parks as mirrors of community - university of...

Parks as Mirrors of CommunityDesign Discourse and Community Hopes for Parks inEast St. Louis

Laura Lawson

ABSTRACT While imprinted by past sociai values and designideals. parl<s evoive according to changing expectations andsocio-economic and racial change in the surrounding community.Design discourse and community processes both call on parkdesign to refiect community history, expand recreational and so-cial resources, and serve as a catalyst for community revitaiiza-tion. However, community concerns to deveiop implementabiedesigns in light of alternative funding strategies, volunteerism,and phased development remains iargeiy unaddressed by thedesign community. Focusing primarily on urban African-Americancontexts in East St. Louis, iiiinois. this paper outiines three non-exclusive perspectives that shape discourse on race in park pian-ning and design: recreational use and preferences according toethnicity and race; community development, through both grass-roots activism and professionai participation; and form-seekingdesign approaches inspired by community history and everydaypractices of marginalized groups. These three perspectives ofcontemporary discourse are then counterbaianced with an ap-plied perspective based on current park revitallzation efforts thatare being undertaken by community groups in East St. Louis,iiiinois.

KEYWORDS Parks, African American, community deveiop-ment, participatory planning and design

East St. Louis' parks, similar to many in urban low-income communities, represent a desirable re-

source with unmet potential to serve community needs.As legacies from more affluent times, the city's parksreflect bygone attitudes about civic responsibility andsocial activity. Their initial design and programminghas evolved as new facilities and services are added andremoved according to national trends and the local eco-nomic and political climate. Grand fountains, sunkengardens, and tree-lined parkways now share space withlater additions of playgrounds, swimming pools, sportsfields, and community centers. With deindustrialization,depopulation, and municipal budget crises, the parkshave suffered from reduced staffing, service closures,and deferred maintenance, leaving them vulnerable tounderutilization, vandalism, and crime. The impact ofneglected parks is exacerbated hy a larger context of va-cant land that is susceptible to illegal dumping.

Meanwhile, the communities around the parkshave also changed. Once an industrial city with a di-verse population and segregationist policies to separatewhite and black neighhorhoods, the city has become

predominantly African American with high levels ofunemployment and poverty. Although appropriatedto serve the residents even as the community has beenmarginalized. East St. Louis' parks represent importantsocial institutions that residents would like to see re-stored into useful and safe places. Even in their disre-pair, parksemhody the potential of the community andare integral to hopes for community health and revital-ization. Wliereas in the past it might have been the mu-nicipal leaders' role to maintain parks, the responsibil-ity now falls on residents who hear the impact of theirneglect directly Several resident groups have identifiedpark improvements as important community endeav-ors, creating opportunities to re-envision parks to re-flect the existing community needs and identity.

This paper uses the case of parks in East St. Louis toinvestigate how past and present constructions of raceare reflected in park pianning and design. The paperoutiines three non-exclusive approaches that directlyor indirectly address race in park discourse: recre-ational planning and research on preferences; commu-nity development through grassroots activism andprofessional participatory processes; and form-seekingthat is inspired by the history and current practices ofmarginalized groups. An historical overview reveals thecomplicated relationship of city development, park ide-ology, and resident needs. The paper closes with a de-scription of three ongoing community projects: lonesPark, Lincoln Park, and the future Pullman Porter Park.These projects offer an applied perspective that con-firm and contradict the implications of academic andprofessional discourse on race in park planning anddesign.

RECREATiONAL PLANNING AND EFFORTS TO '

IDENTIFY PREFERENCES ACCORDING TO RACE

Historical studies of American parks and open space ac-knowledge that park design has heen guided by norma-tive agendas aimed at improving the emotional, moral,and physical health of the public (Boyer 1978, Cranz1982, Cranz and Boland 2004).' Early rationales for

citywide park systems tended to justify different kindsof parks for different aesthetic and recreational func-tions, with the intention that parks should serve theneeds of specific groups while also serving the generalpublic. Recreation was valued as a "democratic" publicactivity that brought together all groups and classes,but experts also addressed particular concerns aboutthe mixing of groups, particularly new immigrants atidAfrican Americans with white audiencesr Playgroundswere a specific concern due to white prejudice againstintegration and concerns about ethnic and racialciiquishness (Curtis 1917). Landscape architect HenryHubbard (1914) expressed the hope that playgroundsprovided an opportunity to overcome prejudices, yetacknowledged inevitable segregation by race and class,and the impossibility of racial integration in Southerncities. In general, most park literature tended to praisethe capacity of recreation to encourage social interac-tion yet remained silent on issues of equity and accessby people of color, which can be interpreted as support-ing the status quo.' Because neighborhood parks andplaygrounds provided most urhan recreation needs,residential segregation may have been another way tobypass this issue. Generally, it can be assumed that Afri-can American recreation was provided through generalpublic facilities; scheduling that separated groups ac-cording to race, age, or other criteria; separate facilitiesin African American communities; or not provided be-cause of discriminatory policies.

A review of the various editions of Introduction toCommunity Recreation, a textbook written for the Na-tional Recreation Association by George Butler, pro-vides a glimpse into discussion of African Atnericansin recreation planning. In its first edition (1940), Butlerapplauded community recreation as "one of the mostpowerful agencies for absorbing the various nationalityand racial groups into American life" (387). He acknowl-edged equity issues, stating, "Colored people, like otherracial groups, are entitled to share in the recreationprograms provided by the municipality" either throughfacilities in black neighhorhoods or facilities used byboth white and black people (388). In the first edition,

Butler separately addressed the needs of immigrantgroups and African Americans, while later editions con-solidated the two discussions as one topic. In the 1949edition, noting that prejudice, ignorance, and timidityoften discouraged immigrants and racial groups fromusing parks, he suggested diversif>'ing park staff to en-courage participation (1949. 400). He noted the needfor dual provision of recreational facilities in areas thatmaintained "separate but equal" systems for educationand municipal services (Figure 1).

In the fourtli edition of Introduction to Commu-tiity Recreation, published in 1967, Butler referred toSupreme Court decisions affecting integration and de-scribed common responses by cities, inciuding integra-tion, removal of public recreation to avoid integration,and adding new facilities in black neighborboods. Healso noted the increase in membership-club swimmingpools and other facilities as a strategy used by somemunicipalities to avoid integration. Butler encouragedrational planning that addressed specific needs of usergroups according to nationality, race, occupation, edu-cation, economic status, and standard of living. Alongwith other generalizations about activities that wouldinterest various ethnic groups, he recommended "rhyth-mic activities" for African Americans, stating, "Special

aptitudes of national and racial groups are particularlyvaluable in initiating recreation programs for them, al-though an attempt should be made to broaden tbe in-terests of these groups and to draw them increasinglyinto community-wide activities" (Butler 1967, 272-3).

