio, TX
4. Las Vegas, NV
5. New York, NY
6. Houston, TX
7. El Paso, TX
8. Jacksonville, FL
9. Charlotte, NC
10. Louisville-Jefferson, KY
11. Memphis, TN
12. Detroit, MI
13. Chicago, IL
14. Dallas-Fort Worth, TX
15. San Jose, CA
16. Tulsa, OK
17. Baltimore, MD
18. Columbus, OH
19. Raleigh, NC
20. Philadelphia, PA
21. L.A.-Long Beach, CA
22. Phoenix-Mesa, AZ
23. Indianapolis, IN
24. San Diego, CA
25. Kansas City, MO

Obviously, Dallas and Houston are expected.  Also interesting to see Charlotte and Indianapolis, two cities we seem to want to emulate.  But maybe it has something to do with being in this part of the country…?

Perhaps.  It does seem to have some correlation, but that doesn’t mean we can’t overcome it.

AMERICA’S FITTEST CITIES

1. Salt Lake City, UT
2. Colorado Springs, CO
3. Minneapolis, MN
4. Denver, CO
5. Albuquerque, NM
6. Portland, OR
7. Honolulu, HI
8. Seattle, WA
9. Omaha, NE
10. Virginia Beach, VA
11. Milwaukee, WI
12. San Francisco, CA
13. Tucson, AZ
14. Boston, MA
15. Cleveland, OH
16. St. Louis, MO
17. Austin, TX
18. Washington, DC
19. Sacramento, CA
20. Oakland, CA
21. Atlanta, GA
22. Fresno, CA
23. Tampa, FL
24. Nashville-Davidson, TN
25. Pittsburgh, PA

Wait, why is Omaha in the top ten?  Surely we can be as fit as the people in Omaha.  I mean, we beat them in football.  Seriously though, there seems overall to be a very strong correlation between the type of urban form a city has and the fitness of its people.  Obviously there are a few anomalies that give us pause – like why is NYC on the fattest and Atlanta on the fittest – but there are a host of other factors that likely account for these discrepancies.  Variables such as climate, geography, age of population, ethnicity, and policy might all impact the fitness of a city.

Some cities are regulating eateries to help citizens make more informed, healthier eating decisions (click to enlarge).

Unfortunately, I don’t see anywhere that we got bonus points for our city-wide diet campaign, apparently the people conducting the test don’t know the inherent health benefits of Taco Bell’s fresco crunchy tacos!  There seems to be a higher priority placed on policies that affect measurable change.  So give credit to NYC for helping consumers make more informed eating decisions and for using its street infrastructure to encourage health and activity.  And to Boston for its city-wide ban on trans fat. And to Portland for their focus on providing first-class bike lane infrastructure.

As for OKC, we are talking the talk, but we are simply not walking anywhere.

–

For more details on the rankings, click here.

This is part 3/6 in a series overviewing The Normal Requirements of American Towns and Cities in Respect to Public Open Spaces, an article written by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. and John Nolen that appeared in Charities and the Commons journal of social work in 1906.

III. PLAYGROUNDS

In Olmsted and Nolen’s third category of open space they stress the importance of playgrounds as part of the open space network and describe how different types of playgrounds are required to serve different age groups of users.

Small children

An Oklahoma City “tot-lot” operated by the Parks and Recreation Department in The Greens neighborhood

Whether in connection with school grounds or elsewhere, there should be in each neighborhood, a space not open to the hurly burly of the larger children. where mothers may take little tots, mostly under the school age, to get quiet, out-of-door pleasure and exercise.

Experts recommend that these small playgrounds – or “tot-lots” as they are commonly called – should be available within 800 feet of every home.  In Oklahoma City a number of tot-lots of this size are incorporated into the development of subdivisions and also you will find plenty of back yards with enough area and play equipment to qualify as a suitable tot-lot.  Still, in order to meet this guideline, the city would need thousands of new tot-lots spread through the city’s neighborhoods.


School-aged children

But perhaps the most important playgrounds are for the children of the school age and these can best be arranged and used in connection with the schools.

The purpose…is to give opportunity for exercise and active play near the children’s homes and preferably next to the school, so that it can be used during the recesses as well as after hours.

