pr forum park finance 02 dan anderson
TRANSCRIPT
Public Parks, Private Value:
An International Perspective on the
Delivery and Funding of Themed
Parks and Gardens
Presentation to Park Russia Forum
March 27, 2014
Introduction
Public Parks, Private Value
Background
Some case studies
Concluding remarks
Traditional Park Funding Approaches
Public Parks, Private Value
Parks traditionally treated as pure public
goods
Considered an amenity for local residents
Most of the capital and all of the
operational funding came from the public
sector, with some operational revenue
from concessions and minimal amounts of
sponsorship
Starts to change in 1970s (USA) and
1980s (UK) as recession puts too much
strain on Park budgets
Pressure to Find Alternative Mechanisms
Public Parks, Private Value
Park quality declines and many fall into
dereliction
Parks become highly visible symptom of
more general urban economic decline
• Crime
• Litter
• Disrepair
• Lack of maintenance or reinvestment
In strained city budgets, allocations to
parks and recreation were an easy target
Common Methods Used to Finance Parks
Public Parks, Private Value
Increased in-Park commercial activity
Implementation of user fees and charges
Cross-funding from commercial assets
Aggressive event-led sponsorship
strategies
Individual philanthropy
Capturing private value of public parks
Privatisation of public space
Exploit commercial assets
Business Improvement Districts
Tax Increment Financing
Developer contributions
Public Parks, Private Value
privatisation of public space
Jubilee Park / Canada Square, London
Public Parks, Private Value
Jubilee Park / Canada Square, London
Public Parks, Private Value
Public Parks, Private Value
monetising commercial assets
Post Office Square, Boston
Public Parks, Private Value
St George’s Park, Burton-upon-Trent
Public Parks, Private Value
St George’s Park, Burton-upon-Trent
Public Parks, Private Value
St George’s Park, Burton-upon-Trent
Public Parks, Private Value
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2008 2010
Public The FA Sponsorship Private
Original concept required
more than 60% of the
project to be funded by
the public sector and The
FA itself
When restructured, the
project was almost 90%
funded by the private
sector and corporate
sponsorship
Distribution of capital funding, 2008 and 2010
Alexandra Palace Park
Public Parks, Private Value
Public Parks, Private Value
business improvement district
Bryant Park, New York City
Public Parks, Private Value
Bryant Park, New York City
Public Parks, Private Value
Bryant Park, New York City
Public Parks, Private Value
Public Parks, Private Value
tax increment finance
Millennium Park, Chicago
Public Parks, Private Value
Millennium Park, Chicago
Public Parks, Private Value
Millennium Park, Chicago
Public Parks, Private Value
time
property taxrevenue
t0
Incremental tax revenue used to service the debt
from t0
Millennium Park, Chicago
Public Parks, Private Value
Public Parks, Private Value
developer contributions
High Line Park, NYC
Public Parks, Private Value
High Line Park, NYC
Public Parks, Private Value
High Line Park, NYC
Public Parks, Private Value
High Line Park, NYC
Public Parks, Private Value
High Line Park, NYC
Public Parks, Private Value
High Line Park, NYC
Public Parks, Private Value
High Line Park, NYC
Moscow Region Parks: Investment Opportunities
High Line Park, NYC
Public Parks, Private Value
High Line Park, NYC
Public Parks, Private Value
High Line Park, NYC
Public Parks, Private Value
High Line Park, NYC
Public Parks, Private Value
High Line Park, NYC
Public Parks, Private Value
15%
15%
25%
14%
39%47%
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3
Distribution of funding by phase
City State Federal Fundraising Developer Contributions
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Public Parks, Private Value
concluding remarks
Level 33, 25 Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London, E14 5LB
www.fourth-street.com
Principals:
Jim Roberts +44 7966 373724
Dan Anderson +44 7866 454434