In 1962, the first national study of American rec-reation was conducted to identif>' changing recreationpatterns based on urbanization, new lifestyles, andclass-based differences (ORRRC 1962). One findingwas that minority groups (African Americans, PuertoRicans, and Mexican Ajnericans) used recreational op-portunities less than the white population, even whenother socio-economic factors were held constant.'' Thereport concluded that, given projections of an increas-ing non-white population, appropriately planned out-door recreation activities might provide opportunitiesfor social interaction. It also identified the potential to

Lawson 117

PLATE tz. SAND BOX. VVASHiNGION. D. C. Feuactivities bring as much joy to children as playing in thesand. This picture lends support to those who ns.sert that alarge sand box is essential.

Cauilay vj Mnr I o'i ( il> li

PLATK IJ. FENCED SAND PIT, NF.W YORK, NEWYORK. A fence 2 feet 6 inches high affords protection tochildren using the sand pits on the playgrounds in NewYork City. ,Most of the City's sand areas arc larger thanthe one shown in the picture, which is approximately 10by 25 feet. For a section showing the construction seePiate 14.

Figure 1. Two descriptive pictures from another standard text by George Butler. Recreation Areas: Their Design and Equipment, in a section onsandboxes: one in Washington D.C. with African American chiidren and another in New York with white children, quietiy reaffirming the defaultseparation ofwhite and black children's play. (1947, 32).

provide new recreational activities on lands made avail-able through tirban renewal and highway construction,but failed to note that these areas often resulted fromthe demolition of low-income and African Americanneighborhoods. The report conveyed a bias towardsassimilation to urban middle-class (this can be inter-preted as white) standards, as well as caution regardingfull integration, particularly interracial physical con-tact. Swimming pools, in particular, were "the single-most charged symbol of contact between people" andan inappropriate place to force interaction (Mead 1962,21-22).

In the 1970s, a series of empirical research projectssought to clarify how social class, income, and race af-fected recreational preferences and use. Grounded ina faith that scientific study could provide predictors ofparticipation, the implication was that research coulddirect planning and policy to increase use and avoid so-cial conflicts. Some studies sought information aboutdifferences between black and white recreation prefer-ences while others studied variation based on income,occupation, and location (Cheek, Field, and Burdge

1976,Craigl972,Kronusl971,StampsandStampsl985).When taken as a whole, the findings distinguished fewgeneralizable results due to small sample sizes, regionaldifferences, unclear definitions of race and ethnicity,

and conflation of variables (Edwards 1981, Hutchison1988)."' Inability to predict participation or preferencehad led to ongoing debates about whether leisure dif-ferences by race and ethnicity are a consequence ofsub-cultural diversity, marginality resulting in differen-tial allocation of recreational resources, or discrimina-tion (Feagin 1991, Stodolska 2005).

Rather than seek ethnic or race-based preference,recent research has explored socio-cultural patterns ofpark use. For example, an analysis of Chicago's WarrenPark found the park heavily used by individuals reflect-ing the local community composition of white (in-cluding Eastern European lewish immigrants), AfricanAmerican, Asian (Indian and Pakistani}, and Hispanicgroups, but with little mixing between them (Gobster1998). While acknowledging external factors that mightinfluence this pattern, the author also noted that thepark's design, with high-use facilities along the perim-eter to maximize visual and physical access, its rangeof programs, and good site management, were factorsin the park's popularity and use patterns. AnastasiaLoukaitou-Sideris (1995) used observation in several

Los Angeles parks to compare the activities of Cauca-sian, Hispanic, Asian, and African-American park us-ers, and found that racial and ethnic groups did notmix so much as co-exist. She concluded that different

118 Landscape Journal 26:1-07

ethnic and racial groups might use the same park, butthey adapt territories and activities according to otherpark users to avoid potential conflict. While useful forunderstanding appropriation in multicultural contexts,observation-based studies such as these do not addresspossible unmet desires for alternative social and recre-ational facilities.

Parks and Community Development—Grassrootsand Professional

Parks figured prominently in early strategies of cityplanning and today still play a significant role as pub-lic resources and amenities that shape communities.''Parks facilitate aesthetic order, provide social and rec-reational activities that facilitate civic and social objec-tives, and, in some cases, reinforce barriers that separategroups and ncighhorhoods {Gohster 1998, Solecki andWelch 1995). It is generally asstimed that cities shouldhave parks just as they should have schools, fire depart-ments, and other puhlic facilities. Yet access to parks isnot universal, with low-income communities of colorexperiencing an overall shortage of park space andservices (Harnik 2004, Sherer 2003). And even thoughparks are credited with multiple personal, social, eco-nomic, and environmental benefits, their upkeep is of-ten neglected in light of municipal fiscal limitations andpriorities (Carr et al. 1992, Garvin 2000). Reduced staff-ing, accumulated neglect, and crime have raised puhlicfears about parks as dangerous places (Mozingo 1995).Meanwhile, community development strategies sug-gest that revitalized parks help reduce crime, increaseproperty values, and encotirage community investment(Bonham, Spilka. and Rastorfer 2002; Crompton 2001).

While many cities have invested in park improve-ments as a catalyst for re vital ization, often the initiativeto improve degraded parks comes from residents whowant better resources for their neighhorhoods. Thecommunity open space movement is grounded in lo-cal initiatives to improve the neighborhood resources(Francis. Cashdan, and Paxson 1984, Fox, Koeppel, andKellam 1985). This kind of grassroots activism aligns

with longstanding strategies of self-help in African-

American communities that have historically beendenied access to mainstream resources, such as fed-eral programs, banking institutions, and educationalresources (Butler 1991, Carson 1993). While local activ-ism and self-help are generally considered positive ac-tivities that empower communities, it is also importantto realize that the burden of improvement is often puton the people with the least power who are expected toaddress problems of disinvestment that are the resultof longstanding discrimination or unequal access toresources (Halpern 1995). Although officials may laudthe sight of residents cleaning up a park, this does notnecessarily lead to tangible aid. In lieu of puhlic sup-port, local groups often rely on foundations and giants,in-kind material donations, and volunteer lahor.

Local groups frequently receive technical sup-port from landscape architects, planners, and design-ers working in the advocacy planning tradition (Hester1975,1999). Professional designers engage in such proj-ects through pro-bono work, university service-learningcourses, non-profit organizations, and governmentagencies. Professional engagement not only respondsto unmet needs, but also to a desire to use design as acatalyst for community organizing and development.This involvement often requires that designers take onnew roles—as advocates, community organizers, tech-nical assistants, and visionaries (Francis 1999). Whileacknowledging contrihutions of professionals and resi-dents to the process, most advocates do not explicitlyacknowledge cultural differences based on race thatmay affect how professionals and community memberscommunicate (Lawson 2005)."