This seems to be the most typical way in which we think of playgrounds.  The equipment has advanced some over the years, going from a swingset and monkey bars to more elaborate play systems. Of Oklahoma City’s 114 public parks, listed on the Parks and Recreation Department’s website, 97 or approximately 85% have play equipment for school-aged children.   In Oklahoma City they are usually part of the programming offered at a larger neighborhood park, and as mentioned in the article can be found in on the site of a local school.  Unfortunately, newer schools tend to be on larger sites and less accessible to neighbor kids – this is just wasteful and unnecessary development.


Youths and young adults

Grounds of this class should include ball fields, running tracks, places for jumping, vaulting, throwing the hammer and quoits, bowling and the like, and convenient accommodations for bathing and dressing.

Unfortunately many of these sports require considerable area in proportion to the numbers engaged in them and for these the grounds must generally be at a greater distance from the people’s homes than is reasonable for the other playgrounds.

Obviously, the sports have changed some. I don’t many people throwing quoits these days (but I love washers and would like to see some places to play). Ballfields can be found throughout the city, though the majority are baseball fields which are often nothing more than a backstop.  There seems to be a real shortage of public soccer fields – only 15 OKC parks have soccer fields according to the OKC Parks Dept.

And I know that it is really hard to find a public park with a good pick-up basketball game; at least in the north inner-city area.  A couple of years ago I searched in vain for a free place to play, finding that all the public gyms were reserved for youth (which is great for them, but didn’t help me) and that there weren’t many good outdoor courts with lights to be found.  Eventually I ended up spending some money to join the OU Health Sciences Center gym which has great pickup games, but was pretty pricey if you are only using it for basketball.  I have to add, growing up around 50th and Portland I played year after year in a league at the Satellite gym founded by the late Carroll Cornett – Mayor Cornett’s father.  I have many fond memories of playing basketball there and really hope we can make sure kids in every part of the city have a place to be active through the winter.  So my thanks to Mr. Cornett for making this a part of my childhood.

Again, the trends seems to make these facilities more and more segregated from other uses in the city with large specialized facilities.  For instance, instead of creating a plan that would distribute baseball and softball facilities throughout the city – providing a local place to play that is quickly accessible – we have allowed them to be clustered into large facilities like Dolese, Boomtown, Wheeler Park, etc, which almost always require a car to access.

There are some positive trends as well, like the development of parks that support untraditional, yet popular sports – like the Matt Hoffman Skate Park (pictured above). Or the addition of frisbee golf courses within a few existing parks.  Also, the Parks Department has begun adding spray parks and aquatic centers to provide great fun during the hot summers.


Conclusions

On the whole I think this is one category of open space in which Oklahoma City is doing a pretty good job.  Like many other cities that struggle with sprawl, we could do a better job of distributing resources and developing in a manner that allows for facilities to be shared.  School campuses should definitely be more integrated into our playground planning efforts.

This is part 2/6 in a series overviewing The Normal Requirements of American Towns and Cities in Respect to Public Open Spaces, an article written by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. and John Nolen that appeared in Charities and the Commons journal of social work in 1906.

II. CITY SQUARES, COMMONS AND PUBLIC GARDENS

Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon is a great example of an urban city square.

An opinion prevails very generally that a city can not have too many “squares” or “breathing places”

On account of the almost constant passing through such squares the best arrangement is to provide for reasonably direct and convenient paths along the lines most used. Where this is not done many of those who use the square are likely to be so irritated by the indirectness as to miss much of the pleasure they might otherwise receive.

Shade trees, either as a complete grove or in rows along the paths or grouped in some more complex plan, are almost essential features of such squares.

City Squares are certainly prevalent in many older cities, though they seem to be noticeably absent in Oklahoma City; especially downtown.

The properties adjacent to Bicentennial Park have not attracted the development necessary to integrate this open space into the urban fabric of Oklahoma City.

There are a few that I can think of, most notably Bicentennial Park (or Civic Center Park) which is mostly underutilized, but has found footing as the site of the Downtown in December ice-skating rink. Still, its proximity to the county jail has stymied development in the area and prevented it from being integrated into the broader fabric of downtown. Also, the Myriad Gardens would qualify as a public garden, but the flawed design and poorly related adjacent uses have to this point prevented it from being a effectively utilized by the public. This may all change with the completion of Devon Tower and more development to the south of the park as Core to Shore begins to be developed out.

