University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Alternative ways, locations, and partners to meet the recreational needs of underserved communities: the case of Florence-Firestone

(USC Thesis Other)

Alternative ways, locations, and partners to meet the recreational needs of underserved communities: the case of Florence-Firestone

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

ALTERNATIVE WAYS, LOCATIONS, AND PARTNERS TO MEET THE

RECREATIONAL NEEDS OF UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES:

THE CASE OF FLORENCE-FIRESTONE

by

Clement Lau

A Doctoral Project Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Clement Lau

ii
Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author alone, and do not reflect
the official views or positions of the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and
Recreation.

iii
Dedication

This doctoral project is dedicated to Susan, my wife and biggest supporter.

iv
Acknowledgments

The writing of this paper is one of the most challenging endeavors I have ever
undertaken. Without the following individuals, this project would not have been possible.
I owe my deepest gratitude to them.

• Dr. David Sloane who chaired my committee despite his many other academic and
professional commitments. His wisdom, knowledge, and guidance challenged and
encouraged me to do my best work. I am humbled and grateful that a professor of
his stature would serve as my advisor.

• Dr. Tridib Banerjee, Dr. Manuel Pastor, Ms. Tsilah Burman, and Mr. Mark Persico
who were willing to serve on my committee despite their hectic schedules. I deeply
appreciate their time, participation in this project, and insightful feedback.

• Julie Yom, my friend and colleague, who not only willingly, but enthusiastically
reviewed and commented on drafts of my paper. I am very thankful for her
encouragement, feedback, support, and timely reminders to “Fight On!”

• Sheela Mathai and Blake Warner who worked with me on the Florence-Firestone
Community Parks and Recreation Plan (CPRP). I am honored to be colleagues with
two very dedicated, knowledgeable professionals. I also want to thank other staff
with the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation who assisted with
the preparation of the CPRP.

v
• All of the stakeholders, especially the residents of Florence-Firestone, who offered
valuable input on park and recreation issues through the CPRP’s public participation
process. I hope this paper was able to accurately describe the needs of the
community, capture the residents’ desires and ideas, offer an exciting vision of what
could be, and provide practical guidance to make that vision a reality.

• My wonderful friends who encouraged, supported, and prayed for me.

• My parents who have always loved, encouraged, and believed in me. They instilled
in me the importance of education at an early age and actively nurtured my love of
learning. I will always appreciate their love for me and will never forget the sacrifices
they made to give me a bright future in the United States.

• Susan, my wife and biggest supporter, who persistently encouraged me to pursue
my dream of a doctorate degree, even when I almost decided not to due to financial
and time constraints. Her overwhelming love, incredible support, and unshakable
devotion got me started, kept me going, and enabled me to reach the finish line.

• Finally, I give thanks to God for blessing me with the opportunity to further my
studies. This pursuit has only been possible through His unfailing love, grace, and
strength. I am especially thankful for God’s peace, which transcends all
understanding, and guards my heart and mind.

vi
Table of Contents

Disclaimer ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

Abstract xi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
A. The Challenge 1
B. The Proposal 2
C. My Role as a Planner 4
D. Case Study: Florence-Firestone 7

Chapter 2: Lessons from the Past and Present 14
A. Past and Present of Urban Parks 14
B. Past and Present of Joint-Use Facilities 25
C. Funding for Parks 34
D. Experiments with Other Service Delivery Arrangements 42
E. Provision of Recreational Services in Challenging Areas 45

Chapter 3: The Proposal: New Role for Park and Recreation Agencies 50
A. Traditional Role of Park and Recreation Agencies 50
B. Types of Parks and Recreational Facilities: Public, Nonprofit, Private 52
C. Recreation Staff and Programs 62
D. New Role for Park and Recreation Agencies 66

Chapter 4: Case Study: Providing Recreational Services in Florence-Firestone 74
A. Community Profile 74
B. Community History 87
C. Inventory of Existing Park and Recreation Resources 92
D. Community Input 103
E. Market Data 121
F. Role of the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation 125
G. Stakeholder Power Analysis 130
H. New Ways, Locations, and Partners to Provide Recreational Services 146

vii
Chapter 5: Implementation Challenges 205
A. Administrative and Political 205
B. Equity and Ethical 220
C. Financial 224
D. Legal 227
E. Public Safety 236

Chapter 6: Conclusion and Next Steps 241

Bibliography 250

Appendices:
A. Stakeholder Interview List 261
B. Community Questionnaire (English and Spanish) 262
C. Community Questionnaire and Youth Survey Results 266
D. Sports Group Survey 272

viii
List of Tables

Table 1: Total Parks and Open Space as Percentage of City Area 21

Table 2: Children’s Park Access in Seven Major Cities 22

Table 3: Quimby Fees collected in Selected Unincorporated Areas 37

Table 4: DPR Budget Information – 2002 to 2011 40

Table 5: Park Benefits 53

Table 6: Typical Park Classifications 54

Table 7: Health Indicators for Florence-Firestone and Adjacent Communities 80

Table 8: Health Behaviors 81

Table 9: DPR Local Park Classifications 93

Table 10: DPR Regional Park Classifications 94

Table 11: Local and Regional Parks in Florence-Firestone 95

Table 12: Participation in Sports Groups in Florence-Firestone 120

Table 13: Recreation Expenditures 122

Table 14: Sports and Leisure Market Potential 123

Table 15: Health Market Potential 124

Table 16: Stakeholders – Interest, Impact, and Strategies 138

Table 17: Four General Strategies for Stakeholder Relations Management 143

Table 18: Power and Potential of Stakeholders in Florence-Firestone 143

Table 19: Twelve Examples of Alternative Ways, Locations, and Partners 148

Table 20: Potential Parkland based on Size of Parcels 161

Table 21: Parks created and managed by LANLT 163

Table 22: LANLT Projects in Planning Stage 163

Table 23: Next Steps 247

ix
List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of Florence-Firestone 8

Figure 2: Public Parks and Open Space in Los Angeles 21

Figure 3: Neighborhoods with the Greatest Need for New Parks 24

Figure 4: Public Parks in and surrounding Florence-Firestone 98

Figure 5: Dot Exercise Exhibits 106

Figure 6: Community Workshop Scenes 108

Figure 7: Examples of Student Drawings 111

Figure 8: Participation in Recreational Activities in Florence-Firestone 113

Figure 9: Needed Recreational Activities in Florence-Firestone 113

Figure 10: Participation in Recreational Activities outside Florence-Firestone 114

Figure 11: El Parque Nuestro in Florence-Firestone 127

Figure 12: Replacing Asphalt with grass at Florence Ave Elementary School 151

Figure 13: Utility Corridor in Florence-Firestone 155

Figure 14: Cesar Chavez Park in South Gate 156

Figure 15: The High Line in New York 159

Figure 16: “Park Here” Pseudopark in New York 167

Figure 17: adidas Futsal Park Shibuya in Japan 168

Figure 18: Goals Soccer Complex in South Gate 170

Figure 19: Nishi-Rokugo or “Tire Park” in Japan 172

Figure 20: LentSpace in Manhattan 174

Figure 21: Possible Use of Parking or Vacant Lots for Active Recreation 176

Figure 22: A Playstreet in New York 181

Figure 23: Evergreen Cemetery Jogging Path in Boyle Heights 184

x
Figure 24: Florence Avenue Proposed Streetscape Improvements 186

Figure 25: Transforming Florence Avenue into a Recreational Resource 188

Figure 26: Examples of Mobile Gyms 190

Figure 27: Dumpster Pool in New York City 191

Figure 28: Kids inside the Mobile Art Studio 193

Figure 29: Wii Console and Games 198

Figure 30: Nutmobile in a Planters Grove 202

Figure 31: Visual Summary of Ideas 243

xi
Abstract

Traditionally, park agencies address the shortage of urban parks by trying to increase
the number and acreage of parks in underserved areas. Such an approach focuses
exclusively on physical solutions, i.e. the development of new parks, requires substantial
financial and land resources, and presumes that the parks department is the only
supplier of recreational opportunities. Given the lack of public funding and land for new
urban parks, this traditional approach is no longer typically feasible.

This paper presents an alternative approach that focuses on the provision of recreational
services through multiple-use facilities and partnerships with a wide variety of public,
nonprofit, and private organizations. This approach rightfully recognizes parks as a
means to address recreational needs rather than an end itself, and shifts park agencies
from being producers and guardians of parks to being facilitators of recreational
services. Instead of focusing alone on developing new parks on its own and devoting
significant resources on land acquisition and facility construction, park agencies should
actively identify and pursue alternative ways, locations, and partners to offer recreational
services. Alternative ways could include: the joint use of school facilities; the
introduction of recreational uses on land owned by utilities; mobile gyms; transportation
of residents to outside recreational facilities; and temporary use of parking and vacant
lots, reuse of existing buildings, and temporary closure of streets for recreational
purposes. The key component of this paper is a case study to demonstrate how this
alternative approach of meeting recreational needs may be implemented in Florence-
Firestone, an underserved area in South Los Angeles.

1
Chapter 1:
Introduction

Chapter 1 first describes the challenge this paper is intended to address: how do we
meet park and recreation needs at a time of severe budget and land constraints? It then
presents my proposal to address this issue - an alternative approach that centers on the
provision of recreational services in a variety of ways and settings involving a diverse
group of stakeholders. This is followed by an explanation of my role as a planner and
my reasons for being involved in this project. Finally, this chapter concludes with a
preview of the topics covered in subsequent chapters of this paper.

A. The Challenge
The lack of parks and recreational services in the underserved areas of Los Angeles
County is an issue that demands urgent attention. Nearly two out of three children in the
county do not live within walking distance (one-quarter mile) of a park, playground or
open space (Trust for Public Land, 2004, p. 4). Numerous studies suggest that children
with limited access to parks are more likely to be obese and at higher risk of developing
asthma, diabetes, or obesity-related diseases (Kahn, 2002, pp. 87-88; Los Angeles
County Department of Public Health, 2007, p. 5). Traditionally, park agencies address
the shortage of urban parks by trying to increase the number and acreage of parks in
underserved areas. This approach seeks answers to the following question: how do we
provide more parks? It focuses exclusively on physical solutions, i.e. the development of
new parks, requires substantial financial and land resources, and presumes that the
government is the only supplier of recreational opportunities. Given the lack of public

2
funding and land for new urban parks, this traditional approach is no longer typically
feasible.

B. The Proposal
The big question this paper addresses is: how do we meet park and recreation needs at
a time of severe budget and land constraints? My proposal is an alternative approach
that focuses on the provision of recreational services in a variety of ways and settings
involving a diverse group of stakeholders. In particular, this means providing more and
improved recreational services through multiple-use facilities and partnerships with other
public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private companies. The notion of a joint-
use or multiple-use facility is not new, but has been less frequently considered and
implemented due in part to the separation of uses through rigid zoning regulations as
well as the lack of coordination or cooperation between organizations. Similarly, local
park and recreation agencies have often acted as sole suppliers of many recreational
services and partnered with other organizations only in limited ways.

This alternative approach seeks answers to the following question: how do we provide
more recreational opportunities or opportunities for physical activity? Unlike the question
of how do we provide more parks, this question allows for combinations of physical,
social, and other solutions. It rightfully recognizes parks as a means to address
recreational needs rather than an end itself. This approach shifts park agencies from
being producers and guardians of parks to being facilitators of recreational services.
Instead of focusing alone on developing new parks on its own and devoting significant
resources on land acquisition and facility construction, park and recreation agencies

3
would also identify and pursue alternative ways, locations, and partners to offer
recreational services. Alternative partners could include:
• Businesses and chambers of commerce;
• Churches and other faith-based organizations;
• Colleges and universities;
• Economic development and redevelopment agencies;
• Land trusts;
• Law enforcement agencies;
• Professional sports leagues and teams;
• Public health agencies;
• Public works agencies;
• School districts;
• Sports apparel and equipment suppliers; and
• Utility providers and transportation agencies.

The shift in focus to recreational services would result in administrative and
organizational changes in park and recreation agencies, including new roles and
responsibilities for staff. These changes are necessary for park agencies to collaborate
effectively with other stakeholders in offering recreational services in non-traditional
ways and settings. Park planners, for example, would serve more as coordinators and
facilitators helping their agencies to partner and cooperate with other public, nonprofit,
and private organizations to provide much needed recreational services. Similarly,
architects and landscape architects would devote more time working on the

4
improvement of existing parks and the design of temporary play areas at unconventional
locations.

Successful implementation of this alternative approach obviously requires the active
participation and cooperation of the partners listed earlier. Some of the stakeholders are
already involved, but for the most part, their efforts have not been collaborative and
limited in scope. This project is intended to communicate the importance and urgency of
meeting the park and recreation needs of underserved communities, and motivate all
stakeholders to act promptly and collectively.

C. My Role as a Planner
The American Planning Association defines planning as “a dynamic profession that
works to improve the welfare of people and their communities by creating more
convenient, equitable, healthful, efficient, and attractive places for present and future
generations.” I certainly agree that planning should be people-focused and that equity
should be a key goal of planning. In particular, Section A.1.f of the American Institute of
Certified Planners’ Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct is very relevant to the goal
of meeting the needs of underserved communities and my role as a planner:

We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity
for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs
of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration.
We shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions, and decisions that
oppose such needs.

Planners should be leading the effort to develop healthy communities. While the
protection of public health is one of the justifications for government intervention through

5
planning, many planning agencies and planners have been more concerned about
limiting, regulating, and/or separating incompatible land uses rather than promoting
healthy communities. I was one of those planners for much of my eleven-year career. It
was not until four years ago that I truly appreciated and understood how central public
health is to planning, and decided to pursue a new position that allows me to more
proactively develop healthier communities.

Since May 2007, I have served as a park planner with the Los Angeles County
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). I transferred to DPR from the Department
of Regional Planning in large part because I felt (and continue to feel) passionate about
DPR’s mission:

Provide residents of Los Angeles County with quality recreational
opportunities that promote a healthy lifestyle and strengthen the
community through diverse physical, educational and cultural
programming, and enhance the community environment by acquiring,
developing, and maintaining County parks, gardens, golf courses, trails
and open space areas.

I find much satisfaction in my job because it gives me opportunities to help promote a
healthy lifestyle and strengthen communities through the improvement of existing and
development of new parks and recreational facilities.

Parks and recreational facilities provide opportunities for physical activity and are
therefore health-promoting. Specifically, access to and availability of public facilities for
physical activity, such as parks and playgrounds, has an important role in the prevention
and treatment of obesity. Research shows that when people have access to parks, they
are more likely to exercise, which can reduce obesity and its associated health risks and

6
costs (Gies, 2006, p. 8). A number of studies reviewed in the American Journal of
Preventive Medicine showed that “creation of or enhanced access to places for physical
activity combined with informational outreach” produced a 48 percent increase in the
frequency of physical activity (Kahn, pp. 87-88). These studies also found that easy
access to a place to exercise resulted in a five percent median increase in aerobic
capacity, along with weight loss, a reduction in body fat, and improvements in flexibility
(Ibid, pp. 87-88).

One of my primary responsibilities as a planner is to coordinate or bring the appropriate
players to the table and facilitate, negotiate, or broker solutions to problems. I agree
with Booher and Innes (2002) when they argued that planners should be “a key part of a
self-organizing process that brings together agents, enables information to flow, builds
trust and reciprocity, represents interests, connects networks, and mobilizes
action…They play a part in convening stakeholders and in making sure that processes
can meet the conditions of network collaboration” (p. 232). Similarly, Berke (2002) sees
planners as “communicators, consensus builders, mediators, and intermediaries among
stakeholders became the new centering influence” (p. 24). Berke further argues that
“Planners and their communities must foresee and shape the scope and character of
future development, identify existing and emerging needs, and fashion new or amend
existing plans and policies to ensure that those needs will be met and that communities
will be able to continuously reproduce and revitalize themselves” (p. 31). This rightfully
points out that planners need to plan with, rather than for, communities. The partnership
between planners and community members is critical to the ultimate success of planning
efforts.