The involvement of residents who have immediateknowledge of local conditions and desires often leads toplace-specific programming and design (Fischer 2000,Hester 1983). Wlien working with little or no funds,these efforts often make use of recycled or experimen-tal materials and volunteer lahor. This kind of self-help,opportunistic approach yields quick results that com-munity participants can enjoy while also providingknowledge and experience to apply to future commu-nity projects. However, criticism of the resulting "low

Lawson 119

income neighborhood design" has prompted some ad-vocates to argue that such parks should have access tobudgets on par with suburban contexts (Garvin 2000).While grassroots efforts may initiate a project, thereis also an environmental justice argument that buoyslong-term efforts to seek construction and maintenancesupport from puhlic sources through the political pro-cess. This requires a careful halance of immediate ac-tion to address local concerns and long-term advocacyand lobbying for puhlic investment, from both puhlicand private sources.

Race and Representation in Design Form

In communities that have experienced economic de-cline, rather than accepting a "narrative of loss" thatcontrasts the current poor conditions to a bygonegolden era, there are new design approaches that seekinspiration through hoth interpreting the evolution of acommunity and acknowledging how new groups mod-ify the landscape to fit cultural practices and daily pat-terns (Crawford 1999, 23). Redesigning puhlic spacesprovides opportunities to visually represent changingcommunity demographics. Designers tend to find in-spiration through observation, dialogue with commu-nity residents, and vernacular landscape traditions.This perspective includes two non-exclusive fields: de-sign hased in community memory through preserva-tion and interpretation, and design that is inspired hyeveryday patterns of marginalized groups.

Commur}ity memory. The initial design of many urhanparks typically expressed the visual and social idealsof elite founders and professionals. More recently, in-creasing acknowledgement of other participants—la-borers, immigrants, slaves, women, etc.,—has createdopportunities to reveal alternative community histo-ries. Form can be generated by reinterpreting spacesto reveal otherwise undocumented stories from com-munity history and current life. Yet revealing the socialhistory of a marginalized group may he complicated hythe lack of distinct physical landmarks since maiiy cul-

turally significant sites have been demolished or alteredhy re-use. The challenge is to reveal significance in theeveryday working landscape, which Dolores Haydendescribes as "the power of ordinary urban landscapes tonurture citizens' memories, to encompass shared timein the form of shared territory" (1995, 9). Through pres-ervation, iconography, and interpretive markers, theresulting symholic landscapes reveal cultural traditionsand ways of life. This approach builds on the scholar-ship of cultural landscape history and stories collectedfrom archives and living people, transforming what islearned into an artful, multi-faceted expression.

There are several considerations in representa-tions of community memory. As described by CornelWest, self-conscious representations are "value-laden,socially loaded, and ideologically charged" (1993, 19).Representing the past is a political act that often requiresnormalizing everyone's experiences into a homogenoushistory. It raises questions about how lo counteractracist stereotypes: does one focus on positive images,or represent both the good and bad that exist in anygroup? Furthermore, there is an ethical dilennna: is thedisplay of hitter experiences, such as race riots or preju-dicial acts, unnecessarily painful, or part ofthe healingprocess (Wilson 2001)? While revealing multiple histo-ries, a design that seeks to express community historyalso runs the risk, as Kohena Mercer suggests, of tryingto tell a complex story in too brief an outburst (Mercer1994, Wilson 2001). Relegating "interpretation" to onesite (a park) may not compensate for a larger contextof invisibility, or worse, ongoing discrimination and in-justice. The challenges are to emhed meaning while notbecoming too didactic or ahstract; avoid "one-liners" aswell as the "codification of memory"; and prevent theloss of meaning over time as communities grow andchange {Upton 2001).

Inspiration from everyday life. Designers have alsofound inspiration for new design forms through in-terpretations of everyday activities hy marginalizedgroups. This approach seeks to reveal how otherwise


generic, standardized spaces are adapted to serve un-planned activities or practices Ihat are often the result ofchanges in ethnicity, race, and income within the popu-lation {Crawford 1999). The goal is to raise awareness ofhow marginalized groups appropriate the landscape tosupport traditional practices and everyday life, such asurban food production, street vending, or social gather-ing on the street. This perspective frees the designer tofind inspiration through observation of how people usespace and in turn shape it, and has inspired design ap-proaches such as 'everyday urbanism' and Walter Hood'simprovisational design (Chase, Crawford, and Kaliski1999,1 iood 1997). Identification of use patterns seeks tobe nonjudgmental, with activities like loitering, streetvending, and skateboarding celebrated as vital publicforums, even if larger society may consider them inap-propriate. However, residents of a community may notagree with an outside designer's interpretation, seek-ing instead to replace unsatisfying current conditionswith designs that emulate conventional park features.Local residents intent on improving public perceptionof their neighborhood may want to discourage the veryactivities that a designer finds inspirational. Thus, dia-logue is necessar>' to assure a good fit and appropriaterepresentation for the host community.

As these three non-exclusive perspectives—recre-ation planning and preferences, community develop-ment, and representation in design—suggest, there aremultiple ways in which race has been addressed in parkplanning and design, both directly and indirectly. Anhistorical perspective on park planning reveals a strongimpulse to use parks for integration and acculturation,but also an acceptance of the status quo and unequalaccess and use. Post-civil-rights efforts to understandlower participation rates and preferences accordingto race and ethnicity generally failed to produce gen-eralizable results, but did raise awareness of tbe com-plex causes of difference, including cultural traditions,marginality, and discrimination. The community de-velopment perspective suggests new opportunities torevitalize parks to better serve local concerns and de-

sires, which blends well with designers' ideas aboutnew design processes that engage conuiumity memoryand everyday practices. However, grassroots park revi-talization efforts may be stopgap measures that do notor cannot directly address unequal access to municipalsupport or the structural issues that perpetuate limitedresources in communities made up primarily of lowerincome people of color. Altliougb designers may findinspiration in appropriated spaces that accommodateboth legal and illegal activities, local residents in tbatsame community may bave otber agendas related tosafety, legitimacy, and public perception tbat establishdifferent design and planning priorities. Each of thesethree approaches reaffirms the importance of workingwith local communities in order to understand localpatterns, needs, and visions. What may remain unad-dressed, however, is the gap between visionary, empow-ering design concepts and the means by wbicb to real-ize tbem in light of unequal access to resources.