The Core to Shore plan will also contribute to the urban open space with the addition of a downtown park.  This will provide a much needed “central park”, but the city still needs a truly urban open space, such as that provided to Portland by Pioneer Square, which is referred to as the “City’s Living Room”.  In the end, even if all of the plans for Core to Shore are fully realized, Oklahoma City will continue to lack quality urban open spaces – like Pioneer Square – that are effectively integrated into the fabric of the city.

I recently came across an article written by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. and John Nolen that breaks down the different types of public spaces that are required of large cities into six categories. The article entitled The Normal Requirements of American Towns and Cities in Respect to Public Open Spaces was originally printed in 1906 in the Charities and the Commons journal of social work, and provides an interesting – though sometimes dated – overview of what is required of an effective urban park system. I figured it might be interesting to overview the categories and attempt to apply the framework to Oklahoma City.  We’ll start with the first category today, and I will try to knock out the rest in subsequent days.

I. STREETS, BOULEVARDS AND PARKWAYS

The first category of public space has to due exclusively with transportation infrastructure and how it can be effectively designed and utilized as park and/or open space.

Streets

Regular sidewalks and consistent street tree coverage turn Heritage Hills’ streets into great open spaces.

From the article:

All communities, no matter what their size may be, need to regard the plan, character and appearance of their streets.

Streets are without a doubt the most ubiquitous of open spaces and yet their quality as such is often quite poor. The number of streets in Oklahoma City that you would enjoy simply for the quality of the open space alone are few and far between. Older neighborhoods with good sidewalks and consistent street trees – like those found in Heritage Hills – provide some hope that OKC’s streets can do more to enhance our quality of life as an open space, not simply a route of transportation. However, on the whole, the lack of street trees and little attention paid to the quality of space, make Oklahoma City’s streets substandard, especially downtown where they have opportunity to be most utilized as pedestrian spaces.


Boulevards

Paris’s Champs Élysées is the world’s most famous boulevard.

Boulevards are usually arranged formally with rows of shade trees and parallel ways for those on foot and on wheels.

Beyond that which standard streets provide, boulevards allow for a more substantial contribution to a city’s open space. The authors point out that boulevards should be arranged formally and have paths for BOTH pedestrians and cars – such as Paris’s Champs Élysées (pictured above).

Classen Boulevard in Oklahoma City lacks the formality, trees, and pedestrians improvements that would make it functional as an open space.

As for Oklahoma City, the best example I can think of is Classen Boulevard, though in reality it is little more than a wide street with a median.  Classen lacks regular trees plantings and has minimal pedestrian improvements.  The street used to feature streetcars traveling down the center median, but today the street is used almost exclusively by cars.  Currently, the Core to Shore plans include the replacement of the current I-40 alignment with a multiway boulevard – inspired by the type found in Paris.  Hopefully this will provide a great new public space for the city.


Parkways

Vondel Park in Amsterdam was cited by the author as an example of parkways as open space.

A parkway so far as it can be discriminated from a boulevard, includes more breadth of turf or planted ground and also usually narrow passages of natural scenery of varying widths, giving it a somewhat park-like character and inducing a less formal treatment of the roads, paths and accessory features. Parkways are frequently laid out along streams so as to include the natural beauty of brook or river scenery and to preserve the main surface water channels in public control, thus providing for the adequate and economical regulation of storm drainage and floods.

Edgemere Park utilizes a parkway designed to preserve the creek and floodplain as neighborhood open space.

Using parkways to create park space, manage stormwater, and preserve and enjoy the beauty of streams, was at one time a common practice in OKC. It was a key recommendation of the 1930 Hare & Hare plan and places in OKC like Edgemere Park (pictured above), Sparrow Park, and portions of Grand Boulevard, have great examples of how this type of open space can be effectively implemented.  Unfortunately, today we often back up development to streams so that it can not take advantage of the natural beauty or worse, we buy the stream underground in a pipe.  There is much to gained from returning to this practice of parkway development.

Would love to get your thoughts on Oklahoma City’s streets as public spaces. Where are we doing a good job? Where can we do better? What are some of your ideas to improve streets in this city?