7

I believe that two critical skills a planner must have are the abilities to listen and learn.
To listen productively means “that one maintains one’s own perspective as background
while focusing on the situation and opinions of another” (Booher and Innes, p. 231). I
agree with Forester (1999) who argues that planners must be able to listen to others
carefully and critically, and that careful listening requires sensitivity, self-possession, and
judgment (p. 107). While listening sounds simple, it is not always practiced. Planners
must also be eager to learn and be open to surprises. According to Forester, there is
much for us to learn in negotiations, participatory groups, and ordinary meetings: “we
learn not just with our ears but with our eyes, not just with our heads but with our hearts.
We come not only to hear new information we find relevant, but we come to see new
issues that need our attention. We come not only to revise our sense of strategies, but
to develop new relationships with others too” (p. 129). His insightful comments have
challenged me to become a better listener and prompted me to re-evaluate the ways in
which I participate in meetings as a planner.

D. Case Study: Florence-Firestone
The key component of this paper is a case study prepared to identify and evaluate
options to provide more and improved park and recreational services to residents in
Florence-Firestone, an unincorporated area in South Los Angeles. Florence-Firestone is
located approximately six miles south of downtown Los Angeles. The community is
surrounded by the City of Los Angeles on the north, south, and west, and the cities of
Huntington Park, South Gate and Lynwood on the east (see Figure 1). Florence-

8
Firestone is home to approximately 64,000 residents, almost 90% of whom are
Hispanic/Latino.
Figure 1: Location of Florence-Firestone

Source: Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, 2010.

Health and safety issues of particular relevance in the community are:
• High prevalence of obesity: Nearly one-third of children in Florence-Firestone
are obese due in part to the lack of physical activity and the shortage of safe
spaces for recreation.
1
These kids are at higher risk of developing asthma,
diabetes, or obesity-related diseases.


1
The prevalence of childhood obesity is 23% countywide, according to the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Health.
Downtown
Los Angeles

9
• High crime rates: The area suffers from high crime rates and significant gang
activity. This has a negative impact on community identity and cohesion. Even
though parks in Florence-Firestone are generally safe, residents may not visit a
park due to the lack of lighting, perceived risks, and awareness of gang
boundaries/territories.

• Streets and sidewalks need improvement: Sidewalks in some places are in
need of repair and upkeep. In addition, numerous locations do not have visible
and safe crosswalks. Florence Avenue has tremendous potential, but it needs
significant improvement. There are numerous vacant parcels and underutilized
parking lots along this thoroughfare. Driveway slopes interrupt the sidewalks,
making it more dangerous for pedestrians and more difficult for people with
wheelchairs and baby strollers.

I decided to prepare a case study on Florence-Firestone because of my interest in
analyzing and meeting the park and recreation needs of underserved communities.
Specifically, I wanted to help formulate alternative ways to improve park-poor
communities at a time of severe budget and land constraints. My project is very timely
and relevant as I am part of a team at the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) currently working on the Florence-Firestone Community Parks and
Recreation Plan (CPRP). I am serving as the primary author of this plan and have been
actively involved in the public participation process, which has included: community
workshops; interviews with stakeholders; focused workshops with seniors and youth;
and surveys of residents and sports organizations using County parks. This process has

10
given me many opportunities to listen and learn. The qualitative and quantitative data
collected through the process are summarized and analyzed as part of this paper.

The purpose of the Florence-Firestone CPRP is to plan for parks and recreational
services that meet the needs of residents. County parks and recreational facilities are a
vital part of enhancing the quality of life for community residents. The goals, policies,
and implementation actions set forth in this plan address the growing and diverse
recreation needs of Florence-Firestone. The plan is intended to provide strategic
direction for implementing a bold “green-rich” vision for Florence-Firestone. The
Florence-Firestone CPRP is the first plan developed by DPR for a specific
unincorporated community. The plan offers focused policies and implementation
strategies to address park and recreation needs in Florence-Firestone identified through
the community input process. This plan will be incorporated into the Florence-Firestone
Community Plan to be prepared by the Los Angeles County Department of Regional
Planning. The community plan will address a variety of issues including (but not limited
to) land use, transportation, and sustainability.

On a more personal note, I am motivated by the desire to help improve and expand
recreational options for a community in need because I have experienced firsthand the
many benefits of parks and recreational facilities. Growing up in Hong Kong, I spent
many of my weekends at parks or recreation centers doing one of the following:
swimming, playing badminton, table tennis or tennis, and trying to improve my basketball
or soccer skills. Now as an adult who continues to enjoy sports, I visit my local park or
gym about four or five times a week and consider myself fortunate that I have easy

11
access to these facilities. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the residents of many
underserved communities in Los Angeles that have fewer and/or less accessible parks
and recreational facilities than other neighborhoods (García & White, 2006; Sloane et al,
2006). In addition, parks in areas such as South Los Angeles are often lacking
amenities and do not offer the same level of service as facilities in higher income
neighborhoods such as West Los Angeles (Sloane et al, p. 154). While most studies
have focused on the location and availability of public parks, Sloane et al examined
prices for recreation and the availability of privately owned facilities. Their study
provides a good foundation for further research on the role of and services provided by
privately owned facilities as well as “non-traditional providers of active leisure services”
in underserved communities (p. 152).

My paper builds upon and shares lessons learned from the work done as part of the
Florence-Firestone CPRP. It goes further by including ideas, observations, suggestions,
and proposals that may be too unconventional, experimental, and/or politically
controversial to be included in an official government planning document. This paper
explores new and creative ideas such as flexible park design, mobile gyms, temporary
use of existing spaces for recreation, and play areas that may be drastically different
from today’s parks. While some of these ideas may appear impractical at first, they have
been successfully implemented elsewhere, in places as needy as and denser than
Florence-Firestone. For example, mobile gyms may be found across cities in the U.S.,
including Atlanta, Cleveland, Columbia (Maryland), and Los Angeles. Similarly, street
closures for sports and mobile swimming pools are examples of creative strategies

12
employed in New York City. A futsal (miniature version of soccer) field may also be
found above a commercial building in Japan.

Chapter 2 of this paper offers background information and summarizes lessons from the
past and present regarding the following topics: the creation of urban parks; joint-use
facilities such as schools and churches; funding for parks; experiments with other
service delivery arrangements such as the contracting-out of selected recreational
services and privatization; and the provision of recreational services in challenging, i.e.
low-income, high crime, park-poor, communities.

Chapter 3 presents and explains in greater detail my proposal – the provision of more
and improved recreational services through multiple-use facilities and partnerships with
other public, nonprofit, and private organizations. This chapter first describes the
traditional role of park and recreation agencies as producers and guardians of parks, the
types of recreational facilities typically offered in communities, and the role of recreation
staff and programs. It then describes the new role for park agencies as facilitators of
recreational services.

Chapter 4 details a case study prepared to identify and evaluate options to provide more
and improved parks and recreational services to residents in Florence-Firestone. This
chapter first provides a background on Florence-Firestone, including a profile of the
community, its history, and an inventory of existing park and recreational resources in
the area. It then offers a summary of the community input received through the
Florence-Firestone CPRP preparation process as well as supplemental market data

13
regarding the community’s recreation expenditures, sports market potential, and health
market potential. This is followed by a stakeholder power analysis that identifies key
stakeholders, explains their roles, and assesses their power and potential to influence or
affect park and recreation policies. Finally, alternative ways, locations, and partners to
deliver recreational services in Florence-Firestone are presented.

Recognizing the need to be practical and realistic, Chapter 5 addresses implementation
issues including the administrative and political, equity and ethical, financial, legal, and
public safety challenges of pursuing this alternative approach. Of particular importance
is the political feasibility of shifting a parks agency from being primarily a producer and
guardian of parks to being a facilitator of recreational services within the context of a
community where crime and safety are major concerns.

Finally, Chapter 6 is the concluding chapter of this paper and details the next steps DPR
could take to implement the alternative approach to meet the park and recreation needs
of underserved communities like Florence-Firestone. This chapter is intended to provide
the practical guidance necessary to make the vision of a healthier and improved
Florence-Firestone a reality.

14
Chapter 2:
Lessons from the Past and Present

This chapter offers background information and summarizes lessons from the past and
present regarding the following topics: the creation of urban parks; joint-use facilities
such as schools and churches; funding for parks; experiments with other service delivery
arrangements such as the contracting-out of selected recreational services and
privatization; and the provision of recreational services in challenging, i.e. low-income,
high crime, park-poor, communities.

A. Past and Present of Urban Parks
Urban parks have been important to American cities and their residents for over a
century. Social reformers first advocated for parks believing that they could eliminate
urban ills such as diseases, poverty, crime, and social division. While parks alone have
not solved these problems, they offer significant benefits and contribute to the quality of
life in cities. Frederick Law Olmsted, the father of American landscape architecture, had
the grand vision of providing every American with access to public open space, including
parks, parkways, nature preserves, and integrated regional park systems.

Olmsted’s vision remains relevant today as the many benefits of parks are reaffirmed
and publicized, especially those pertaining to public health. Although Los Angeles never
adopted the Olmsted-Bartholomew plan to create a comprehensive system of parks and
open space, urban parks have been and will likely continue to be created through the
joint advocacy and efforts of environmental justice groups, business interests, residents
in underserved areas, planners, and public health professionals. Instead of pursuing

15
large-scale projects like New York’s Central Park, many park advocates now support the
development of smaller parks and gardens in underserved urban neighborhoods. The
new parks may not be as grand or vast as earlier parks, but they do offer park and
recreational services that meet the needs of communities, especially those that are
currently underserved.

This section presents a review of the main ideas in the scholarly literature on the past
and present of urban parks. It first describes and analyzes the parks and playgrounds
movements in the United States, and then focuses on park and recreation planning in
Los Angeles, one of the most park-poor cities in the U.S.

The Parks Movement
The urban parks movement began in England in the nineteenth century when public
parks like London’s Victoria Park were created. The movement was the result of public
concerns about the deteriorating conditions of industrial towns. Public parks were
developed for hygienic and humanitarian reasons by local governments or donated by
“philanthropic entrepreneurs with a conscience, or entrepreneurs with initiative and an
eye for profits from rising land values” (Clark, 1973, p. 31). At that time, parks
symbolized nature, affluence and health, and were considered to be an answer to most
urban ills including: overcrowding, poverty, squalor, ill-health, and lack of morals and
morale (Taylor, 1995, p. 202).

While playgrounds are standard features at many parks today, the parks and
playgrounds movements were actually separate. When the U.S. urban parks movement

16
began in the 1840s, advocates like their counterparts in England envisioned parks as
places for health and social development, for uplifting people. They wanted to use parks
to provide a natural setting in urban communities to achieve larger social goals. The first
urban parks were gardens designed as places of beauty, respite, and retreat
(Springgate, 2008, p. 1). Throughout the 1840s, landscape gardener Andrew Jackson
Downing urged cities to set aside land for parks while they could. New York City was
the first to respond by acquiring 840 acres in upper Manhattan for park purposes and
announced a design competition (Boyer, 1978, p. 236). Frederick Law Olmsted and
Calvert Vaux won the competition with their plan for the now world-famous Central Park.
Their proposal was known as the “Greensward Plan” and reflected their assumption that
the park should be a beautiful open green space (Rosenzweig & Blackmar, 1992, p.
142). Olmsted later emerged as the dominant figure in the urban park movement and
contributed to the development of large-scale parks in Boston, Chicago, Brooklyn,
Philadelphia, and other cities (Boyer, p. 236).

As cities continued to grow and slums became ever more congested with new
immigrants in the 1890s, a single municipal park, regardless of its size and qualities, was
obviously insufficient and inadequate. The emphasis then shifted to creating park
systems, including small neighborhood parks in crowded districts. In Boston, for
example, Olmsted helped the city to create the Emerald Necklace, a chain of parks
connected by landscaped parkways. This endeavor reflected his strong belief that cities
need a park system to bring the benefits of natural scenery within walking distance of all
residents (Low et al, 2005, p. 24). By 1920, nearly every major American city had its
own park commission and network of parks in existence or under development.

17

Park advocates saw an important moral dimension to their efforts. For example, the
mayor of New York argued in 1851 that such a retreat in the city would provide a morally
preferable alternative for the thousands who were spending their Sundays in slum
housing (Boyer, p. 237). Olmsted believed in the moral significance of urban parks and
argued that nature could counter social and moral hazards associated with urbanization.
He thought the ideal park would have at its heart a “broad, open space of clean
greensward,” with a surrounding screen of trees to “completely shut out the city” (Ibid, p.
238). In the design of their parks, Olmsted and Vaux wanted to maximize natural
scenery while keeping the artificial and the human-made to a minimum. Not surprisingly,
the early Olmsted parks were characterized by their spaciousness, flexibility, and beauty
(Springgate, p. 3).

Later, other park advocates asserted that it was not enough just to create a natural
retreat in the city and then wait for it to positively influence park users. They felt that to
function as an instrument of urban social control, the park must be properly managed
and administered. Park administrators began stimulating the cultural development of
park users by organizing musical and dramatic performances. Eventually, many park
departments sponsored music, but not all kinds were allowed. For example, park
administrators excluded German polkas (“oompah music”) because they were
considered “undignified, overly stimulating, and associated with dancing” (Cranz, 1989,
p.10). Concerts became so important that planners in New York City and San Francisco
specifically designed roadways to include places for horse carriages to stop and listen to
music coming from Central Park and Golden Gate Park (Ibid, p. 10).

18

The Playground Movement
The playground movement began modestly towards the end of the nineteenth century
before gaining momentum in early twentieth century. A schoolyard devoted to play was
established in Boston by 1868, a playground in the athletics fields of Chicago’s
Washington Park by 1876, and a children’s sand garden was created in Boston in 1885
(Cranz, p. 63). In 1890 the Society for Parks and Playgrounds for Children opened a
small playground on New York’s Lower East Side, but it was soon vandalized and
abandoned. Despite this setback, Boston’s Joseph Lee, the father of American
playgrounds, worked tirelessly to spread the playground message. He firmly believed
that “Play is the intensest part of the life of a child” (Boyer, p. 242) and even said, “Play
is the child” (Cranz, p. 66). In 1906 Lee joined with Dr. Luther H. Gulick, director of
physical training in the New York City public schools, Henry Stoddard Curtis, and others
to found the Playground Association of America. The focus on play eventually
broadened to include a variety of activities for young and old (Cranz, p. 66).

The City of Chicago took Lee’s playground message to heart, spending about $15
million between 1899 and 1909 to develop thirty playground/recreation centers in the
city’s immigrant wards (Boyer, p. 242). Chicago’s commitment to playgrounds was
duplicated on a more modest scale throughout urban America. Like the housing and
park reformers, the early playground advocates had a social vision far greater than might
appear at first glance. They were not simply focused on improving the physical
environment for urban dwellers; they also wanted to shape a cohesive urban moral
order.

19

Initially, the playground movement was considered fully compatible with park reform.
However, as it gained its own supporters and adopted its own organizational structure,
its spokesmen increasingly criticized park administrators for their emphasis on
preserving natural landscapes, even when it meant severe restrictions on park use,
especially by children. One playground leader said that parks were appropriately called
urban “breathing spaces” because “breathing was about all one was permitted to do in
them” (Boyer, pp. 244-245).