East St. Loui5

Case studies of three East St. Louis park projects il-lustrate how these approaches inform or contradictcurrent efforts by residents to revitalize parks in low-income communities of color. Established in 1861, HastSt. Louis, Illinois, was developed primarily for its tradeand industrial potential." With the advantages of raillines connecting east and west and the Mississippi Riversupporting transit north and south, enterprising indus-trialists ignored marsh conditions to build factories,warehouses, roads, rail lines, businesses, and homesfor workers. The industrial conglomeration of factoriesproducing a rangeof materials, stockyards, and border-ing company towns, brought eager workers who settledthe city so quickly that the population doubled everydecade between 1870 and 1910 (Baldwin 1989, Tbeis-ing 2003). Residents then included American-bornand immigrants from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Croa-tia, Ukraine, Lithuania, and Yugoslavia. Industry alsorecruited African Americans from the Soutb to fill low-skilled labor positions. By 1917.16 percent ofthe popu-

Lawson 121

lation was African American. To encourage industrialexpansion, city taxes were kept low, resulting in mini-mal investment in public services and civic amenities.City government was tainted by patronage, corruption,and violence for personal and political gain.*'

Although state laws had prohibited segregation inpublic schools since 1874, and in public places since1885, African Americans in East St. Louis were expectedto conform to a system of racial segregation that cre-ated separate neighborhoods, schools, and workplacelunchrooms and restrooms. The South End, separatedfrom the rest of the city hy industry and railroads, wasthe hub for African-American residential, religious, so-cial, and educational activities. Much ofthe neighbor-hood was platted with narrow lots that were appropriatefor wood-frame "shotgun" houses, but it also includedlarger brick homes for professional and middle-classresidents.

Even with the segregation, racial tensions createdan unsettled atmosphere. In 1917, Bast St. Louis madeinternational headlines when one of the worst race ri-ots to date—aptly described by contemporary socialreformers as a massacre—erupted. The official deathcount included 39 African Americans and 9 whitesdead, and 750 injured, although other sources reportedover 400 African Americans were killed (Rudwick 1964).In the aftermath, it was estimated that as many as 7000African Americans left the city (Nunes 1998). For thosethat stayed, cautious insurance agencies cancelled fireinsurance policies, landlords removed black tenants,and real estate developers exerted pressure to increasesegregation. However, even with these discriminatorypolicies, hy 1938 the African-Am eric an population wasback to pre-riot levels.

Similar to other industrial cities. East St. Louis wasvulnerable to the ehh and flow of industry, as well as theeventual trend toward urhan deindustrialization. It wasduring the industrial decline that the population gaineda majority of African Americans. As depopulation leftderelict huildings, vacant land, and an insufficient taxbase, remaining residents struggled with reduced pub-lic services and deteriorating infrastructure. Urban re-

newal, the Model Cities program, and other pianning ef-forts that intended to attract new investment failed andleft behind vast areas of cleared land (Judd and Mendel-son 1973). By the 1980s, the city was forced to terminateservices, including trash pick-up for five years. The lossof industry also left behind hrownfields and contami-nation that threatened public health. Paced with an $88million deht and amid race-conscious public confron-tations hetween the hlack mayor and white governor,the State of Illinois took over the city's financial man-agement in 1990. As of 2000, the city's population was98 percent African American, with just over 35 percentofthe population below poverty level and a householdmedian income of $24,567 compared to the nationalmedian of $50,046 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000).

Faced with an ineffective city government taintedhy years of corruption, some residents have taken theinitiative to improve their own neighborhoods inde-pendent of city resources. Neighhorhood organizationshave formed to stop illegal dumping, demolish ahan-doned huildings, and improve community capacitythrough social networks (Reardon 1998). Building onthese successes, organizations have initiated housingdevelopment, job training, and economic develop-ment. It is in this context that neighhorhood groupshave identified parks as important sites for communityrevitaiization.

Parks and Open Space in East St. Louis

As a city focused on industrial development and profit,East St. Louis in the late 19th century invested onlyminimally in public services. However it did developsome parks in accordance with national trends. ThePark District was created in 1895, and hy the early 20thcentury included the 130-acre Jones Park and severalsmaller neighborhood parks, including a formal sunkengarden in the prestigious Washington Place neighbor-hood. When Hariand Bartholomew (1920) developedthe city's first master plan in 1920, his inventory iden-tified six inadequately sized neighborhood parks, anover-developed lones Park, three playgrounds, oneathletic field, and three recently acquired sites for new


parks—including a park for "colored" residents in theSouth F-nd. Because this inventory fell well below thenational standard for a city the size of East St. Louis,Bartholomew proposed an expanded park system inline with then-contemporary planning. His plan in-cltided new boulevards, three new neighborhood parks,new community centers, and fourteen playgrounds, in-cluding one in the South End for "colored" use.'" WhileBartholomew was optimistic that the plan would makeEast St. Louis a great city, few of Bartholomew's propos-als were implemented (Edwards and Lawson 2005).

Forty years later, another city plan described thedearth of park facilities {Caneuh and Fleissig 1960). Theplan responded to the decline of industry and depopula-tion with policies that conveyed that period's modernist

faith in rational planning and governmental programs.Again, comparing East St. Louis to national standards,the 1960 report concluded that there was a deficit of 308acres in parkland." Like its 1920 predecessor, this planproposed new parks and playgrounds for each residen-tial district, to be built on old industrial sites or landscleared for tirban renewal. It also proposed a riverfrontpark to complement the Jefferson National ExpansionMemorial (the Arch) on the St. Louis side of the Missis-sippi River. Again, few of the recommendations wereimplemented.'-'

By the mid-1970s, the city was in crisis and news-paper reports forecast the closure of parks and poolsdue to inadequate funds for maintenance and staff-ing. Undeveloped parkland was sold, half of the 50 parkemployees were laid off, and the parks department hadto seek funds from the Model Cities program to openswimming pools during the hot summers. {Metro EastJournal 1972). The deterioration has continued, and to-day the park staff of five employees can barely providetrash pick up let alone security and basic recreationalservices. Bathrooms are locked, pools are open onlysporadically, and children play on outdated and unsafemetal equipment. Overuse and poor maintenance haveresulted in grassless, bare areas, and damaged and dy-ing vegetation is not replaced

Lacking municipal support, citizen groups and

non-profit organizations have stepped in to providesome serxdces. For instance, gold medal OlympianJackie Joyner Kersee, raised in East St. Louis, establishedthe Jackie Joyner Kersee Foundation in 1989 to supporta 37-acre recreational facility with football, softball,and hasehall fields as well as an indoor facility with agymnasium, fitness center, classrooms, computer lab.kitchen, meeting rooms, and offices. Because it is oneof the only supervised recreational centers in the city,it draws children from all neighborhoods who arrive bybus, car, and on foot. The Katherine Dunham Center,Lessie Bates Davis Neighborhood House, churches, andother organizations also provide a range of educational,social, and cultural programs. Meanwhile, citizens havetaken it upon themselves to mow vacant lots, plant gar-dens, and clean tip playgrounds and parks.

Three community-driven efforts to improve parksin the city—Jones Park Fountain, Lincoln Park, andPullman Porter Park—provide insights into commu-nity visions and priorities in park revitalization. Work-ing with landscape architecture faculty, students, andstaff from the University of Illinois to develop designand implementation plans, these community organi-zations are expressing their immediate concerns, ar-ticulating their desires for the future, and strategizinghow to huild projects with minimal municipal sup-port.'' Kach of these efforts responds to residents' con-cerns and preferences regarding recreation, commu-nity development, and designs that reflect communityhistory and everyday life, hut with unique place- andpeople-based perspectives that are largely weightedby practicalities regarding security, implementation,and maintenance.

