What is happening of late?

I grew up in a very pastoral setting in South Louisiana and can attest to the fact that parks do not solve issues related to wealth inequality, crime, and education. These problems exist in the greenest of communities all over the world and their cause is not the presence or lack of open space.

To me the issue is “quality of life.” In a “flat” globalized world, cities and regions must compete openly for all available resources, tangible and intangible. “Quality of life” attracts a human capital, a creative class, which directly feeds a vibrant local economy.

People do and will have the freedom to relocate to areas they feel are more habitable. Older east coast cities already have dense fabrics, history, and culture which make them attractive places. However, they also have harsh urban landscapes that are hard to escape and detract from their livability.

The One Park vision should be developed and funded because it will make Baltimore a wonderful city in which to live. People will visit and want to return. Residents will decide to stay and invest more of their energy into their community. Businesses will follow. Everyone will benefit.

A side tidbit, Mr. Zigler quotes Daniel Burnham, architect, among other things, of Chicago’s visionary plan to preserve it’s 17 mile long lakefront as a park “forever free and clear” for public use and enjoyment.

In the Sun column, Mr. Zigler writes Baltimore would become a “city in a park,” note that the City of Chicago’s motto is “Urbs en Horto” or City in a Garden. In a play on this, the Chicago Park District’s motto is “Horto en Urbs,” or garden in a city.

If you haven’t been to Chicago lately, or haven’t gotten farther then O’hare or the loop, take the chance to tour their spectacular network of parks. We were shocked upon arriving in Baltimore at the state of neglect of many things, not the least of which, our parks.

There is a wonderful presentation, available online, called “Revitalizing Chicago Through Parks and Public Spaces,” delivered by Mayor Daley in 2001, which outlines an comprehensive plan for great parks and a great city. http://www.pps.org/topics/whats_new/daley_speech

Kudos to all working on this type of vision for Baltimore.

I’m sorry, I can’t applaud your idea. When I think of the poverty in Baltimore, the vacant homes that could house the homeless, the low to very low income populations, I can’t imagine that the park will become anything more than “Tent City”. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer! And even if we know there will always be poor, we have a responsibility to take care of each other! I’m saddened to think of the condominiums and community development exploding in Baltimore while the homeless are still wondering the streets. We have more than 3,000 turnaways from shelters! We have more than 45,000 offenders coming out of prison annually! We have crime and AIDS multiplying rapidly in Baltimore and the best idea you can come up with is a park. So what are the drug addicts, the mentally ill, the homeless now all going to live in the park? I’m sorry, I don’t think its audacious idea! I think it may be audacious for the rich, but what about the people who continue to suffer in Baltimore? What about the working poor? I pray that you would take this comment seriously and invest your money in saving a life instead of developing a park! I pray you consider developing a homeless shelter the size of the proposed park and get the homeless off the street! I pray that if can’t think of anything better to do with your investment that you give it to some non-profit organization who really cares about people!

I agree completely that the benefits of thriving, interconnected greenspace need to be MUCH more widely shared and understood. The research that’s already been done is amazing, and selling a concept like One Park would be a snap if everyone knew how clear the case is.

A really stellar publication was put out by the Trust for Public Land in 2005 called The Benefits of Parks (you can find it here: http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=13843&folder_id=175). The TPL paper emphasizes all of the thing you talked about… quality of life, increased recreational opportunities, etc… but it also includes very compelling evidence that strong parks DO have major economic benefits for the neighborhoods that surround them. Worth a look!

Abby

While it scope and vision and many multiple benefits are easy to imagine, one wonders why a concept so relevant to today’s interests would not be under active, serious examination and consideration by our city’s leadership?

It is even addressed in the city’s new master plan.

Unlike some cities, like Atlanta, which is undertaking something very similar to what Steve has proposed here, the cost of doing something like this in Baltimore is way, way less than that in a city bursting at the seams.

Atlanta, swarming with people and problems associated associated with rapid growth, is going to take 25 years and spend 2.8 billion dollars to get its One Park accomplished.

It is called the Atlanta BeltLine. Check it out.

But Baltimore is in better position to execute a project like this than Atlanta. Pressures on land values, and those posed by rapid growth are far, far and away less than those down south. After all, Baltimore, only last year, experienced net growth, commencing its repopulation. Those pressures have yet to develop.

Atlanta is trying to keep up and catch up, rapidly—at great cost and much difficult. But Baltimore has the leisure to replan its city, striking a make over contemporaneous to the demographics now and emerging.

Also, Baltimore, unlike Atlanta, has many of the major pieces of landscape already in public ownership and waiting to be connected with a great green ribbon.

So our opportunity to execute something like One Park is right before us, like a bird’s nest on the ground.

Here is an idea that is really, really audacious: why doesn’t the Greater Baltimore Committee adopt this wonderful idea and make it its first, really major universal economic development project, one that touches the ordinary citizen and helps with the city’s recovery.

Isn’t this idea just as worthy of consideration as building a new city arena?

And the city has the money. In the past five years, including this fiscal year, 77 million dollars has been appropriated to the Department of Recreation and Parks for capital development.

Why not shift some of that funding stream in to a One Park project, taking our time and building it out over a ten year period, do it right, and have a wonderful resource—something grand and distinctive that sets Baltimore apart from most other cities in America.

After all every city has an arena.