In retrospect, the playground movement was actually part of the Reform and Recreation
Facilities Eras between 1900 and 1930. The Reform movement focused on helping
urban residents use their leisure time productively and aggressively combating social ills
through the provision of “enlightened programming and recreation facilities” (Springgate,
p. 3). The Recreation Facility Era (1930 to 1965) then followed, with an emphasis on
more practical considerations rather than social reform. Planning standards were
developed for a wide range of facilities and programs, from community centers and
sports fields to playgrounds and tennis courts. During this era, a “good” park was one
that accommodated as many recreational amenities and organized recreation activities
as possible; aesthetics, landscaping, and open space were secondary considerations
(Ibid, p. 3). Many of these recreation-oriented parks were developed in recent decades,
primarily in suburban communities.

20
Park and Recreation in Los Angeles
In 1930, the firm Olmsted Brothers and Bartholomew & Associates submitted a report
titled “Parks, Playgrounds, and Beaches in the Los Angeles Region” to the Los Angeles
Chamber of Commerce (Hise & Deverell, 2000, p. 1). The report proposed a
comprehensive and coherent network of parks, playgrounds, schools, beaches, forests,
and transportation to promote the social, economic, and environmental vitality of Los
Angeles and the health of its residents. The Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan was a model of
visionary and bold planning commissioned at a time when land was available and the
region’s population was growing tremendously. However, the plan was never adopted
and only segments of the report have been implemented to date due to a variety of
political, economic, and financial reasons.

Today, Los Angeles is one of the most park-poor cities in the United States. With only
10 percent of its total area devoted to parks and open space, Los Angeles lags behind
all other major cities on the west coast (see Table 1) and ranks below New York and
Philadelphia nationally. In addition, parks and open spaces are distributed unevenly in
the region, with a significant portion of parkland located away from the urban core and
underserved communities (see Figure 2). Griffith Park, for example, has an area of over
4,000 acres, but does not provide for the active recreation elements typically available in
an urban park.
2
The park consists primarily of rugged hillsides and mountains, and is
difficult to reach without a car.


2
Active recreation requires constructed facilities such as basketball courts and fields for soccer.

21

Table 1: Total Parks and Open Space as Percentage of City Area
City City Area
(in acres)
Total Parks/Open
Space (in acres)
Park/Open Space as
Percentage of City Area
Los Angeles 300,352 30,121 10.0%
Seattle 53,696 6,194 11.5%
Portland 79,808 12,591 15.8%
San Diego 207,360 36,108 17.4%
San Francisco 29,888 7,594 25.4%
Source: Harnik, 2000.

Figure 2: Public Parks and Open Space in Los Angeles

Source: Trust for Public Land, 2004.

Griffith Park

22
Another indicator of park needs in a community is access as measured by the
percentage of children within walking distance or one-quarter mile of a park.
3
Los
Angeles offers its children the worst access to parks among the seven major cities
evaluated (TPL, 2004, p. 6). As shown in Table 2, only one-third of the city’s children
live within walking distance of a park.

Table 2: Children’s Park Access in Seven Major Cities
City Percentage of children
within one-quarter mile of
a park
Number of children not
within one-quarter mile of a
park
Los Angeles 33% 657,700
Los Angeles County 36% 1,694,400
Dallas 42% 182,800
San Diego 65% 102,300
Seattle 79% 18,600
San Francisco 85% 16,700
New York 91% 178,500
Boston 97% 2,900
Source: Trust for Public Land, 2004.

Access to and availability of public facilities for physical activity, such as parks and
playgrounds, has an important role in the prevention and treatment of obesity. Research
shows that when people have access to parks, they are more likely to exercise, which
can reduce obesity and its associated health risks and costs (Gies, p. 8). A number of

3
Many cities and counties rely on National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) standards to
determine whether they have enough parks. These standards are expressed in terms of acres
per 1,000 residents. While these standards are helpful as general measures of parkland
availability, they were established decades earlier and do not accurately reflect the environment
and diversity of communities today. The standards, for example, do not address access nor do
they include many types of open space common in urban environments such as greenbelts and
trails. In addition, these standards are silent on the issue of equity; the same standards are used
regardless of whether a community is currently park-poor or park-rich.

23
studies reviewed in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine showed that “creation
of or enhanced access to places for physical activity combined with informational
outreach” produced a 48 percent increase in the frequency of physical activity (Kahn, pp.
87-88). These studies also found that easy access to a place to exercise resulted in a
five percent median increase in aerobic capacity, along with weight loss, a reduction in
body fat, and improvements in flexibility (Ibid, pp. 87-88).

There are unfair park and health disparities in Los Angeles based on ethnicity, income,
and access to cars (García & White, 2006, p. 3). Children of color disproportionately live
in communities of concentrated poverty without enough parks and playgrounds to play
in, and do not have the means to reach parks in other neighborhoods. Figure 3
identifies neighborhoods in Los Angeles with the greatest need for new parks. These
neighborhoods have high concentrations of residents under the age of 18 and have
limited or no parks within walking distance. The health implications of the lack of
physical activity are significant. Children in underserved communities are much more
likely to suffer from obesity, diabetes, and other diseases related to inactivity and the
lack of healthy food options (L.A. County Department of Public Health, 2007, p. 5).
García and White even declared that “this is the first generation in the history of this
country in which children will have a lower life expectancy than their parents if present
trends continue” (p. 3).

24
Figure 3: Neighborhoods with the Greatest Need for New Parks

Source: Trust for Public Land, 2004.

Fortunately, a coalition of community-based environmental and social justice groups has
emerged recently to lead efforts to address inequities in the provision of parks in the Los
Angeles area.
4
This coalition is trying to revive the Olmsted-Bartholomew vision and has
experienced some success along the Los Angeles River and at nearby lands that were
previously slated for non-park development. Specific examples include the Cornfield

4
This coalition was led by The City Project (formerly of the Center for Law in the Public Interest)
and included (but not limited to): Friends of the Los Angeles River, Concerned Citizens of South
Central Los Angeles, and the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles.
Florence-Firestone

25
near Chinatown and Taylor Yard, both of which have been developed with State parks
serving inner city residents.
5

B. Past and Present of Joint-Use Facilities
In addition to public parks, joint-use facilities are also used for recreational purposes.
Existing single-use facilities have the potential to meet multiple community needs. For
example, schools may be opened up for public recreation and community services
during non-school hours. Historically, churches have also been used for recreation
purposes. The idea of a joint-use or multiple-use facility is not new, but has been less
frequently considered or implemented due in part to the separation of uses through rigid
zoning regulations and/or the lack of coordination or cooperation between organizations.
This section focuses on schools and churches as examples of joint-use facilities.

Schools
The most common joint-use of facilities is likely to be the use of schools for public
recreation and community services during non-school hours, including evenings and
weekends. The idea of using indoor and outdoor facilities on school grounds for
community recreational use after school hours is actually quite old. The community
school concept of providing recreation programs with opportunities for physical activity
has been in existence at least since 1821, when a school in Salem, Massachusetts, was
made available for public recreation use (Spengler et al, 2007, p. 391). In 1898, New
York City’s Board of Education established the Division of Community Centers and

5
More information regarding the Cornfield and Taylor Yard are provided in Arnold (2007)’s Fair
and Healthy Land Use: Environmental Justice and Planning, pp. 112-113.

26
Vacation Playgrounds, and opened 18 community centers at schools throughout the city.
The joint-use of schools soon spread to other cities such as Flint, Michigan; Los
Angeles; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Rochester, New York. Over time, a number of
states passed legislation to enable public schools to conduct community recreation
programs, to work with municipal agencies to establish programs, and to permit the use
of school facilities by outside organizations.

One element of the joint-use of schools is the conversion of school yards into
playgrounds. According to Dolesh (2009), one of the first examples of turning
schoolyards into playgrounds occurred in 1938 at Fort Hamilton High School in New
York City, where visionary and legendary parks commissioner Robert Moses pioneered
the first schoolyard to parks program (p. 15). This site still operates today under a jointly
operated playground agreement or a JOP, and the early success led to hundreds more
jointly operated playgrounds.

The community school concept made sense to the public and to professionals in that it
helped avoid duplication of services by other tax-supported agencies. In most
communities, the local parks department provided the programs, staff, and equipment,
while the schools’ role in the partnership was limited to providing access to their
facilities. This partnership between municipal recreation agencies and public schools
flourished from 1950 through 1960, when the number of public recreation programs
offered in school facilities more than doubled. Almost 17,000 school facilities throughout
the United States were being used for some type of public recreation program or activity
during this period (Spengler et al, p. 391).

27

One major factor that contributed to this phenomenon was the tremendous residential
growth in the 1950s. This increase in housing stock occurred with little or no planning
for recreational spaces or facilities. Meanwhile, new schools were being built to
accommodate the increase in student population. This development of schools
prompted taxpayers to resist any additional community expenditures, like recreational
services, that appeared less than essential. Thus, schools became the place not only to
educate children during the day but also to serve the community at night and on
weekends.

Recently, the Community-School-Park Plan has re-emerged as a strategy to maximize
the use of and enhance existing facilities in Los Angeles by opening up schools for
public recreation and community services, and replacing asphalt on school playgrounds
with lawns and trees (Foley et al, 2007). The plan also calls for the creation of new joint-
use facilities that serve the community as both schools and parks. This approach would
be implemented through joint- and community-use agreements involving the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), cities, and the County of Los Angeles
(representing the unincorporated areas).
6
These agreements allow school resources,
including fields, recreation areas, and fitness facilities, to be used by community
members during after school hours, providing significant benefit to the surrounding
community. The plan seeks to increase green space in underserved neighborhoods by
replacing asphalt on school grounds with turf, trees, and gardens. The turf could be

6
A joint-use agreement or community-use agreement is a legal document that describes the respective
responsibilities and obligations of the parties related to the facility which will be shared for a specified term.
Each party under the agreement contributes funds to develop and operate the shared facility.

28
used for multi-purpose sports fields and picnic areas, while trees could beautify school
campuses and gardens could offer valuable learning experiences for students.

Support for the Community-School-Park Plan is growing and is led by local nonprofit
groups like People for Parks and The City Project. In recent years, LAUSD has shown
the willingness and commitment to make this plan work, even though it had previously
built fortress-like schools that are closed to the public during non-school hours. In July
2008 LAUSD entered into an agreement with the City of Los Angeles to open ten
existing and five new school pools to the public in underserved neighborhoods.
7
In
addition, LAUSD recently initiated a Joint Use Development program to develop
partnerships and projects for both new and existing schools.
8
A recent example of a
joint use project is the Vista Hermosa Park in downtown Los Angeles. Built with state-of-
the-art green technologies, the new park offers environmental and natural history
education opportunities for the adjacent high school, and provides a regulation soccer
field for shared use by the school and the community.

The joint use of schools as recreational facilities has been successful in many
communities, but there are real and perceived constraints to allowing public access to
school property for physical activity. These constraints include concerns about funding,
cleanup, security, supervision, and maintenance of school facilities outside of regular
school hours. In addition, the fear of liability, such as lawsuits arising from injuries to

7
Office of the Mayor, City of Los Angeles. (2008, July 7). Mayor Villaraigosa, LAUSD partner to open school
pools to community in high-need areas. Retrieved on October 5, 2008, from
http://www.lacity.org/MAYOR/stellent/groups/electedofficials/@myr_ch_contributor/documents/contributor_w
eb_content/lacity_004774.pdf

8
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2008). Planning & Development Strategic Execution Plan.

29
recreational users of school properties, may discourage school officials from
participating in joint-use agreements (Spengler et al, p. 395).

Many school facilities throughout Los Angeles County are centrally located and are often
the most prevalent public space in underserved communities. These facilities serve as
places for learning, congregating, and playing. As such, school facilities have the
physical capacity to not only serve students, but local communities in numerous ways.
However, joint use of schools as recreational facilities requires thoughtful strategic
planning and implementation. It also calls for increased and quality communication
between school officials and local jurisdictions.

Studies suggest that joint use facilities and the accompanying programs can improve
and expand over time as joint use partners build relationships with one another (Cooper
& Vincent, 2008, p. 44). If structured and implemented properly, school districts and
partnering jurisdictions can achieve the following:
• Make more efficient use of existing school facilities and grounds;
• Reduce the need for public acquisition of expensive property in order to provide
public services;
• Build facilities or implement programming that might not otherwise be available
(including obesity prevention and educational enrichment programs);
• Increase communication and build or improve relationships between local school
districts and local jurisdictions; and
• Increase public access to local resources and improve community cohesion.

30
Churches
Churches have been used for recreational purposes for over a hundred years. Various
faith traditions have been engaged or disengaged in the provision of recreational
services at different times in their history. For example, in their book Muscular
Christianity: Evangelical Protestants and Development of American Sport, Ladd and
Mathisen (1999) trace the path of the calls by Christians to manliness, character
development, and healthful living through participation in active recreation. However,
the path has gone through various stages at different times. The first path called
“engagement” occurred in the late 1800s through the efforts of evangelist Dwight Moody
and athlete/coach Amos Alonzo Stagg, who wanted Christian leaders to save the souls
of men as well as their bodies. During this time, Christians appreciated both physical
and spiritual benefits of sports and engaged in sports. The movement was especially
strong in groups like the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA) and the many new
colleges and universities established throughout North America at the time.

The second path called “disengagement” began in the early 1900s with advocates like
Billy Sunday, a star baseball player who later became the most celebrated and influential
American evangelist during the first two decades of the twentieth century. A few years
later, he began to see baseball and Christian work as mutually exclusive endeavors.
Unlike the path of engagement, on this second path, Christians saw their faith and sport
involvements as conflicting activities and refrained from sports. The third path called
“reengagement” started in the late 1940s through the work of evangelist Billy Graham
who invited the American mile champion runner Gil Dodds to join him at his crusades.
Once again, sports and Christianity were seen as positive and complementary, with

31
many churches and Christian organizations actively combining faith and sports (Ladd &
Mathisen, 1999).

Scholarly writing on the relationship between church and recreation in recent years is
limited. Much of the literature available was written in the first half of the twentieth
century at a time when many church leaders accepted the responsibility of providing
adequate and proper play facilities for the children and youth, and some even
considered a moral duty (Gates, 1917; Harbin, 1948; Skidmore, 1942). Although dated,
these articles offer insights to the churches’ perception of their appropriate or proper role
in meeting the recreation needs of communities. In particular, in his book Recreation
and the Church, Harbin offers a comprehensive “philosophy for church recreation” that is
still relevant today (pp. 281-283). Provided below is an excerpt from Harbin’s book.

1. Recreation must be considered as an integral part of all that the church is
trying to do for people. It is not a side show.
2. The idea of recreation must be broadened so as to include much more than
the playing of games. It takes in all of the cultural and creative activities that
modern recreation leaders are now including in their programs for leisure-
time guidance. It includes reading, music, art, drama, the chance to converse
with friends, a creative hobby, songs, a quiet moment of worship, working in a
garden, a trip through the woods, the fellowship of a friendly game, and the
fun of a sports program.
3. Recreation should be considered as a necessary element in the scheme of
living. It therefore becomes essential that one's use of time should be so
managed as to include recreation in the schedule. Otherwise life becomes
unbalanced.
4. Recreation has physical, mental, and moral values that make it an
indispensable aid in the church's program.
5. Recreation has a definite service to perform in a machine-dominated world
that stifles creativity.
6. Properly conceived and promoted recreation is an effective instrument for
developing character and personality.
7. Its value in developing a spirit of friendliness and esprit de corps makes it a
necessary part of the church's program.