Jones Park Fountain. Initially designed as a pastoralpark, Jones Park has, over time, accumulated facilities,including athletic fields and courts, a pool (now madeinto a water park), and the city's parks department dis-trict office. Occupying the middle of the park is a lagoonwith a Romanesque-inspired brick pavilion at one endand a formal fountain with Art Deco details at the other.The last time the fountain functioned was at least thirty

Lawson 123

{left) Rgure 2. Image of the Jones Park Fountain, taken from anunknown paper and kept on file at East St. Louis Parks District.

{below) Figure 3. The Emma L. Wilson King Foundation intends torestore the Jones Park fountain, which has not functioned for manyvears. (Photograph by author)

years ago, when the park was still segregated (figures 2and 3).

The recently formed Emma Wilson King Founda-tion has identified the fountain's restoration as its firstcommunity project. In honor of their mother, whoraised twelve children in East St. Louis, this family foun-dation chose the fountain because its restoration pro-vides an opportunity to convey civic pride regardlessof any association with segregation. While the Founda-tion intends to address a range of pressing community

needs, it considers the fountain an important symholicasset that serves less tangible, emotional needs. As ex-pressed by one family member at the first meeting withthe designers, "We want our community to have thesame opportunities as other communities. We want anelegant place to show visitors, a place to take weddingpictures." The Foundation also wants a success, a "shin-ing example" of what can be done to revitalize the city.The parks department has arranged to lease the site andis eager to relinquish maintenance responsibilities tothe Foundation once improvements are made.

In spring 2005, all the family members who couldattend—some local as well as others from Chicago,

Washington D.C, and Los Angeles—met with design-ers at the site to discuss their vision for the fountain'sredesign. The main concern was to restore the work-ing fountain to its original form, and to add plantingsreflecting their mother's love of gardening as well as abrick plaza that could be used for a buy-a-hrick fund-raising campaign. While seeking to create an elegantspace, family members also wanted to keep the site sim-ple, low maintenance, and safe. Given sixteen alterna-tives that ranged from classically inspired formal plazasto abstract designs inspired by current award-winningdesigns. Foundation memhers selected four solutionsthat were then presented at a public meeting. These in-cluded two that framed the fountain with formal plazas,one that proposed a colorful and rich planting design,and one that broke up the fountain's symmetry withskewed angles reinforced hy new paths and plantings.Drawing enthusiasm from an audience of over 150 resi-dents, including the mayor, the final plan ihat was se-lected develops the site as a plaza with rounded pavedareas surrounding the historic fountain and minimaltree planting to frame the space (Figures 4 and 5).

The Foundation's efforts to restore the fountain


Figure 4. Conceptual design de-veloped by family members of theEmma L. Wilson King Foundation,including restoration of the foun-tain and lily pond, brick plazasaround the fountain, lighting, andornamental plantings, (Photographby author. 20051

Figure 5, The fountain redesign,selected by public vote, includesrestoration of the fountain andlily pond, a formal entrance fromstreet to fountain, brick plazasto highlight personalized bricks(buy-a brick campaign), a small me-morial along the back, and pathswith trees to frame the space.Design by University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign MLA studentAlec Cashman. 2005.

A

have sparked reneu^ed interest in Jones Park as recre-ation facility and civic space. The Foundation has ini-tiated a substantial funding drive and has contractedwith a construction management company to overseefountain restoration and site development." Mean-while, the hiring of a new, enthusiastic parks directorhas sparked complementary efforts to improve JonesPark as a whole. In addition to replacing old play equip-ment and restoring recreational fields, she is workingon plans to encourage family reunions at the park as a

fee-generating activity that would bring more people tothe park and provide income for additional improve-ments.

Lincoln Park. The 14.2-acre Lincoln Park was devel-oped in the 1920s on a four-block site in the South Endto accommodate segregation. It is a recreational facilitythat includes three hasehall fields, four tennis courts,a track, basketball court, playground, swimming pool,and picnic area. An allee of trees bisects the park and

Lawson 125

leads to a central war memorial. In the 1960s, a geode-sic dome was built on the southwest corner to housethe Mary Brown Community Center. Named after a lo-cal community leader, the community center accom-modated a branch ofthe East St. Louis Library, a healthclinic, meeting facilities, and recreational programs. In1987, due to flood damage and insufficient city funds,the center closed. Currently, the park is in disrepair,with a hurnt-out picnic shelter, broken benches, ten-nis courts without nets, and no bathroom facilities.Nonetheless, it Is heavily used in summer when youngpeople from the region cruise around the park causingtraffic hack-ups that frustrate many ofthe older neigh-bors (Figures 6 and 7).

In 1995, a group of residents formed the South EndNew Development Organization (SENDO) to organizeneighhorhood clean-ups, demolish unsafe structures,and engage in other community improvement activi-ties. Building on these efforts, they successfully lobbiedand acquired funds to restore the Mary Brown Center.Because the city does not have funds for staffing andprogramming, SENDO is partnering with other com-munity groups and non-profit organizations to run thecenter. The organization also would like to revitalizeLincoln Park as a recreational resource and a piace tocommemorate local history. In their recently completedneighborhood plan, SENDO identified Lincoln Park asthe "heart of the community" and a focus for commu-nity revitaiization efforts (Lawson 2005).

In discussions ahout the park's future, the mainconcerns are safety and appropriate use. SENDO ismade up mostly of older women who rememher whentheSouthEndwasasafe, family-oriented neighborhood.Few members currently use the park and they would bereluctant to take their grandchildren there hecause ofdrug activities and the disruptive, unsupervised youthwho use the park. Older residents would like a sidewalkand other amenities along the park's edges so that theycan walk in the park while still feeling safe and in publicview. The group is also not sure how to discourage theloitering and drinking that occurs in the park. In 2005,

when SENDO lobbied the city to remove a small shedthat served as the regular hangout for a group of men,the unintended result was that the men moved acrossthe street into the park. SENDO members now havemixed feelings about the parks department's proposalto replace the old picnic shelter hecause of concernsthat the new pavilion will become the men's new hang-out. They are exploring ways to minimize this threat,both through the location ofthe pavilion and securingbetter police surveillance.

Residents are also very interested in using the parkto commemorate the South End's history. Many olderresidents have fond memories of the park as a piacefor local school functions, church revival meetings,the neighborhood baseball league, and other activi-ties. However, important community memories, suchas the migration from the South, the 1917 race riot, theclose-knit community, and celebrities from the SouthEnd, have left few physical traces behind that might heinterpreted in the park's redesign. Although SENDO en-courages design proposals that include commemora-tion of these people and events and receives them well,prospects for their real ization seem far off hecause theyfind funding and implementation of these plans hardto conceive. Instead they focus primarily on openingthe Mary Brown Center, controlling undesirable uses,organizing park clean-ups, and working with the parkdepartment to get a new pavilion and play equipment(Figure 8).