32
8. Individuals of every age level require normal opportunities for wholesome
leisure-time activities. The church program of recreation must include all age
groups-children, youth, adults.
9. Recreation is no bait, trap, or come-on to attract people to the church. When
such use is made of it the highest and best purposes are defeated and the
program is cheapened.
10. The church has a responsibility for helping people to make an intelligent use
of leisure time.
11. There are three reasons why the church must interest itself in community
recreation: (1) Church members do not grow up in a vacuum. Children,
young people, and adults have community contacts that are inescapable.
Thus the church must be intelligently concerned about what goes on in the
community; (2) The church's interest in human welfare makes it imperative
that it cooperate with other community agencies in providing adequate
recreation opportunities of such quality and variety as to meet community
needs; and (3) The church often has space and equipment that should be
made available for community recreation activities, if such space and
equipment are not available elsewhere. Therefore, the cooperation and
coordination of the efforts of churches, schools, and civic and private
agencies are both desirable and necessary.
12. Juvenile delinquency is becoming an increasingly grave problem. The
church, along with other agencies, must do its part in the solution of this
problem. Adequate recreation is part of the answer. However, it should be
recognized that recreation is no cure-all.

Harbin’s philosophy of church recreation summarizes important reasons for church
involvement in recreation. Interestingly, many churches and faith-based groups today
offer recreational facilities and services for many of the reasons stated above.

The YMCA movement is a historic example of the churches’ efforts to meet recreation
needs. The YMCA was founded in London, England, on June 6, 1844, in response to
unhealthy social conditions arising in the big cities as a result of the Industrial Revolution
(starting in 1750). The YMCA used physical fitness as an evangelism tool to attract
unruly men who would not attend Bible classes. While the nonprofit organization began
to meet the needs of poor men working in the factories, it was driven by evangelicals
who wanted to convert them. Soon, leaders saw the value of combining spiritual and

33
physical health to strengthen the entire man, on the inside and outside. In 1860 the
leaders of more than 200 American and Canadian YMCAs agreed on “the importance
and necessity of a place of rational and innocent amusement and recreation for young
men, especially in large cities and towns,” and resolved that “each local branch of the
YMCA should build a gymnasium with all due haste” (Baker, 2007, p. 50). However, no
gyms were immediately constructed due to the Civic War.

At the end of the war in 1865, most YMCAs were located in church basements or in
some rented building downtown and none of them had a gymnasium. By 1890,
however, approximately 400 YMCA gyms were established, half of which had paid
supervisors of physical activity (Ibid, p. 50). The YMCA lost some of its focus on
physical fitness during the Depression and changing cultural times in the following
decades. However, the old health-and-fitness aspect returned in the 1970s to meet the
wave of new interest in healthy lifestyles. By then, the YMCA was no longer a Christian
evangelical organization at its core. Today, the organization has rebranded itself as
simply “The Y” and “the nation’s leading nonprofit organization for youth development,
healthy living and social responsibility” (YMCA, 2010).

While the YMCA has discarded its original intent of evangelization, many Christian
churches in the United States are continuing the effort to spread the gospel by using
recreation and sports. Florida’s Sarasota Alliance Church is a current example. Alliance
church focuses on getting young families and those disinterested in traditional churches
into the church. The congregation built the “Christian Life Center” behind its facility as a
multi-use building to be used for community events (Thomson, 2002, p. E-1). The two-

34
story structure includes the gym, a large youth room for up to 100 teenagers, and
meeting rooms. The center and its recreational outreach are considered critical to the
mission of the church. Another example is the First AME Church in South Los Angeles
which offers exercise classes in its basement. Over 30 women go to the church each
Friday night to attend a dance/exercise class (Wenger, 2009). Participants are not only
learning new dance moves, they are also improving their health and making new friends.

C. Funding for Parks
Historically, large urban parks were funded and built because: 1) reformers believed that
parks could cure social ills; 2) property owners saw parks as a means to increase the
value of their holdings and contributed money to park development; and 3) politicians
wanted to have well-known parks to elevate their city’s reputation and civic pride.
Today, with few exceptions, park development is generally at a much smaller scale than
in the past and is funded by a combination of in-lieu fees collected through the Quimby
Act, park impact fees, local government general funds, bonds, redevelopment funds, and
other sources. The distribution of these park funds has for the most part been uneven in
Los Angeles, failing to help those communities that have traditionally been underserved
and park-poor. With increasing budget constraints, park agencies need to pursue other
sources, including sponsorships and donations. However, these resources are modest
and are only able to support smaller projects. Park agencies like DPR and the City of
Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks also lack sufficient funds to operate
and maintain existing parks, resulting in some facilities falling into disrepair.

35
In the past, the most significant objective of public investment in parks was its strategic
value in encouraging real estate development in the areas surrounding the park, altering
land-use patterns, and reshaping the very character of urban life. For example, park
advocates were eager to point out that New York’s Central Park had successfully
increased the value of adjacent land (Cranz, p. 175). Within a decade and a half, the
value of property in the wards surrounding Central Park had increased nine times
(Garvin, p. 10). The real estate taxes generated from this increase in value were
sufficient to pay the entire principal and interest of the cost of the park in less time than
was required for its construction. Cities everywhere wanted to duplicate New York’s
success. Within a few years, similar parks were being created in many other cities. San
Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, for example, was built in large part due to the support it
received from those who knew that adjacent property values rose following the creation
of Central Park. According to Young (2004), these supporters “recognized that their
remaining properties would become more valuable, that the rise would be sharpest
along the immediate margins of the park, and that a long rectangle maximized a
perimeter’s extent” (p. 66). Not surprisingly, Golden Gate Park has an elongate shape
that provided an abundance of increased property values for landholders and the city.

Interestingly, the business community in Los Angeles, along with some planning and
design professionals, are currently advocating for new large urban parks in Los Angeles
seeking to create their own version of Central Park. One proposal is the “PARK 101”
idea which calls for a new 100-acre major urban park in downtown Los Angeles (Davies,
2008, pp. 42-45). Another is the proposed 44-acre Hollywood Freeway Central Park
which has the backing of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce and a long list of

36
politicians. Proponents of both proposals believe that the parks would offer economic
benefits in addition to addressing the park deficit in Los Angeles, including: enhancing
real estate values, and attracting tourists and businesses. Prominent park researcher
Dr. John L. Crompton (2001) has demonstrated through studies that the economic
values of parks can be measured and their economic benefits can be realized through
appropriate design, siting, maintenance, and marketing.
9
Ironically, the business
community in Los Angeles was responsible for killing the visionary Olmsted-
Bartholomew Plan (Hise & Deverell).

The primary sources of funding for parks and recreation in Los Angeles County are:
Quimby fees, Proposition A Funds, County General Funds, Landscaping and Lighting
Districts, and Mello Roos Districts. These are described below.

Quimby Fees
As authorized under the 1975 Quimby Act, cities and counties in California can adopt
ordinances to require developers to help mitigate the impacts of residential development
on parks and recreational resources. Specifically, developers are required to either
provide parks or pay a fee to city and county park agencies which they use to develop
new parks or improve existing parks in the area of the proposed development. While the
Quimby Act provides a consistent means of providing parks in growing areas and helps
supplement limited local parks and recreation budget, it has reinforced disparities by not
addressing inequities in the provision of parks and recreation services.


9
Crompton, J.L. (2001). Parks and economic development.

37
In the case of Los Angeles County (unincorporated areas only), most Quimby fees have
been generated and spent in suburban and more distant areas such as the Santa Clarita
Valley where the vast majority of new residential development is occurring. Conversely,
little fees are collected in urban unincorporated areas like Willowbrook/West Compton,
Florence-Firestone, and East Los Angeles where limited new housing has been built.
Table 3 shows the amount of Quimby fees collected in the Santa Clarita Valley and
selected urban areas between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010. Because
Quimby fees must be spent in the immediate area where they are collected, the money
cannot be redistributed to more needy areas. This limitation has meant that wealthier
and/or higher income households in the suburbs continue to enjoy new parks, while
lower income households are often stuck with parks that are lacking and deteriorating.

Table 3: Quimby Fees collected in Selected Unincorporated Areas – 2000 to 2010
Park Planning Area (PPA) Number and Name Quimby Fees Collected
Santa Clarita Valley
PPA 35A: Newhall/Valencia $393,960
PPA 35B: Castaic/Val Verde $1,852,684
PPA 35C: Saugus $705,630
PPA 35D: Canyon Country $1,721,570
PPA 35E: Placerita Canyon $704,923
Sub-total $5,378,767
Selected Urban Communities
PPA 22: Willowbrook/West Compton $66,780
PPA 23: Florence-Firestone $183,600
PPA 24: East Los Angeles $21,010
Sub-total $271,390
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010.

38
Proposition A Funds
Proposition A Funds may be used to fund the development, acquisition, improvement,
restoration and maintenance of parks, recreational, cultural and community facilities and
open space lands within the County of Los Angeles. These funds are administered by
the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District.

The Open Space District was created when voters approved Proposition A in the
November 3, 1992, General Election. Proposition A authorized an annual assessment
on nearly all of the 2.25 million parcels of real property in the County. Proposition A
funded $540 million for the acquisition, restoration or rehabilitation of real property for
parks and park safety, senior recreation facilities, gang prevention, beaches, recreation,
community or cultural facilities, trails, wildlife habitats, or natural lands, and maintenance
and servicing of those projects. On November 5, 1996, the County’s voters approved
another Proposition A to fund an additional $319 million of parks and recreation projects
and additional funds for maintenance and servicing of those projects.

General Fund
Park operating expenditures are funded out of DPR’s allocation of the County’s General
Fund. The General Fund accounts for all resources which are not required to be
accounted for in a separate fund. The General Fund is used for activities of a general
nature including administration, legislation, public protection, health and welfare, and
parks and recreation.

39
Landscaping and Lighting District
The 1972 Landscaping and Lighting Act authorizes local legislative bodies to establish
benefit-related assessment districts, and to levy assessments for the construction,
installation, and maintenance of certain public landscaping and lighting improvements.
Landscaping and Lighting Act Districts (LLADs) may be established to maintain local
public parks. Whenever a local public park is proposed within a subdivision, DPR
recommends as a condition of map approval that, prior to County accepting title to the
park, that an LLAD be created to maintain the park for the mutual benefit of the
subdivider and the County.

Mello-Roos District
A developer may apply to the County to form a Mello-Roos district pursuant to the 1982
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act (Government Code §53311 et seq.) to develop and
maintain park improvements. Pursuant to County guidelines, the parks would have to be
regional in nature, having an impact or benefit beyond the subdivision.

Parks will always face a funding challenge. While they have traditionally been viewed as
a classic public good financed through general taxation, the combination of tax-cutting
initiatives and stiff competition for government funds suggest a new approach is needed.
Policy makers often see parks and recreation services as “nice to have” amenities rather
than “need to have” community services such as public safety and road repair. This
perception means parks and recreation departments are often the hardest hit during
times of budget cuts (Eysenback, pp. 15-16). Recently, Los Angeles County Supervisor
Gloria Molina mentioned parks, libraries, and the arts as areas that would be subject to

40
cuts because they are not considered “critical county services” like public safety
(“Supervisor Gloria Molina: County facing dark economic outlook,” 2010). Fortunately,
the County’s DPR did not experience any cut in its 2010-2011 budget. Table 4 below
provides the department’s budget information from FY 2002-2003 to present. While
DPR’s net appropriation has increased since 2002-2003 (with the exception of 2009-
2010), the figures are deceiving because they are not inflation-adjusted. Also important
to note is that DPR’s role and responsibilities have also grown over the same period as a
result of new park creation and the need to meet new mandates. What is most telling in
Table 4 is the decrease in DPR job positions, by over 200 since FY 2007-2008, which
has translated into reduction in services, especially after-school recreational programs.

Table 4: DPR Budget Information – 2002 to 2011
Fiscal Year
(FY)
Net
Appropriation
Revenue Net County Cost Job Positions
2002-2003 $96.9 million $33.8 million $63.1 million 1,276
2003-2004 $96.1 million $34.4 million $61.7 million 1,163
2004-2005 $102.3 million $38.5 million $63.8 million 1,239
2005-2006 $131.0 million $43.9 million $87.1 million 1,583
2006-2007 $136.2 million $42.4 million $93.8 million 1,660
2007-2008 $145.2 million $41.9 million $103.2 million 1,673
2008-2009 $150.3 million $41.0 million $109.3 million 1,605
2009-2010 $148.3 million $41.4 million $106.9 million 1,477
2010-2011* $154.1 million $43.4. million $110.7 million 1,461
Source: County of Los Angeles Annual Reports, 2000 to 2009; * Based on adopted 2010-2011 Budget.

Park advocates must explore a wider array of funding options, both traditional and
innovative. A full menu of public, nonprofit, and private financing options exists that can

41
and must be pursued for parks systems to survive and thrive during these tough
economic times (Lewis, p. 13).

While the lack of adequate funding is certainly an issue, Little et al (2007) reminds us
that how parks are managed and how funds are raised, allocated, and spent are equally
important (p. 3). Thus, they also focus on such governance issues in their study of
funding and management options for the improvement and maintenance of Balboa Park
in the City of San Diego. In particular, Little et al suggest that the creation of a joint
powers authority or JPA could improve management and administration of Balboa Park
by centralizing decision-making, allowing for more effective planning, and encouraging
greater accountability. JPAs are eligible for the same governmental grants and
subsidies as local park departments. They are also able to issue revenue bonds based
on their own credit profile as independent agencies, absolving the city from potential
debt burdens and facilitating the financing of capital improvements. Under this sort of
management, park administration would remain public. Like other governmental
agencies, these entities can also make contracts and form partnerships with the private
sector. There are numerous examples of independent public agencies operating major
park systems throughout the country that have characteristics similar to a JPA, including
the Chicago Park District, Oakland’s East Bay Regional Park District, Minneapolis Park
and Recreation Board, and Philadelphia’s Fairmount Park Commission (Ibid, p. 7).

42
D. Experiments with Other Service Delivery Arrangements
In response to fiscal constraints, local governments have had to experiment with other
service delivery arrangements. This section addresses two service delivery
arrangements: the contracting-out of selected services and privatization.

Contracting-out of Selected Services
Some park and recreation agencies have contracted out to address the typical high cost
and inflexibility associated with the traditional model of direct service provision.
Contracting out shifts responsibility for direct production of services away from the park
agency to an outside organization or organizations paid to provide them (Crompton,
1999, p. 228). Organizations to which responsibility may be shifted include both for-
profit commercial businesses and nonprofit entities, such as community groups, Boys &
Girls Clubs, and YMCAs.

The idea of contracting with other organizations to provide park services is not a recent
development. Initially, the list of services contracted out was limited to professional
services like architectural and landscape design. However, after the tax revolt
movement, the list expanded to include recreational program activity classes and
maintenance services requiring highly specialized and expensive equipment that some
agencies could not afford to purchase (Crompton, p. 228). These services included tree
trimming, equipment maintenance and repair, specialized garden or turf maintenance,
and garbage collection from facilities. Contracting out can free agency staff resources
and dollars for other purposes. It may both save the agency money and remove the
challenges associated with daily management.

43

While outsourcing services may reduce costs of service provision, it can result in loss of
administrative control and reduced ability to achieve distributive aims by targeting
services to particular groups. The major advantage park and recreation agencies have
from not contracting out and retaining direct delivery is control. They are able to control
decisions concerning price, scheduling, service quality, and shifts in service priorities,
without having to negotiate with a contractor about each decision (Crompton, p. 228).
Contracting out can also lead to inequities in service delivery and can make government
less accountable to its constituents (Joassart-Marcelli & Musso, p. 492).