Pullman Porter Park. For many years, residents in the41st Street Corridor have met once a month to discusslocal concerns and strategies for change. Their effortshave inciuded successful lobbying to have some streetsrepaved and sidewalks installed. In order to discourageillegal dumping, neighborhood residents have installedplanters and planted trees strategically to block truckaccess to a railroad right-of-way that abuts the neigh-borhood. They are now seeking to lease this 3.5-acresite from the railroad company to create a park to benamed after the Pullman porters who used to work the


Figure 6. Lincoln Park.(Photograph from files atthe East St, Louis ParksDistrict Office. n,d.)

Rgure 7, Lincoln Park.An all6e of trees is all thatremains of what some resi-dents recall as "lovers' lane,"(Photograph by author. 2005)

Lawson 127

Figure 8. Conceptualplan for Lincoln Park thatincludes a memorial lothe 1917 race riot and acommunity history walk.Designed by Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign MLA studentJeong Yoon Park, 2003,

train line. This park would fulfill an unmet need for parkspace in this pan ofthe city, which was cited in both the1920 and 1960 plans as underserved.

Initially the group was split about how much todevelop the park, with some arguing that a fully devel-oped park could encourage "riff-raff" and teenagers tocome into the neighhorhood (which currently includesmany elderly residents) while others cited the need forlegitimate recreational resources in order to discourageyouth delinquency. Working with designers, local par-ticipants are developing a plan that claims the spaceand addresses their priority concerns, but avoids overdevelopment. Because residents will huild and main-tain this park without city support, the group needsa design that they can implement without excessiveburden. Initial "wish lists" for the park, which includedprojects such as community garden plots and flower-heds, became points of heated discussion in commu-nity meetings, as some participants were concernedthat the burden of upkeep would fall on them.

After several community meetings with the design-ers, the residents identified priority projects, includingdeveloping a walking path, clearing and replantingaround a small pond, developing a lighting plan forincreased security, and installing a small pavilion andpicnic area for social events. In the fijture, the residentgroup would like to add murals and other features that

celebrate community history. Hoping to capitalize onopportunities presented by grants, in-kind donations,and volunteer lahor, they are flexible as to what getsbuilt, how it is built, and when the full project will hecompleted (Figure 9).

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Efforts underway to improve parks in East St. Louisreveal concerns and challenges faced by many com-munities when the responsibility for change falls onresident groups who have the will but not necessarilythe means for implementation. Similar to many otherplaces, the city has a history that reveals the legacy ofdisinvestment, discrimination, and racism in the publiclandscape, as well as the conflation of racial and eco-nomic crises that perpetuate critical needs. This is acommon story for previously industrial cities that haveexperienced rapid demographic change and a concen-tration of poverty and environmental injustices that thecity cannot adequately address within its political andfinancial resources (Thomas and Ritzdorf 1997, Keatingand Krumholz 1999). Communities can gain, however,from the economic, social, and health benefits asso-ciated with parks and recreation. Currently, residentgroups are re-visioning their futures hased on immedi-ate concerns about safety and health, memories of bet-


Rgure 9, The (uLufe Pullnidii Porter Park. Residents hdve planted Irees to bolh beauUly Ihe site and slop illegal dumping. Students and facultyfrom the University of Illinois are working with residents to develop a plan for the new park. (Photograph by author. 2005)

ter times, and hopes for a better future for their chii-dren. Some of their pians are based on local patternsand everyday activities, but aiso on a desire for facilitieson par with other communities as well as practicalitiesregarding implementation and maintenance.

While designers may find inspiration through non-judgmental interpretations of activities and adapta-tions to parks, many residents want to remove illegalor negatively- perceived activities and restore parks tochildren and the elderly. Stories about the industrialpast, community life, and famous individuals can berevealed througli design, and design proposals basedon these narratives may inspire uticonventional vi-sions. But given an incremental, phased approach tbatplaces the burden of funding and implementation onthe shoulders of residents and local activists, such nar-ratives are often given a low priority in light of morepressing safety and use concerns.

Literature on the construction of race in the land-

scape often focuses on the negative because, of course,the landscape reveals disparities resulting from layers ofdiscrimination and injustice. The next step is to reframethe issue, acknowledging the impact of discriminationon current community efforts while also suggesting ac-tions for positive change. This suggests that designers,planners, and researchers need to address the transi-tion from idea to action more effectively. It becomescritical to ground theoretical perspectives in localconditions, community priorities, and nontraditioualforms of implementation. As a repository of past en-vironmental and social conditions, community publicspaces evolve—and continue to evolve—in response tochanges from botb witbin and beyond the community.While the physical landscape represents past and pres-ent everyday life, proposals for change offer new visionsfor the future. In this context, planning and design opendiscussions around past events and memories, currentpractices, and future goals. Whether or not parks are a

Lawson 129

catalyst for change depends on both the vision of pos-sibilities and the ability to realize improvements thatserve community needs.

NOTES

1. While this paper focuses primarily on justifications andresearch related to parks through the late 19th and 2fl(hcenturies, the author also acknowledges the importance ofalternative, unofficial public spaces created hy disempow-ered. disenfranchised groups [Crawford 1999. Laguerre 1999.Mitchell 2003).

2. David Roediger (2005) notes that early 20th century discus-sion about immigrant groups rarely used the term "ethnic."in part because the term "new immigrant" provided a cat-egory that simultaneously described recent arrival and racialdifference.

3. While a comprehensive survey of all literature on parks isimpossible, the author searclied many key texts, includingBurnap (1916), Butler (1940,1947,1967), Olmsted and Nolcn(1906). Nolen 11916). Weir (1928). and various pamphletsproduced by the American Parks and Outdoor Art Associa-tion, as well as secondary sources (Boyer 1978, Cranz 1982,Cranz and Boland 2004, Schuyler 1986). This is an area forongoing research.

4. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission(ORRRC) study showed ihat non-urban recreational ac-tivities, such as fishing, htinting, camping, and backpack-ing were becoming less important activities and served asmaller part of the population. It also showed increasingimportance of urban recreational activities, such as picnics,driving for pleasure, swimming, sight seeing, walking forpleasure, playing outdoor sports and games, fishing, attend-ing outdoor sports events, and boating. The study foundparallel patterns between white and non-white populations,with increasing similarity in urban areas. Activities that weremost closely shared between white and non-white groupsincluded walking, attending outdoor sports events, hunting,

bicycling, playing outdoor sports, and fishing. Even whenother socioecononiic factors were held constant, being non-white produced a lower outdoor recreation score for malesthan any other factor. The situation was not so extreme forthe non-white female, although her outdoor activity scorewas well below that ofthe white female (ORRRC 1962).