Privatization
Privatization is as old as government itself. The emergence of privatization was a
natural response to the perceived and actual limitations of direct service provision by
park and recreation agencies. Privatization incorporates “all activities that reduce the
role of the public sector in the financing, production, or management of services or
assets” and involves the replacement of public resources with private investments
(Crompton, p. 152). Supporters of privatization include commercial interests who want
more business and those who favor smaller government. The goal of commercial
interests is to obtain more business by taking over some of a park and recreation
agency’s financing, production, or operating roles. They view privatization as a way to
pursue profitable business opportunities that they think exist in a park and recreation
system. For those who approach the issue ideologically, privatization is a political
agenda aimed at ensuring that government plays a smaller role than the private sector

44
plays. These ideologists believe that government’s role in service production has
become too dominant.

The purest form of privatization is the sale of existing public park and recreation
properties to private entities. This, of course, is extreme and generally not well-received
by residents who perceive public recreational facilities as an important contributor to a
community’s quality of life. Thus, any proposed sale of parks would cause substantial
opposition and “inflict an unacceptable level of political cost on elected officials who
propose such actions” (Crompton, p. 152).

While the sale of any public parks is highly unlikely, a growing number of park and
recreation agencies have formed partnerships with private entities to pursue joint
development. This arrangement translates to a reduction in the role of a park agency
and an increase in the role of the private sector in the financing, management, or
provision of recreational services. Crompton identifies five different types of joint
development (pp. 224-225). The first type is the multi-party partnership in which a park
agency takes the lead in conceptualizing and implementing developments involving
several financial partners. Second, an existing facility may be enlarged by inviting a
business to invest in improvements of the facility in exchange for the right to operate it
during off-peak hours. The third type is commercial pump priming which involves a
business using some of its assets to entice a park agency to make a relatively large
investment in a facility from which the business will also gain. Fourth, a developer
finances and develops a park or recreational facility according to an agency’s
specifications and then leases it to the agency at a previously negotiated rent for a

45
specified period of time. Finally, the fifth type is multiple exploitation of a resource which
means businesses are allowed to make use of a public resource and money accrued
from the sale of this right is used to improve the facility for recreational use.

E. Provision of Recreational Services in Challenging Areas
The provision of recreational services is especially challenging in underserved
communities. These neighborhoods are often characterized by the low incomes of
residents, high levels of crime, and the lack of parks and recreational facilities. In urban
Los Angeles, youth crimes involving gangs is a particularly problematic issue.

Park and recreation agencies have traditionally played a key role in the alleviation of
youth crime. As discussed earlier, the desire and urgency to address delinquent
behavior stimulated the development of parks, playgrounds, and recreational programs
in the early twentieth century. In addition, churches and other nonprofits also became
involved in recreation in part to tackle the problem of juvenile delinquency.

Park and recreation agencies are uniquely positioned to be a primary community
resource to address youth crime for at least three reasons. First, parks and recreation
centers (where many gangs and at-risk youth gather) are distributed widely across
communities and can be conveniently used as service centers to address gang- and
youth-related problems. Second, some of the park and recreation staff are from
underserved neighborhoods and are experienced in establishing trusting relationships
with the youth in these communities. Finally, recreational activities are inherently

46
appealing to large segments of youth, including at-risk youth, and thus, offer
opportunities to positively influence social behavior.

When youth crime is a significant issue in a community, a park and recreation agency
would need to redirect some of its resources and/or solicit outside help to develop a
high-profile, substantive initiative of new or revamped services targeting at-risk youth.
Recreational services would be designed and structured carefully to provide positive
alternatives for youth who might otherwise engage in criminal or gang-related activities.
Critical elements in the design or structuring of services are likely to include: social
support from adult leaders; leadership opportunities for youth; individualized attention for
participants; facilitation of a sense of belonging to a group; youth input and decision-
making in programs; the provision of challenging and interesting activities; and
opportunities for community service (Crompton, p. 130). Described below are examples
of two local programs created specifically to address gangs and offer additional
recreational opportunities for youth.

Summer Night Lights Program
The City of Los Angeles’ Summer Night Lights (SNL) is an anti-gang initiative that keeps
parks open after dark--during the peak hours for gang activity--with free food and
expanded programming. By empowering communities and targeting the traditionally
most-violent summer months, Summer Night Lights has become a national model for
violence reduction. Launched in 2008, SNL has expanded from 8 parks to 24 citywide,
leading to a 40% reduction in gang-related homicides in SNL neighborhoods this
summer (Gold, 2010, p. A-43).

47

Hours at each site were extended until midnight four days a week. An audit found that
residents made 710,000 visits to the 24 sites between July 7 and September 4, 2010
(Ibid, p. A-43). On average, nearly 11,000 people were served free meals each night.
The program cost approximately $5.4 million; half of that came from private donors and
the other half from public sources. While the cost seems to be high, one should
consider that gang-related violent crimes also adversely impact the public financially in
justice system costs, lost productivity, and law enforcement costs.

The economic cost from juvenile crime is very high. In total, each juvenile cohort in
California imposes an economic loss of $8.9 billion on the state’s citizens (Belfield &
Levin, 2009). Part of the explanation for juvenile crime is poor education. In their
research, Belfield and Levin estimated the economic loss from juvenile crime associated
with not finishing high school before age 18. Using results from three separate studies
and applying their results for California, they estimated the annual juvenile crime loss
associated with high school dropouts at $1.1 billion. They also compared the losses
from juvenile crime with the costs of improving the education system, and determined
that savings in juvenile crime alone will offset approximately 16% of the costs of
providing these interventions.

48
Parks after Dark Program
Through the Parks after Dark (PAD) program, the Los Angeles County Department of
Parks and Recreation extended hours and offered additional activities at the three parks
during the summer of 2010. The parks were: Ted Watkins Park and Franklin Roosevelt
Park in Florence-Firestone; and Pamela Park in unincorporated Duarte. This model
program was funded through the LA84 Foundation
10
and was a collaborative effort
involving other County departments including: Chief Executive Office, Sheriff, Probation,
Public Library, Public Health, Community and Senior Services, Human Relations
Commission, Public Defender, and District Attorney.

Extended park hours took place Wednesdays to Saturdays through September 4, 2010.
Additional programming and activities for all community residents included sports
activities, cultural and educational activities, musical concerts in the parks, movies in the
parks, employment opportunities for local youth and resource fairs. PAD provided youth
with productive activities to decrease the likelihood of participation in at-risk behavior,
including gang activity and is a component of the County’s Gang Initiative intended to
reduce gangs and gang violence. As of this writing, how or whether the program
affected crime rates around the parks in the summer has not been fully studied.
However, given the program’s similarity to the Summer Night Lights program, a similar
reduction in crime will likely be reported in the future.

10
The LA84 Foundation is endowed with surplus funds from the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic
Games. Its mission is to serve youth through sport and to increase knowledge of sport and its
impact on people’s lives. The LA84 Foundation supports a wide array of youth sports
programming. The Foundation awards grants to youth sports organizations within the eight
southernmost counties of California. It also conducts youth sports and coaching education
programs, a number of which have become models for similar programs nationwide. The
Foundation has committed more than $191 million to accomplish its mission since 1985. To date,
over two million boys and girls, and more than 1,000 youth sports organizations throughout
Southern California have benefited from the endowment (Decker, 2009).

49

Both programs point to the need for multi-agency collaboration in addressing gang-
related issues in communities. They also show that maximizing the use of existing
facilities through extension of hours with lighting and additional programs can be a very
effective way to address the recreation needs of underserved communities. Also, as
Harnik (2010) points out, night lighting is still economical in comparison to land
acquisition, especially in areas where land is costly (p. 154).

50
Chapter 3:
The Proposal: New Role for Park and Recreation Agencies

This chapter presents and explains in detail my proposal – the provision of more and
improved recreational services through multiple-use facilities and partnerships with other
public, nonprofit, and private organizations. This chapter first describes the traditional
role of park and recreation agencies as producers and guardians of parks, the types of
recreational facilities typically offered in communities, and the role of recreation staff and
programs. It then details the new role for park agencies as facilitators of recreational
services.

A. Traditional Role of Park and Recreation Agencies
Local park and recreation agencies have traditionally served as direct providers of parks
and recreational services. As a direct provider, a government department or agency
“develops and maintains leisure facilities, operates programs, and delivers services
using public funds and public employees” (Burton & Glover, 1999, p. 373). The
agencies may solicit input and advice from park users, the general public, and other
stakeholders, but they take exclusive responsibility for planning and producing all of the
services they offer (Crompton, p. 150). Local park agencies are operated by both cities
and counties, with the latter generally responsible for local parks in unincorporated areas
and regional recreational facilities. These local agencies receive their power from the
state within a framework established by state legislation. In some states, cities and
counties have jointly created regional parks departments or authorities. Examples are
East Bay Regional Park District based in Oakland, California and Prince William County
Park Authority based in Manassas, Virginia.

51
The tax revolt in the late 1970s and early 1980s prompted many jurisdictions to consider
alternative models of service delivery to supplement or even replace the traditional direct
delivery approach. This rethinking was caused by frustration with the high cost and
inflexibility associated with the direct delivery model. The traditional approach requires a
public agency to not only finance all land acquisition and capital improvement projects,
but also to employ relatively large numbers of full-time personnel to deliver services.
Typically, two-thirds of an agency’s budget is committed to personnel salaries and
benefits, and personnel have long-term tenure under the civil service regulations
common in most public agencies. As a result, terminating ineffective employees is
difficult for many agencies due to lengthy, convoluted grievance and disciplinary
procedures requiring extensive, detailed documentation. These limitations make
agencies less flexible and less able to respond to changes in community needs. They
also compromise the agencies’ ability to deliver quality services. Under the traditional
model, opportunities to hire staff with different skills that may be needed to respond to
shifts in demand may only arise when resignations or retirements occur.

In addition to the inflexibility associated with the hiring and dismissal of staff, park
agencies’ agility is inhibited by both the enabling legislation that details the scope of their
authority and powers, and by the bureaucratic regulations and procedures that govern
their work. However, one should understand that these legislative and procedural
constraints have been imposed because they are in the public interest. They are
necessary to ensure that public agencies comply with their mandate; to reassure elected
officials, who represent tax-paying citizens, that their policy directives are being
implemented; and to show accountability for those funds. Nevertheless, regulations

52
designed to prevent politicalization, patronage, and/or corruption often become red-tape
that results in inefficiency. Adherence to them means that there are facilities and
programs that public agencies cannot finance and manage efficiently under the direct-
delivery model. Instead, these services can only be operated and provided optimally
through collaborations with nonprofit and commercial organizations that are not subject
to these constraints.

B. Types of Park and Recreational Facilities: Public, Nonprofit, Private
The primary park and recreation resource in a community consists of parks and
recreational facilities owned and operated by public agencies. The variety of benefits
and services public parks offer may be organized into the eight general categories and
summarized in Table 5 (Eysenbach, 2008, pp. 20-35).

Public parks and recreational facilities also come in all shapes and sizes, and vary in
their service area (Eysenbach, 2008, p. 18; American Planning Association, 2006, p.
366). Table 6 summarizes the typical classifications of public parks and recreational
facilities.

53

Table 5: Park Benefits
Benefit/Service
Category
Description
Recreation Recreation in parks is delivered through three main areas: parks spaces
that provide opportunities for informal or spontaneous recreational
activities, recreational facilities developed for specific activities, and
programs provided by recreation staff on park sites.
Public Health Parks play a significant role in the health of residents by encouraging
physical activity, providing people contact with nature and each other,
and improving environmental quality which ultimately affects health.
Parks are especially important in lower-income neighborhoods where
residents often cannot afford health club memberships.
Urban Form Parks and natural spaces provide valuable counterbalance to urban
landscapes. Various forms and scales of open space can help contain
development or target it to desirable locations, promote ecologically
sustainable regions, create connections between neighborhoods and
between patches of open space, and provide a transition or buffer
between different land uses.
Civic and Social
Capital
Parks connect people to each other. As public gathering places, parks
are critical social and civic spaces because they are where people
assemble to express their democratic rights, join together to express
collective emotion, meet neighbors, and establish a sense of belonging.
Cultural Expression Parks can be the venues for any number of cultural displays, including:
performance arts, such as dance, music, and theatre; public art, be it
temporary or permanent installations; and special events.
Economic
Development
Parks can enhance adjacent residential real estate values, improve retail
and commercial values, and help and retain tourists, retirees, and an
educated workforce.
Education Parks can serve as important educational resources in a community, both
as additions to school campuses and as stand-alone facilities. The
lessons learned from parks for both children and adults, range from
biology to civics.
Green Infrastructure Green infrastructure refers to urban landscapes that perform
environmental work, such as cleaning air and runoff, restoring
groundwater, and providing wildlife habitat. In the case of parks, it
reflects the services provided by natural features that would otherwise be
delivered by “gray” infrastructure, such as storm sewer facilities and
pollution mitigation systems.
Source: M. Eysenbach, 2008, pp. 20-35.

54

Table 6: Typical Parks Classifications
Classification General Description Size and Service Area Criteria
Parks
Neighborhood Park Neighborhood parks are the basic
units of the park system and serve
a recreational and social purpose.
Focus is on informal recreation.
Typically 5 acres or more, 8 to 10
acres preferred. Service area is ¼
to ½ mile uninterrupted by major
roads and other physical barriers.
Community Park Serves a broader purpose than
neighborhood parks. Focus is on
meeting community-based
recreational needs, as well as
preserving unique landscapes and
open spaces.
Varies, depending on function. A
minimum of 20 acres is preferred,
with 40 or more acres optimal.
Service area can be
communitywide or several
neighborhoods in a given area of
the community.
Large Urban Park Large urban parks are generally
associated with urban centers with
large populations. Focus is on
meeting wide-ranging community
needs and preserving unique and
sometimes extensive landscapes.
Varies depending on
circumstances. A typical minimum
size is 50 acres, with hundreds of
acres not uncommon, such as
Central Park in New York City.
Regional Parks and
Park Reserves
Large scale, regionally based parks
and open spaces that focus on
natural resource preservation and
stewardship.
Typically a minimum of 500 acres
and up to several thousand.
Service area is regional, which
generally encompasses several
cities.
Sports Complexes
Youth Athletic
Complex/Facility
Consolidates programmed youth
athletic fields and associated
facilities to fewer strategically
located sites throughout the
community. Also can provide some
neighborhood use functions.
Varies, with 20 acres or more
desirable, but not absolute. Optimal
size is 40 to 80 acres.
Community Athletic
Complex/Facility
Consolidates programmed adult
and youth athletic fields and
associated facilities to a limited
number of sites. Tournament level
facilities are appropriate.
Varies, with 20 acres or more
desirable, but not absolute. Optimal
size is 40 to 80 acres.

55
Table 6 (Continued)
Classification General Description Size and Service Area Criteria
Greenways
Greenway Lands set aside for preserving
natural resources, remnant
landscapes, and open space, and
providing visual aesthetics/
buffering. Also provides passive
use opportunities. Ecological
resource stewardship and wildlife
protection are high priorities.
Suitable for ecologically sensitive
trail corridors.
Varies, depending on opportunity
and general character of natural
systems within the community.
Parkway Linear park-like transportation
corridors between public parks,
monuments, and institutions. Can
be maintained green space or
natural in character.
Varies.
Special and Other Facilities
Special Use Covers a broad range of parks and
recreation facilities oriented toward
single-purpose uses, such as a
nature center, historic sites, plazas,
urban squares, aquatic centers,
campgrounds, and golf courses.
Varies, depending on need.
Park-School School sites that are used in
concert with, or in lieu of, other
types of parks to meet community
park and recreation needs. School
sites often provide the majority of
indoor recreational facilities within a
community.
Varies, depending on specific site
opportunities.
Sources: M. Eysenbach, 2008, p. 18; American Planning Association, 2006, p. 366.