5. In his critique of recreation research addressing race, ethnic-ity, and social class, Ray Hutchison (1988) defined ethnicityas membership in a subculture group on the basis of country

of origin, language, religion, or cultural traditions differentfrom dominant society. Race was defined as a social con-struct based on physical difference that generally does nolchange with acculturation. Michael Omi and Howard Wi-nant (1986) describe race as a socio-historica! concept, withcategories and meaning expressed by social relations andhistorical context in which they are embedded, and varyingover time and between difterent societies.

6. Because parks figure prominently in urban planning, it isimportant to consider the relationship iif urhan planningto African-American urban histor)' (Thomas and Kilzdorf1997, Yiftachel 1988). Racially-restrictive covenants, redlin-ing, urban renewal, and concentration of public housingperpetuated segregation and concentrated poverty, resultingin structural conditions that further isolated urban AfricanAmericans from access to employment, education, and op-portunities (Coniey 1999. Massey and Denton 1993).

7. While the discipline of landscape architecture has rarelyaddre.ssed this issue, it has been addressed in the relatedfields of architecture and planning (Forsyth 1995, Groat andAlirentzen 1996).

8. On the eastern bluffs formed by the Mississippi River, ar-chaeological finds indicate that the city of (^ahokia, thelargest pre-Columbian settlement north of Mexico, wasinhabited from approximately 700 CF. to 1400. French set-tlers established Si. Louis in the 1760s. Illinoistown was firstincorporated in 1859. but subsequent mergers with otherplatted communities led to the name change and incorpora-tion of F:ast St. Louis in 1861 (Federal Writers' Project 1936).

9. Classifying F-ast St. Louis as an industrial siihurb, AndrewTheising (2003) argues that the industrial hegemony cur-tailed the development of the liberal American social con-tract whereby government is typically held accountablefor basic social, economic, and environmental concerns ofcitizens.

10. Although the city did not provide any community centers,related services were provided by the YMCA. the ColoredYMCA. the YWCA, the Colored YWCL̂ . the Calholic Commu-nity House and Center, and the Neighborhood House. Coai-niunity centers provided an indoor place for civic functions,lecture courses, indoor recreation, an employment center, abranch library, and a public health center. '

H. This number is based on a National Recreation Associationrecommendation of a minimum of 6,2 acres per 1000 per-sons. East St. Louis had 2.7 acres per 1000 persons. i

12. The idea to respond to the Arch with a park on the EastSt. Louis side has been a recurring vision for the riverfront.


Currently, the regional Metro Fast Park and Recreation Dis-trict is going forward with plans for an observation deck andpark. Railroad corridors, highways, and industry block thisarea from the city's residential neighborhoods.

13. These featured park revilalization projects retlecl partner-ships between East St. Louis resident organizations and theUniversity of Illinois East St. Ixjuis Action Research Project(www.eslarp.uiuc.edu).

14. See www.emmalkingfoundation.org for an update on prog-

ress.

REFERENCES

Anthony. Kathryn. 2001. Designing for Diuersity: Gender, Race,and I'.thnicity in the Architectural Profession. Urbana: Uni-versity of Illinois Press.

Bartholomew, I larland. 1920. A Comprehensive City Plan for EastSt. Louis. Illinois. Prepared for the War Civics Committee.East St. Louis: The Daiiy Journal.

Baldwin. Carl. 1989. East St. Louis history. The Hast St. Louis Revi-

latizdtion Project, vni, 2. School of ArchJtecttire, University

of Illinois, Urbatia-Chainpaign,Bonham, L Biaine. Gerri Spilka. and Darl Rastorfer. 2002. Old

CitieslGreen Cities: Communities Transform UnmanagedLand. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 506/507.Chicago: American Planning Association.

Boyer. Paul. 1978. Urban Masses and Moral Order in America,1920-1920. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Burnap, George. 1916. Parks: Their Design, Equipment and Use.Philadelptiia: I. B. l.ippincott Company.

Butler, Ceorge B. 1940. Introduction to Community Recreation.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.. 1949. Introduction to Community Recreation. NewYork:McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.. 1967. Introduction to Community Recreation. NewYork:McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

Butler. George. 1947, Recreation ArecL-i: Their Design and Equip-ment. NewYork: A.S. Barnes and Company.

Butler, John. 1991. Fnlrepreimirship and Self Help Among Black

Americatis. Albany: State University of NewYork Press.Caneub and Fleissig. 1960. Master Plan I East St. Louis.

Newark, NJ.Carr, Stephen, Mark Francis, Leanne Rivlin. and Andrew Stone.

1992. PublicSpace. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.Carson, Emmet. 1993. A Hand Up: Black Philanthropy and Self

Help in America. Washington, D.C: loint Center (or Politi-cal and Economic Studies Press.

Chase, John, Margaret Crawford, and lohn Kaliski. 1999. EverydayUrbanism. NewYork: Monacelli Press.

Cheek. Neil H., Donald Field, and Rabel Burdge. 1976. leisureand Recreation Places. Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor SciencePublishers.

Conley, Dalton. 1999. Being Black, Living in the lied. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Craig, William. 1972. Recreational activity patterns in a small

Negro urban community: the role of the cultural base.Economic Geography 4fi fl): 107-115.

Cranz. Galen. 1982. The Polilics of Park Design. Cambridge: MIT

Press.. and Michael Roland. 2004. Defining the sustainable park:A fifth model for urban parks. Landscape Journal 23 (2):102-120.

Crawford, Margaret. 1999. Blurring the boundaries: Public spaceand private life. In Everyday Urbanism. ed. lohn Chase.Margaret Crawford. John Kaliski. NewYork: MonacelliPress.

Crompton. ]ohn. 2001. Parks and Economic Development.

Planning Advisory Service Report Number 502, Chicago:American Planning Association.

Curtis, Henrys. 1917. The Playground Movement and Its Signifi-cance. NewYork: MacMillan Company.

Edwards, Mary and Uura Lawson. 2005. The evolution of plan-ning in East St. Louis, journal of Planning History 24 (4):356-382.

Edwards, Patricia. 1981. Race, residence, and leisure style: somepolicy implications. Leisure Sciences 4 (2): 95-112.

Federal Writers' Project (Illinois}. 1936. East St. Louis Guidebook.Feagin, Joe R. 1991. The continuing significance of race: Antiblack

discrimination in public places. American SociologicalReview56 (\):IO\-Ilb.

Fischer. Frank. 2000. Citizens. Experts, and the Environment: ThePolitics oj Local Knowledge. Durham. N.C.: Duke tJniver-sity Press.

Forsyth, Ann. 1995. Diversity issues in a professional curriculum:Four stories and some suggestions for change. Journal ofPlanning Education atid Research \5 (\):^^—S3.

Fox, Tom, Ian Keoeppel. and Susan Kellam. 1985. Struggle forSpace: The Greening of New York City. 1970-1984. NewYork;Neighborhood Open Space Coalition.

Francis. Mark. 1999. Proactive practice: Visionary thought andparticipatory action in environmental design. Places 12 (2):60-68., Lisa Cashdan. and Lynn Paxson. 1984. Community Open

Spaces. Washington D.C: Island Press.

Lawson 131

Garvin, Alexander. 2000. Parks. Recreation, and Open Space: ATwenty-first Century Agenda. Planning Advisory ServiceReport Number 497/498. Chicago: American PlanningAssociation.

Gobster, Paul. 1998. Urban parks as green walls or green mag-nets? Interrracial relations in neighborhood boundaryparks. Landscape and Urban Pianning4\ (1): 43-55.

Groat, Linda and Sherry Ahrentzen. 1996. Reconceptualizingarchitectural education for a more diverse future: Percep-tions and visions of architecture students. Journal ofArcbirecturai Education 49 (3): 166-183.

Halpern, Robert. 1995. Rebuilding the Inner City: A HistoryofNeighborhood Initiatives to Address Poverty in the UnitedStates. New York: Columbia University Press.

Harnik. Peter. 2004. Parks: How far is too far? PlanninglQ (11):8-11.

Hayden, Dolores. 1995. Power of Place. Cambridge: MIT Press.Hester, Randolpb T. 1975. Neighborhood Space. Strousburg, PA:

Douden. Hutchinson, and Ross. Inc.—•—-. 1983. Process can be style: Participation and conservation

in landscape architecture. Landscape Architecture (May):49-55.. 1999. A refrain with a view. Places 12 (2): 12-25.

Hood, Walter. 1997. Urban Diaries. Washington, D.C: Space-inaker Press.

Hubbard. Henry. 1914. The Size and Distribution of Playgroundsand Simitar Recreation Facilities in American Cities. Na-tional Conference on City Planning.

Hutchison, Ray. 1998. A critique of race, ethnicity, and social classin recent leisure-recreation research. Journal of LeisureResearch 20 i\): 10-30.

Judd. Dennis and Robert Mendelson. 1973. The Politics of UrbanPlanning: The East St Louis Experience. Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press.

Keating, W. Dennis and Norman Krumholz, eds. 1999. RebuildingUrban Neighborhoods: Achievements, Opportunities andLimits. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Kronus, Sidney. 1971. The Black Middle Class. Columbus, OH:Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Laguerre, Michel. 1999. Minoritized Space: An. Inquiry into the

Spatial Order of Things. Berkeley: Institute of Governmen-tal Studies Press and the Institute of Urban and RegionalDevelopment, University of California, Berkeley.

Lawson, Laura. 2005. Dialogue through design: The East St. LouisNeighborhood Design Workshop and South End Neighbor-hood Plan. Landscape Journal 24 (2): 157-171,

LoukaitoU'Sideris, Anastasia. 1995. Urban form and social con-text: Cultural differentiation in the uses of public parks.Journal of Planning Education and Research 14 (89): 102.

Massey, Douglas and Nancy Denton. 1993. American Apartheid:Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

Mead, Margaret. 19B2. Introduction. In Trends in American Livingand Outdoor Recreation. ORRRC Study Report 22, Wash-ington, D.C: Government Printing Office.

Mercer, Kobena. 1994. Welcome to the Jungle. NewYork: Rout-ledge.

Metro East Journal, Park District May Keep Pools Closed.March 6, 1972.

Mitchell. Don. 2003. The Right to the City: Social Justice and theFight for Public Space. New York: The Guilford Press.

Mozingo, Louise. 1995. Puhlic space in the balance. LandscapeArchitecture Magazine S5 (02): 42-47.

Nolen, lobn. 1916. Park systems. In City Planning, ed. lobn Nolen.NewYork: D. Appleton and Company.

Nunes, William. 1998. Illustrated History of East St. Louis. Dexter,Ml: Thomson-Shore inc.

Olmsted, Frederick Law ]r. and lohn Nolen. 1906. The normalrequirements of American towns and cities in respectto public open spaces. Charity and the Commons 16 (4):411-426.

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1986. Racial formation in theUnited States from the 1960s to I9BOs. NewYork: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC).1962. Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation.ORRRC Study Report 22, Washington, D.C: GovernmentPrinting Office.

Reardon, Kenneth M. 1998. Enhancing the capacity of

community-based organizations in East St. Louis. Journal

of Planning Education and Research 17:323-333.

Roediger, David R. 2005. Working Toward Whiteness: How Ameri-ca's immigrants BecameWhire. NewYork: Basic Books.

Rudwick, Elliot. 13&4. Race Riots at East St. Louis: July 2,1917. 'Urbana: University of Illinois Press, '

Schuyler, David. 1986. The New Urban Landscape. Baltimore: ,lohns Hopkins Press.

Sherer, Paul. 2003. Why America Needs More City Parks and OpenSpace. San Francisco: Trust for Public Land.

Soiecki,William, and Joan Welch. 1995. Urban parks: Green |spaces or green walls. Landscape and Urban Planning32 (2): 93-106.


Stamps, Spurgeon, and Miriam Stamps. 1985. Race, class andleisure activities of urban residents. yo»r/jfl/ of LeisureHesearch l7(I):40-56.

Stodolska. Monika. 2005. A conditioned attitude model of indi-vidual discriminatory behavior. Leisure Studies 27: 1-20.

U.S. Bureau of theC:ensus. 2000. http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/il.html.

Upton, Dell. 2001. Preface. In Sites of Memory: Perspectives on Ar-chitecture and Race, ed. Craig Barton. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Iheising, Andrew. 2003. East St. Louis: Made in the U.S: The Riseand Fail of an Industrial River Town. St. Louis: VirginiaPublishing Co.

Thomas, ]une Manning, and Marsha Ritzdorf, eds. 1997. UrhanPlannlngand the African American Community: In theShadows. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Weir, L. H. ed. 1928. Parks: A Manual of Municipal and CountyParks. New York: A. S. Barnes and Co.

West, Cornel. 1993. Keeping Faith: Philosophy and Race inAmerica. New York: Routledge,

Wilson, Mabel O, 2001. Between Rooms 307. In Sites of Memory:Perspectiires on Architecture and Race, ed. Craig Barton.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Yiftachel, Oren. 1998. Planning and social control: Exploring thedark side. Journal of Planning Literature 12 (4): 395-406.

AUTHOR LAURA LAWSON is Assistant Professor of LandscapeArchitecture at the University of Illinois. Urbana-Champaign. Shereceived her PhD in Environmental Planning and MLA from theUniversity of California, Berkeley. Her research includes historicaland contemporary community open space, urban design, com-munity participation, and environmental justice. Her book. CityBountiful: A Century of Community Gardening in America (Uni-versity of California Press. 2005). uses an historical analysis ofurban gardening programs to explore values associated withgardening and the sustainability of user-initiated open space.

Lawson 133

parks as mirrors of community - university of...

Documents