The availability and accessibility of parks vary by location. The amenities offered at
each park may also be different depending on the neighborhood in which a park is
located. For example, parks in underserved communities such as South Los Angeles
often lack amenities and do not offer the same level of service as facilities in higher

56
income neighborhoods such as West Los Angeles (Sloane et al, 2006, p. 154).
Wealthier neighborhoods also have less need for nearby parks than poorer areas. After
all, higher income households are likely to have bigger yards and more private amenities
like barbeque grills, swimming pools, and tennis courts. Even if they live in apartments
or condominiums, they are likely to have the use of workout rooms, rooftop decks, and
pools. In addition, a higher percentage of the wealthy belong to private clubs that offer
facilities for golf, swimming, tennis, and other sports (Harnik, 2010, p. 39).

Like all other capital projects, parks and recreational facilities require regular
maintenance and improvement. Recently, there have been efforts to maximize the use
of existing parkland by providing additional opportunities for physical activity at these
facilities. For example, the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation
has been working with the Trust for Public Land (TPL), a national nonprofit organization,
to establish “Fitness Zones” at existing parks in underserved neighborhoods. Fitness
Zones are custom-designed installations of easy-to-use outdoor gym equipment.
11
The
equipment resembles that found in private health clubs, but is free for all to use and
appropriate for a variety of ages and fitness levels. Each Fitness Zone can be installed
in less than a month for a cost of $45,000.
12
The exercise area is generally located
within or directly adjoining children’s play equipment so that the parent, grandparent, or
caregiver can also exercise while supervising the kids. Also, Fitness Zones, unlike

11
Fitness Zones have been installed at San Angelo Park and Sunshine Park in La Puente, Dalton Park in
Azusa, Roosevelt Park and Belvedere Park in Los Angeles. According to TPL (2008), these five Fitness
Zone provide an estimated 40,000 residents access to fitness equipment. For more information on fitness
zones, please visit: http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=20924&folder_id=2627

12
Trust for Public Land. (2008). Parks for People – Los Angeles, Fitness Zone Project. Retrieved November
21, 2008, from http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=20924&folder_id=2627

57
private gyms, are “television-free areas” and do not promote individualization; if they are
arranged so that the equipment is laid out into twos and threes, they can be “powerful
communication spaces for strengthening friendships and for building community social
capital” (Harnik, p. 35).

Cohen (2009) of the RAND Corporation recently completed a study to: 1) describe how
well the TPL fitness equipment is used after installation, and to document which age,
gender, race/ethnic groups use it, how often do they use it, and whether they use it
correctly; and 2) determine if more people use available park spaces (Fitness Zones
plus all other activity areas in the park) and if they are more physically active compared
to when the equipment was not available and to people in other parks without this
equipment.
13
This study of Fitness Zones in twelve parks in Los Angeles County
revealed that Fitness Zones offer a cost-effective approach to increasing physical
activity, attracting new users to parks, and increasing park usage (TPL, 2010, p. 73).

Los Angeles County’s partnership with TPL reflects to some extent a change in the role
of its Department of Parks and Recreation. In particular, the department is becoming
more like a facilitator of recreational services rather than being a monopolistic supplier of
such services. In this case, the Fitness Zones offered by TPL represent a service that
can be optimally operated through collaborations with nonprofit and commercial
organizations that are not subject to bureaucratic procedures and regulations
(Crompton, 1998, p. 91).


13
Family Fitness Zone Evaluation. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from
http://www.activelivingresearch.org/files/Cohen_RR_Abstract.pdf

58
Parks are obviously not the only places where people recreate. As Eysenbach (2008)
explains, “one primary mission of a park system is to provide recreation, an activity that
often takes place within park systems, but recreation can also occur in other places” (p.
15). Examples of other recreational facilities include: facilities operated by churches and
other faith-based organizations; community centers offered by nonprofits like Boys &
Girls Clubs and YMCAs; private gyms; and other public and private spaces where
individuals choose to recreate.

Sloane et al (2006) attempted to uncover unconventional sites in South Los Angeles by
canvassing churches and other non-traditional providers of active leisure services and to
capture the quality of the active living sites by examining hours of availability of facilities,
gender-/age-targeting of activities and services, and use patterns by age and
race/ethnicity (p. 152). While most studies have typically focused on the location and
availability of public parks, Sloane et al examined prices for recreation and the
availability of privately owned facilities. Their research provides a good foundation for
further studies on the role of and services provided by privately owned facilities as well
as non-traditional providers of active leisure services in underserved communities.

The nonprofit sector is playing an increasing role in the provision of recreational
opportunities. However, the relative role of nonprofit organizations, their activities, and
effectiveness has not been studied extensively. Nonprofit organizations often can and
do provide services where governments fail to do so at all or adequately. As Pincetl
(2003) explains, the nonprofit sector has taken the leadership role in the provision of
open-space amenities in Los Angeles, not government agencies, politicians or traditional

59
business interests; nonprofit groups “negotiated with governmental bureaucracies,
enlisting their support, and with politicians to shift public resources (putting a bond
measure on the ballot) in their direction” (p. 997).

Joassart-Marcelli (2010) is one of the few researchers that has more thoroughly studied
the role of nonprofit organizations in creating active communities. She recognizes that
we have limited empirical knowledge about the type of public spaces and recreation
programs offered by the nonprofit sector and whether they effectively serve the needs of
the community. In particular, she has concerns about spatial equity in the distribution of
nonprofit resources and whether nonprofits have been able to alleviate existing
disparities in access to parks and recreation by addressing the needs of low-income and
minority children. Her research thus far offers the following findings: 1) government
intervention can improve nonprofit activity levels either directly by raising local
expenditures on parks and recreation or indirectly through grants to nonprofits; 2)
without government support, many nonprofits would not be able to operate and
disparities would be even larger; 3) the premise that nonprofits may be better suited to
provide recreational opportunities than local governments is questionable. Direct and
targeted government expenditure may be more effective at reducing inequalities in
recreational opportunities than indirect support to nonprofits; and 4) public expenditure
ought to target poor urban black and Latino communities.

One limitation of Joassart-Marcelli’s research is that a wide variety of nonprofit
organizations are grouped together in the analysis; her study does not disaggregate the
data to differentiate nonprofits such as baseball little leagues, aquatic clubs, and soccer

60
teams from organizations such as environmental justice groups and local land trusts.
Obviously, while all of these groups are nonprofits involved in the provision of recreation,
their roles and responsibilities are drastically different. For example, the American Youth
Soccer Organization (AYSO) which provides youth soccer programs certainly does not
have the same mission as the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust (LANLT) which
was established specifically to address inequalities in the provision of parks and
recreation resources by creating pocket parks and community gardens. Thus the
effectiveness of nonprofits at reducing inequalities should be further examined and
future studies must specifically evaluate the work of environmental justice groups and
local land trusts like LANLT.

Private gyms represent another type of recreational resource. These facilities are
developed and owned by private entities, and typically require monthly or annual
membership. Examples include 24 Hour Fitness, LA Fitness, and Curves. Recently, 24
Hour Fitness joined forces with former professional basketball player Earvin "Magic"
Johnson to offer 24 Hour Fitness Magic Johnson Sport Clubs. According to the
company’s website (2008), Johnson and 24 Hour Fitness partnered because of a
common vision: “to build communities and make fitness a way of life for everyone.”
These sports clubs offer a variety of amenities including: basketball courts, swimming
pools, exercise and cardiovascular equipment, weight area, group exercise classes,
personal training, locker room, kids' club, and pro shop. Surprisingly, a number of these
sport clubs are located in communities in Los Angeles County that have traditionally
been underserved or avoided by private investors, including (but not limited to):
Altadena, Carson, Compton, Hawthorne, Oakland, Richmond, and Sherman Oaks.

61

Private health clubs even offer a service that public parks typically lack: child care. In a
study of public parks in Chicago, Hutchison (1994) found that women were more likely
than men to be engaged in stationary activities associated with child care and in
activities as a family member or as a member of a mixed social group. This finding
suggests that women are not able to fully enjoy their visits to parks because they are
often there only in their roles as providers of child care rather than as individuals who are
there to exercise or enjoy themselves. Some private health clubs are aware of this issue
and offer child care services to its members. For example, both 24 Hour Fitness and LA
Fitness offer short-term babysitting service on their premises for a fee. In addition,
activities are provided to engage children ranging from six months up to 12 years old.

Even McDonald’s are slowly adding gyms to their restaurants. The “R Gyms” replace
more passive “PlayPlace” activity centers. The company calls the gyms a "refreshed"
version of its PlayPlace, which was introduced in 1971 and can be found in about 5,500
of its 13,700 U.S. locations. The R-Gym activities are designed to promote physical
coordination, strength and aerobic conditioning. Equipment includes stationary bikes,
monkey bars, an obstacle course, dance pads and basketball hoops. The R Gyms are
aimed at children ages 4 to 12, and offer separate zones for toddlers, younger children
and older kids. There is also a "Parent Zone" with seats. There are now eight R-Gyms
nationwide, including one in Whittier and another in Santa Ana. We do not know
whether R-Gyms will be effective in meeting the recreation and health needs of children
in park-poor areas. One may argue that the benefits offered by R-Gyms would not even
begin to offset the negative consequences of eating fast food offered by McDonald’s. In

62
particular, the fast-food industry has contributed to the dramatic rise in childhood obesity
cases in the United States.

Interestingly though, Watson (2006) offers McDonald’s Play Place as an example of
commercial play spaces that “actually relieved both children and parents from
surveillance regimes, since the places are contained and safe” (p. 125). Ironically and
sadly, McDonald’s restaurants are often perceived as safer places for children than
some parks and outdoor public spaces. As Giuliano (2005) points out, private play has
become popular not just because of a lack of public funding, but also because it provides
a sense of security. R-Gyms and other similar venues connected with fast food
restaurants are small and sufficiently busy that they require less maintenance and
monitoring than public parks. One lesson public park agencies can learn from
McDonald’s is to pay more attention and make greater effort to specifically meet the
needs of children and provide safe places for them to recreate. This need is critical at a
time when there is a “climate of fear of and withdrawal from outdoor public space” and
when “children’s views as to the kinds of public spaces that work for them are largely
ignored” (p. 156).

C. Recreation Staff and Programs
Staff and volunteers, including recreation leaders and supervisors, park superintendents,
coaches, teachers, and child care workers, are responsible for the many programs and
services offered by parks and other recreational facilities. The rise of playground
leaders is well-documented in Boyer’s Urban Masses and Moral Order in America
(1978). Joseph Lee, playground pioneer, thought that adult supervision was critical and

63
believed that a trained supervisor in the playground would “increase its effectiveness
tenfold” (Boyer, p. 248). In the later Progressive years, a growing number of influential
individuals argued that the playground’s moral value depended “completely on the
presence of someone who could guide the children to a higher plane of social
consciousness” and that “wholesome play meant supervised play” (Ibid, p. 249). Play
leaders needed to supervise play with the understanding that a significant relationship
exists between play instinct and the physical and social development of young people
(Cranz, 1986, p. 67). Playground leaders in Chicago not only supervised day-to-day
playground activities but also developed detailed weekly, monthly, and even annual
schedules; planned special events; and elevated their positions to new heights. Some
playground enthusiasts went as far as to believe that the children they reached would in
turn influence their families and, ultimately, society as a whole (Boyer, p. 250).

Whether park staff can actually influence society as a whole through their interaction
with young park users is debatable. However, these staff certainly contribute
significantly to the success or failure of parks. In particular, staff are responsible for
keeping a park safe and secure, well-maintained, appropriately programmed, and
properly used. Parks lose their appeal, relevance, and support when they are allowed to
fall victim to crime, graffiti, or vandalism. Thus, staff must make every effort to combat
these problems, including programming the parks with a variety of activities, ensuring
that these sites are well-lit and safe, and removing graffiti promptly.

Unfortunately, many parks departments are not well-funded and do not have sufficient
labor and/or money to keep up all parks to acceptable standards. One option to sustain

64
the park system at a time of severe budget constraints is the recruitment, training, and
use of volunteers. As Joassart-Marcelli and Musso (2005) point out, parks and
recreation services have become increasingly dependent on volunteers (p. 505). Many
residents are willing and even eager to volunteer in parks. They can help with park
cleanup, invasive species removal, simple flower planting, user counting, visitor greeting,
assisting with park programs, office work, and numerous other jobs. The key to a
successful volunteer program is providing a strong structure within the parks department
to manage the volunteers, from taking an initial phone call to formally setting times and
tasks, to overseeing the work, to ensuring the proper supplies and equipment are
available, to handling problems, and to managing the existing interview or questionnaire
(Harnik, p. 82).

Volunteers are not “free,” and volunteers programs have their own complications or
challenges (Harnik, p. 83). Volunteers need to be treated well and feel valued because
they can simply stop volunteering if they feel unappreciated or underappreciated. Also,
in cities with unionized park workforces, delicate issues often arise related to paid versus
unpaid tasks. In general, volunteers should only be doing work that supplements rather
than replaces that of the paid staff. Lastly, volunteers should be assigned to staff
members who are skilled at managing people rather than those who would rather just do
the work themselves.

In addition to ensuring the physical well-being of parks, staff and volunteers are also
responsible for the variety of programs offered at these facilities. Park programming is a
fundamental building block of recreation and refers to the design of experiences for

65
people to come together, engage in challenges, and have fun in an interactive process.
Programming traditionally divided recreation into categories such as active, passive, and
social, or physical social, aesthetic, and civic (Cranz, p. 69). Today recreation programs
generally take five forms: instruction, drop-in, club, competition or exhibition, and special
event. Examples of each include:
• Instruction (to learn or practice with guidance): fencing class, swim program,
photography class, watercoloring painting class;
• Drop-in (to pursue one’s own challenges): open swim, open tennis court,
after-school games and crafts, open gym for basketball;
• Club (to share interests and accomplish common goals): Girl or Boy Scouts,
drama club, teen club;
• Competition (to perform, demonstrate, or exhibit ability): recreation league
sports, in-class tournaments, juried art shows, state lifeguards or martial arts
tests, swim meets, end of instruction demonstration for parents and friends;
and
• Special event (to celebrate, honor, commemorate, or experience novelty):
Fourth of July celebration, pancake breakfast, recitals, concert in the park
(Glancy, 2006, p. 263).

Recreation programs are critical in that they provide alternatives to gangs, drugs,
violence, crime, and teen sex/pregnancies. As an illustration, gang members actually
listed the lack of parks and recreation programs as one of their major concerns in the
aftermath of the riots in Los Angeles that followed the acquittal of police offers in the trial
involving the Rodney King beating in 1992 (García & Flores, 2005, p. 145). In addition,

66
recreation programs draw people to parks which in turn make them safer and less likely
to become hangouts for gang members.

D. New Role for Park and Recreation Agencies
Park and recreation agencies should have an ecological worldview. According to
Robertson (2007), this worldview emphasizes the interconnectedness, self-organizing
capacity, and coevolutionary dynamics of all natural systems. Capra (1996) explains the
ecological view as “seeing the world as an integrated whole rather than a dissociated
collection of parts.” Park agencies should have a comprehensive view and accurately
account for all of the park and recreation resources in a community. After all, as
explained in this chapter, public parks are not the only places where people recreate.
Park and recreation resources also include facilities offered by nonprofits such as the
YMCA and for-profit providers such as private gyms, as well as other places where
residents choose to recreate. In addition to capital projects, recreation resources include
the staff and volunteers working at these facilities; recreational services such as classes
and after-school programs; and funding for existing and future parks and recreation
services. All of these resources contribute significantly to the health and livability of a
community.

A community’s quality of life is in part defined by the availability and accessibility of its
park and recreation resources. When these resources are adequate, communities are
considered livable and healthy. Conversely, communities that lack such resources are
underserved. The ongoing challenge for park and recreation agencies is to increase the
quantity and quality of all of these resources in underserved communities where

67
residents are facing problems such as increasing obesity and other related-health
problems, widespread gang activities, and deteriorating quality of life in general.

Although they have traditionally acted as monopolistic suppliers of park and recreation
services, local park agencies need to become facilitators of such services and partner
with other organizations. Park agencies generally address the shortage of urban parks
by trying to increase the number and acreage of parks in underserved areas. This
approach seeks answers to the following question: how do we provide more parks? It
focuses exclusively on physical solutions, i.e. the development of new parks, requires
substantial financial and land resources, and presumes that the government is the only
supplier of recreational opportunities. This model of direct service provision is especially
impractical and infeasible now.

The big question this paper addresses is: how do we meet park and recreation needs at
a time of severe budget and land constraints? My proposal is an alternative approach
that focuses on the provision of recreational services in a variety of ways and settings
involving a diverse group of stakeholders. In particular, this approach means providing
more and improved recreational services through multiple-use facilities and partnerships
with other public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private companies. This
alternative approach seeks to create a framework to provide more recreational
opportunities or opportunities for physical activity. Unlike the question of how do we
provide more parks, this question allows for combinations of physical, social, and other
solutions. It rightfully recognizes parks as a means to address recreational needs rather
than an end itself. This approach shifts park agencies from being producers and

68
guardians of parks to being facilitators of recreational services. Instead of focusing
alone on developing new parks on its own and devoting significant resources on land
acquisition and facility construction, park and recreation agencies would also identify and
pursue new ways, locations, and partners to offer recreational services.

New ways could include:
• Leasing or temporary use of properties for recreational purposes (rather than
buying the land);
14

• Creating mobile gyms (similar to the mobile library and food truck ideas);
15

• Organizing sports activities (such as basketball, soccer, or skateboarding) on
vacant parking lots or streets in the evenings and during weekends;
• Transporting residents to recreational resources outside of their immediate
neighborhood;
• Offering vouchers to acquire recreation services through private providers;
16

• Subsidizing the purchase of or leasing out home exercise equipment such as
treadmills, exercise bicycles, Elliptical trainers, or step machines; or

14
An example is the “PARK(ing) Day” event which began in 2005 when Rebar, a San Francisco
art collective, converted a single metered parking space into a temporary public park in an area of
San Francisco that was underserved by public open space. The project was devised as a
creative exploration of how urban public space is allocated and used. For more information on
PARK(ing) Day, please visit http://www.parkingday.org/

15
An example of a mobile gym is one operated by Miracle Mobile Fitness in Cleveland, Ohio.
The mobile gym/truck features a fully equipped gym with two multi-gym systems, free weights,
dual action smith machine, hi-lo cable pulley system, exercise bike, and a treadmill, along with
heating/air conditioning, lighting, and an audio system. Up to three people can exercise in it at
once. For more information, please visit http://www.miraclemobilefitness.com/

16
Crompton, J.L. (1983). Recreation Vouchers: A Case Study in Administrative Innovation and
Citizen Participation. Public Administration Review, 43(6), pp. 537-546.

69
• Subsidizing the purchase of active video game systems such as the Nintendo Wii
and games such as Wii Sports and Wii Fit by lower income residents.
17

These alternative ways to offer recreational services are described in detail and
illustrated with examples in Chapter 4 of this paper.

New locations could include:
• Abandoned buildings and properties;
• Abandoned rail right-of-ways (“rail to trail”);
18

• Churches;
• Commercial facilities;
• Parking lots;
• Schools;
• Streets;
• Utility right-of-ways; and
• Other public and private spaces available for recreation use.


17
Scientists at the University of Oklahoma have found that playing active video games can be as
effective for children as moderate exercise. While they do not recommend children stop playing
outside or exercising, the research shows that active video games offer a great alternative to
moderate exercise for many children of today’s generation who are sedentary and at high risk for
obesity and diabetes. (Graf, D.L., Pratt, L.V., Hester, C.N., & Short, K.R. (2009). Playing Active
Video Games Increases Energy Expenditure in Children. Pediatrics, 124(2), pp. 534-540.)

18
For information on “rail to trail” projects, please visit: http://www.railstotrails.org/index.html

70
New partners could include:
• Businesses and chambers of commerce;
• Churches and other faith-based organizations;
• Colleges and universities;
• Economic development and redevelopment agencies;
• Land trusts;
• Law enforcement agencies;
• Professional sports leagues and teams;
• Public health agencies;
• Public works agencies;
• School districts;
• Sports apparel and equipment suppliers; and
• Utility providers.

Shifting in focus to recreational services would result in administrative and organizational
changes in park and recreation agencies, including new roles and responsibilities for
staff. Park planners, for example, would serve more as coordinators and facilitators
helping their agencies to partner and cooperate with other public, nonprofit, and private
organizations to provide much needed recreational services. Similarly, architects and
landscape architects would devote more time working on the improvement of existing
parks and the design of temporary play areas at unconventional locations.

Successful implementation of this alternative approach obviously requires the active
participation and cooperation of the partners listed above. Some of the stakeholders are

71
already involved, but for the most part, their efforts have not been collaborative and
limited in scope. This project is intended to communicate the importance and urgency of
meeting the park and recreation needs of underserved communities, and motivate all
stakeholders to immediate action collectively.

For partnerships to work, the arrangement must be complementary and reciprocal so
that all partners benefit from the collaboration. Collaboration should be understood as “a
more active, bidirectional act of participation, involvement, and unification of forces
between two (or more) parties” (Vigoda, 2002, p. 527). In particular, the type of
arrangement this paper supports is referred to as “cross-sector collaboration” defined by
Bryson et al as ““the linking or sharing of information, resources, activities, and
capabilities by organizations in two or more sectors to achieve jointly an outcome that
could not be achieved by organizations in one sector separately” (p. 44). Multiple
sectors of society—government, nonprofits and philanthropies, businesses, the
community, and the media—obviously must collaborate to deal effectively with
challenges. Bryson et al also correctly point out that “Trusting relationships are often
depicted as the essence of collaboration” (p. 47). One reason for the lack of
collaboration between the different sectors is distrust or lack of “structural
embeddedness” (p. 46). To overcome this problem, partners must first be willing to take
a chance and work together. The more they have interacted positively in the past, the
more likely future collaborations will occur.

According to Crompton (1999), three types of benefits may accrue from a partnership in
addition to potential cost savings (p. 161). First, there may be efficiencies involving

72
removal of service duplication or use of complementary assets and strengths to jointly
deliver services. Second, a partnership may enhance stability because future
continuation of a service may be more likely when multiple parties are committed to it.
Third, a partnership may give enhanced organizational legitimacy on one or more of the
partners. For example, in a community where there is widespread resentment or distrust
of government, partnering with local nonprofits or businesses may improve a park and
recreation agency’s image and reputation. In addition, the personalities of individuals
involved in a partnership and the personal relationships that they form can determine its
effectiveness.

In multi-party partnerships, a park and recreation agency takes the lead in
conceptualizing and subsequently implementing ventures that involve several partners
from the public, nonprofit, and commercial sectors. While these types of arrangements
are obviously exciting and offer tremendous potential, they are also complex and difficult
to implement because the agency is acting in an innovative, entrepreneurial fashion but
is constrained by government procedures and rules. Substantial investment of effort is
necessary to initially formulate a shared vision and a viable action plan, to convince
elected officials of its worth, to persuade other organizations to participate, and to
continually negotiate modifications to the original action plan to accommodate the
specific needs of participating organizations (Crompton, p. 212).

This chapter has presented an alternative approach that focuses on the provision of park
and recreational services in a variety of ways and settings involving a diverse group of
stakeholders. Specifically, this means providing more and improved recreational

73
services through multiple-use facilities and partnerships with other public, nonprofit, and
private organizations. This approach recognizes that local park and recreation agencies
alone cannot meet the growing and diverse park and recreation needs of underserved
communities, despite their best efforts and intentions due to budgetary and other
constraints.

74
Chapter 4:
Case Study: Providing Recreational Services in Florence-Firestone

Chapter 4 details a case study prepared to identify and evaluate options to provide more
and improved park and recreational services to residents in Florence-Firestone, an
unincorporated area in South Los Angeles. This chapter first provides a background on
Florence-Firestone, including a profile of the community, its history, and an inventory of
existing park and recreational resources in the area. It then offers a summary of the
community input received through the Florence-Firestone CPRP preparation process as
well as supplemental data regarding the community’s recreational expenditures, sports
market potential, and health market potential. This is followed by a stakeholder power
analysis that identifies key stakeholders, explains their roles, and assesses their power
and potential to influence or affect park and recreation policies. Finally, alternative ways,
locations, and partners to deliver recreational services in Florence-Firestone are
presented.

A. Community Profile
Florence-Firestone is a 3.6-square mile unincorporated community located
approximately six miles south of downtown Los Angeles. The community is surrounded
by the City of Los Angeles on the north, south and west, and the cities of Huntington
Park, South Gate and Lynwood on the east. Florence-Firestone is accessible by the 110
Harbor Freeway on the west, the 105 Glenn M. Anderson Freeway on the south and the
10 Santa Monica Freeway on the north. Street accessibility is facilitated by eight major
arterials: Slauson Avenue, Florence Avenue, and Firestone Avenue running east-west;

75
and Central Avenue, Alameda Street, Santa Fe Avenue and Long Beach
Boulevard/Pacific Boulevard running north-south.

Public transportation service in the Florence-Firestone community ranks among the best
in Los Angeles County. The Metro Blue Line light rail provides good access to
downtown Los Angeles and Long Beach with frequent, dependable service. Three
Metro Rapid Bus lines serve the neighborhood. Local residents can access the Harbor
Freeway bus lane and the Green Line light rail as well. Local Metro bus lines provide
additional service. Florence-Firestone residents tend to rely heavily on public
transportation. New neighborhood and community parks should be within walking
distance to residents and/or in close proximity to public transportation lines wherever
possible.

Population
Florence-Firestone had a total of 60,197 residents in 2000 (Census). As of 2010, the
community was estimated to be home to 64,000 residents, representing an increase of
6% since 2000 (ESRI, a private demographic data provider and geographic information
system software developer). With over 17,000 persons per acre, the community has a
higher population density than nearby cities (L.A. County Department of Regional
Planning, 2010, p. 16). Florence-Firestone is expected to have a population of 65,050
by the year 2015, according to forecasts by ESRI. Although the population is only
expected to grow modestly, planning and providing for additional parks and recreational
services to meet community needs remains a critical priority given the community’s
relatively high density, unmet recreational needs, and existing park deficits.

76

As of 2010, Florence-Firestone had deficits of 238 acres of local parkland and 332 acres
of regional parkland. With the projected increase in population, Florence-Firestone is
expected to have deficits of 241 acres in local parkland and 338 acres in regional
parkland in the year 2015. This calculation assumes that no new parks will be created in
Florence-Firestone between now and 2015.

The above park deficits were determined based on the following Los Angeles County
General Plan standards for the provision of parkland: four (4) acres of local parkland per
1,000 residents of the population in the County’s unincorporated areas and six (6) acres
of regional parkland per 1,000 residents of the County’s total population. Like most
cities and counties, Los Angeles County relies upon previously established park
standards expressed in terms of acres per 1,000 residents. While these standards are
helpful as general measures of parkland availability, they were created decades earlier
and do not necessarily reflect the environment and diversity of communities today. The
standards, for example, do not address access nor do they include many types of open
space common in urban environments such as greenbelts and trails. Also, the
standards are silent on the issue of equity; the same standards are used regardless of
whether a community is currently park-poor or park-rich. In addition, acreage standards
do not account for the amount and type of recreational programming which influences
park usage.

77
Age
Age characteristics are a useful demographic factor for park and recreation planning
purposes. Specifically, the age profile of a community helps park planners determine
the appropriate mix of needed recreational facilities and services. Between 2000 and
2009, the proportion of seniors (65 and over) in Florence-Firestone remained unchanged
at about 5% (Census). The 45 to 59 age group increased from about 11% of the
population to 13%. As more baby boomers approach retirement, there is a growing
need for senior programs and facilities. The under 18 proportion of the population
decreased from 40% in 2000 to nearly 37% in 2009, while the share of residents in the
25 to 34 group grew just slightly, from 17% to 18%. Nevertheless, the demand for youth
and adult sports programs and activities remain high as indicated by the results of our
survey. My analysis of the completed community questionnaires reveals that the five
most popular recreational activities in Florence-Firestone are: youth sports, adult sports,
activities for seniors, passive leisure, and educational classes.

According to the California Resources Agency (2005), demographic projections indicate
large increases at both ends of the lifespan, with many new Californians from births and
immigration, and an increasing number of older Californians. Youth, families with
children, and senior citizens represent large markets for park and recreation service
providers. Growth in these segments of the population will increase demand for
recreation and leisure services. Commentators anticipate that these important user
groups will continue to grow throughout the state but will be concentrated in the urban
areas of southern California including South Los Angeles.

78
Race and Ethnicity
The past two decades have brought dramatic changes and demographic shifts for
Florence-Firestone. Thousands of new immigrants have moved to the area, living side
by side with long-term residents, and at times resulting in both harmonious and tense
relationships. In 1980, the African American population in nearby South Central was
over 66%, but had fallen to less than 45% by 1990. Meanwhile, the Latino population
grew from 13% to 51%. The increase in Florence-Firestone’s population between 1970
and 2000 can be attributed to a major influx of people of Hispanic origin. During the 30-
year period, the Hispanic share of the population in Florence-Firestone increased
dramatically from 30% in 1970 to 86% in 2000. As of 2009, almost 90% of community
residents were Hispanic, with the vast majority (90%) being of Mexican descent.

There is often a mistaken assumption that park and recreation agencies need only make
future population projections and provide more of what currently exists. However,
numerous studies have shown that parks and recreation needs, preferences, and
perceptions vary by race/ethnicity, place of origin, and length of residence in the U.S.
(Ho et al, 2005; Loukaitou-Sideris, 1995; Low et al, 2005). Furthermore, Florence-
Firestone is an important center for recent immigrants who have unique needs and
preferences for recreational amenities. Thus the County must understand and plan for
the diverse recreation needs of different groups. Soccer, for example, is an extremely
popular sport in Florence-Firestone. Our survey of sports groups in the area revealed
that there are over 40 such groups using Roosevelt Park alone, with the vast majority of
them playing soccer; the groups serve nearly 900 participants in total.

79
Income and Poverty
Florence-Firestone is a working class community, with a significant number of low-
income residents. As of 2007, 28% of families and 31% of individuals in Florence-
Firestone lived below poverty level comparing to 12% of families and 15% of individuals
countywide (American Community Survey, Census Bureau). Similarly, the median
household income in Florence-Firestone was just $35,119, significantly lower than the
countywide median of $55,192. According to ESRI forecasts, Florence-Firestone’s
median household income will be $38,849 in 2015, lower than both medians for
neighboring Huntington Park ($46,572) and the county as a whole ($62,623). These
economic indicators suggest that community residents are and will continue to be much
more likely to rely on public parks for recreation; many families have little or no money to
spend on recreational facilities and programs offered by alternative providers such as
private gyms and the YMCA.

Health
This section addresses the health of Florence-Firestone residents, especially children.
The lack of parkland in underserved areas like Florence-Firestone is an issue that
demands urgent attention. Nearly two out of three children in Los Angeles County do
not live within walking distance (one-quarter mile) of a park, playground or open space.
These children are more likely to be obese and at higher risk of developing asthma,
diabetes, or obesity-related diseases. Nearly one-third of children in Florence-Firestone
are obese, most likely due to the lack of physical activity, the shortage of safe spaces for
recreation and limited healthy food options. Table 7 shows the prevalence of childhood

80
obesity and life expectancy at birth for Florence-Firestone, the neighboring cities of
Huntington Park, Lynwood and South Gate, and Los Angeles County as a whole.

Table 7: Health Indicators for Florence-Firestone and Adjacent Communities
Community/City Prevalence of Childhood
Obesity
Life Expectancy at Birth
in Years
Florence-Firestone 32.0% 76.7
Huntington Park 30.6% 81.7
Lynwood 24.0% 77.7
South Gate 27.7% 81.1
Los Angeles County 23.3% 80.3
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, 2007 and 2010.

As indicated in Table 7, children in Florence-Firestone are more likely to be obese than
their counterparts in neighboring cities. Also, the life expectancy in Florence-Firestone is
noticeably lower than that in Huntington Park, South Gate, and the county as a whole.

Market data obtained from ESRI Business Analyst offers additional insight as to the
health condition of Florence-Firestone residents.
19
Specifically, Table 8 compares
selected health behaviors of Florence-Firestone residents with those in neighboring
Huntington Park and the county as a whole.


19
ESRI Business Analyst is a Web-based application that enables both businesses and public
agencies alike to access a wide variety of consumer data. Business Analyst brings geography
and business intelligence together, allowing users to view data in geographic patterns that enable
better decision-making (http://www.esri.com/software/businessanalyst/index.html).

81

Table 8: Health Behaviors
Place Florence-Firestone Huntington Park L.A. County
Health Behavior % of
Adults
MPI % of
Adults
MPI % of
Adults
MPI
Presently controlling diet 26.8% 65 27.9% 68 36.6% 89
Diet control for physical fitness 3.8% 40 3.9% 41 8.3% 88
Use exercise program for diet 3.7% 43 4.1% 47 7.6% 87
Buy food labeled as low-fat 7.6% 56 8.0% 59 11.8% 87
Buy food labeled as low-cholesterol 5.1% 59 5.3% 61 7.7% 90
Visited doctor in last 12 months 65.8% 84 62.6% 80 73.1% 93
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2010.
Data Note: A Market Potential Index (MPI) measures the relative likelihood of the adults in the specified
area to exhibit certain consumer behavior or purchasing patterns compared to the U.S. An MPI of 100
represents the U.S. average.

Florence-Firestone residents are less likely to engage in certain health behaviors than
those in Huntington Park, Los Angeles County, and the U.S. In particular, the proportion
of residents in Florence-Firestone (26.8%) presently controlling diet is noticeably less
than that throughout the county (36.6%). Similarly, the share of community residents
using exercise program for diet control (3.7%) is about half of the countywide proportion
(7.6%). In addition, Florence-Firestone residents are much less likely to purchase food
labeled as low-fat or low-cholesterol than those in other parts of the county. About two-
thirds of Florence-Firestone residents visited a doctor in the last twelve months.
However, we do not know the reason for the visits; thus, we cannot determine whether
most visits are for routine checkups or for health problems like asthma, diabetes, or
obesity-related disease. The low level of participation in the selected healthy behaviors
may be explained by a combination of factors including, but not limited to: residents’
inability or limited ability to pay for healthier food items, exercise equipment, and doctor

82
visits; lack of safe places to exercise; insufficient healthy food options; and inadequate
dissemination of health information to the community.

Crime
Crime and public safety are major concerns in Florence-Firestone. Youth crimes
involving gangs is a particularly problematic issue. The area has historically suffered
from high crime rates and significant gang activity, resulting in negative impacts on
community identity and cohesion. County parks in Florence-Firestone are generally safe
in large part due to the visible presence of DPR staff and the respect residents, including
gang members, have for the park superintendents. Throughout the community input
process, residents repeatedly expressed their appreciation for DPR field staff, especially
the superintendents who manage the park on a daily basis. However, even though the
parks are safe, some residents may not visit a park due to the lack of lighting, perceived
risks, and awareness of gang boundaries or territories.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Century Station provides law enforcement services to
nearly 200,000 residents living within 13 square miles of southern Los Angeles County.
This area includes the City of Lynwood and the unincorporated areas of Florence-
Firestone, Walnut Park, Willowbrook, and Athens Park. As of the end of November
2010, preliminary crime data shows that criminal homicides in Sheriff’s patrol areas in
Los Angeles County have decreased by 12.5%, compared to the same year-to-date
period in 2009 (191 homicides last year compared to 169 this year). This follows a five-
year continuous decrease, resulting in a 50% decrease in homicides compared to five
years ago, and the lowest homicide rate since 1975. Most notable was the decrease in

83
homicides in the Century Station area which had 24 homicides in 2010, as compared to
34 homicides in 2009, representing a decrease of 25%.

The Los Angeles County Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy (2009) prepared by
the Advancement Project offers a comprehensive overview of gangs and gang-related
crimes in Florence-Firestone (pp. 21-26). Provided below is a summary of the
document, supplemented with information provided by Lieutenant John Babbit of the
Sheriff’s Department and other stakeholders interviewed as part of the CPRP
preparation process.

Florence-Firestone has one of the highest concentrations of gangs and gang activity in
Los Angeles County. The historic high levels of violence in this area have generated
much media attention as the Sheriff’s Department and other law enforcement agencies
have attempted to tackle this problem through federal prosecution and the issuance of a
gang injunction. Despite these efforts, gangs remain synonymous with fear and violence
for many families as every block in the area is claimed by at least one gang. The lack of
a coordinated, multi-jurisdictional service infrastructure, compounded by the area’s lack
of economic opportunities, has created an environment which allows gangs to take root
and thrive generation after generation.

The formation of gangs in Florence-Firestone stems from South Los Angeles’ history of
racial tension, demographic changes, and overall public sector neglect. Florencia 13, a
Latino gang named after Florence Avenue, initially formed in the 1940s in response to
hostility by local Whites. As Florencia 13 began to establish itself as a street gang,

84
African American gangs, including the Crips, emerged in South Los Angeles following
the demise of the Black Panther Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s. One of the first
sets of the Crips, the East Coast Crips, was founded in 1972 in the Florence area. As
White and African American families gradually moved out of the area, Florencia 13
solidified its stronghold by claiming more territory and recruiting from the growing
immigrant population.

Today, Florencia 13 is the largest gang in the area with an estimated 2,200 members
and over 30 cliques whose boundaries extend Florence-Firestone and across multiple
jurisdictions. While Florencia 13 is the dominant Latino gang in Florence-Firestone,
there are two other Latino gangs in the area: the Morton Town Stoners and Aztlan Boys,
each with about 50 to 75 members. The East Coast Crips, primarily based in the
southern portion of the area, have approximately 180 members. Another major African
American gang, the Pueblo Bishops, is a Blood gang originally based out of the Pueblo
del Rio public housing project. The Pueblo Bishops are largely a multigenerational gang
with an estimated 250 members.

Gang Crime and Violent Crime
Gangs are a significant contributor to the violence in Florence-Firestone. In 2008, 276
gang-related (Part I) crimes occurred in the area (L.A. County Sheriff’s Department).
20

From 2007 to 2008, Part I gang crimes decreased 27%. Typical gang crimes include
aggravated assaults, robberies, car thefts, retaliatory acts against rival gangs, and
vandalism. Due to the high concentration of gangs, crime occurs throughout Florence-

20
Part I crimes include homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny/theft, grand
theft auto, and arson.

85
Firestone and mostly in the afternoon and evening hours. Although contiguous to
Florence-Firestone, Walnut Park has been much less impacted by gang violence: only
7% of the site’s Part I gang crimes occurred in Walnut Park. Law enforcement,
community leaders and parents noted that gang violence has decreased in the area,
although the vast majority of residents continue to believe their neighborhood to be
unsafe, especially in the evening hours. Law enforcement attributed the recent
decrease in gang violence in Florence-Firestone to the federal prosecution of key gang
members in 2007 which resulted in charges against over a hundred Florencia 13 gang
members and close associates, and the gang injunction enacted against Florencia 13 in
January 2009. The gang injunction “Safety Zone” extends from Slauson Avenue in the
north, to 92nd Street to the south; and Central Avenue to the west, to State Street in
Huntington Park to the east. While the gang’s presence has visibly decreased in the
immediate area, law enforcement officials acknowledge that the injunction has pushed
Florencia’s activity into the surrounding communities of Athens, Compton, and Lynwood.

Characteristics of Gang Activity
Florence-Firestone’s history of economic decline, neglected community infrastructure,
and ongoing demographic shift has created a combination of interrelated factors that
have contributed to the growth of multigenerational gangs. With gangs operating in the
area for decades, many are multigenerational and entrenched in a cycle of violence that
creates significant challenges for any single agency to address. For multigenerational
gang-involved families, gang activity becomes intertwined with family life, sometimes
requiring law enforcement to target the whole family as a means to reach one member.

86
Further complicating the issue, the targeting of Florencia 13 has not only led to the
displacement of violence to surrounding communities, but has also resulted in the
increase of female gang membership. Traditionally, females have assisted male gang
members by hiding weapons and drugs. However, because many male gang members
are in prison, females now have more responsibilities, including transporting drugs,
robberies, car thefts, and even retaliatory shootings. The Midnight Locas, a major
female gang in the area, has an estimated 170 to 200 members and requires that
members put in “work” for the gang.

Conflicts Between Gangs
Multigenerational gangs like Florencia 13 and the East Coast Crips claim overlapping
territories that has created an historic rivalry between the two. As a result of the four
indictments against Florencia 13 in 2007, Florence-Firestone has been portrayed by the
media as an epicenter for racialized gang violence that targets African Americans.

While the issue of racial targeting stirred up much debate between residents, most
Latinos and African Americans agreed that the issue was not solely racial and required a
more thorough understanding of the gang dynamics in the area. While law enforcement
officials cited instances of Latino gangs blatantly targeting African Americans, primarily
in the northern portion of the area, they noted that the main reasons for conflicts
between gangs were not racial, but involved drugs, territory, personal disrespect, and
females. However, if these conflicts grow unchecked, then they may become racialized.
Residents believed that this issue has most severely impacted young Latino and African

87
American males who may be assumed to be rival gang members as they cross multiple
gang territories to attend school or visit parks.

B. Community History
Florence-Firestone shares the region’s broader trends in economic and demographic
changes over the years. Like most of South Los Angeles, racially restrictive covenants
and policing patterns leading to devastating riots as well as deindustrialization have
played a critical role in the area’s history. Many of the negative impacts are still evident
today.

1800s
First settled as a ranch area, Florence-Firestone was formally established in 1870 with a
railroad station located at the intersection of Florence Avenue and Alameda Street. By
1890, the area had 750 residents, most of whom were European immigrants from the
east coast. Florence-Firestone established an agrarian economy producing barley, small
grain, corn, sweet potatoes, and other agricultural staples (County of Los Angeles, 2007,
pp. 52-53).

1900s
The railway lines provided affordable transportation for residents, and also facilitated the
growth of industry and the transport of goods and materials. The Southern Pacific
Railway ran along Alameda Street and was one of the many railroads that intersected
Florence-Firestone. During the 1900s, Mexicans were recruited by railroad companies
and by the Red Line electric car company to lay tracks and work on the rail lines. As the

88
area’s economy grew, civic and community organizations, including the Chamber of
Commerce, the Southeast Rotary Club and churches, including the Florence United
Methodist Church and St. Aloysius Catholic Church, served the mostly White working
class suburban community of Florence-Firestone and played a vital role in creating a
sense of community (Nicolaides, 2002, p. 114).

1920s
Due to the area’s proximity to the ocean and growing transportation infrastructure,
Florence-Firestone attracted many manufacturing plants and companies. Goodyear Tire
Company opened a plant in 1920 and provided 10,000 jobs for area residents
(Nicolaides, p. 24). In 1927 the Firestone Tire Manufacturers opened a plant near the
intersection of Firestone Boulevard and Alameda Street (Chang & Diaz-Veizades, 1999,
p. 14). In addition to rubber manufacturing factories, the area was also home to
automobile assembly plants, derrick and equipment companies, steel manufacturers,
and other manufacturing companies.

1940s
During the World War II economic boom, South Los Angeles experienced rapid
demographic change. Southern California became one of the hubs of the new defense
industry, creating unprecedented economic prosperity that attracted millions of new
residents, including many African Americans in search of employment. The growth of
the defense industry created new opportunities for African Americans to enter the labor
force in aircraft, and rubber and shipbuilding industries (Ibid, p. 14). As African
Americans were integrated into the area’s economy, they faced housing shortages as

89
“Whites-Only” housing covenants confined these workers and their families to the area
known as South Central Los Angeles. As a result, in May of 1942 the Housing Authority
of the City of Los Angeles developed the Pueblo del Rio housing project, which was
virtually an all-Black community (Sides, 2006, p. 115). At this time, the Walnut Park area
began to change from a large prairie to a suburban White community with single-family
homes (County of Los Angeles, 2007, p. 56). Non-Whites, especially African Americans
who dared to cross the “concrete curtain” east of Alameda Street, typically encountered
unwarranted and extreme police harassment often leading to unjustifiable arrests
(Peralta, 2008).

A booming auto industry emerged in South Los Angeles as World War II was coming to
an end and the defense industry was shrinking. Auto giants like General Motors and
Ford established or expanded auto plants in South Los Angeles. When “Whites-Only”
housing covenants were lifted in 1948, many African Americans began to purchase
homes outside of the segregated area.

1950s
During the 1950s, the area became plagued with racial violence as White residents
bombed, fired into, or burned crosses on the lawns of homes bought by African
American families (Myer, 2000, p. 76). White gangs from the nearby cities of Huntington
Park and South Gate often harassed Blacks who crossed into those areas. As a result,
young African American boys formed all-Black clubs for protection. The first African
American gang, the “Slausons,” was founded at the corner of 62nd and Hooper Streets,
and other African American gangs, like the Gladiators and Businessmen, also emerged.

90
Following the demise of the Black Panther Party and severe cuts in government funding
for social programs in the late 1960s and early 1970s, African American gangs later
evolved into the more well-known Crips and Bloods (Peralta, 2008). Also, as African
Americans moved into previously White areas, White families slowly began moving out
into the suburbs. This process was accelerated by a practice known as “blockbusting,”
whereby real estate agents would purchase homes on an all-White street, sell to African
Americans, and then purchase the rest of the White families’ homes at deflated prices in
order to sell the homes at inflated prices to other African American families (Camarillo,
2004, p. 364).

1960s
By the 1960s, auto manufacturing had reached its peak and began to decline. The
area’s first wave of deindustrialization resulted in a dramatic shift from traditional
manufacturing jobs to a low-wage service based economy (Lin & Mele, 2005, p. 122).
For the next three decades, Florence-Firestone was one of the communities most
impacted by assembly plant closures and mass layoffs. Watts, immediately south of
Florence-Firestone, erupted into civil unrest in 1965 due to the combination of housing
shortages, underemployment and unemployment, poor community relations with law
enforcement, and the general fiscal neglect of the inner city (Ibid, p. 16). As a result of
the riots and the continued loss of jobs, many of the remaining White residents and
middle class African Americans left the area.

91
1970s to 1980s
During the early 1970s and 1980s, Los Angeles lost more than 50,000 jobs due to plant
closures in the auto, tire, steel, and non-defense aircraft industry (Chang & Diaz-
Veizades, p. 17). In 1982, the Goodyear and Firestone plants shut down. As the loss of
jobs, closure of manufacturing giants and middle class flight continued to destabilize the
area, low income African Americans and recent immigrants from Mexico and Central
America filled the void in the low-wage unskilled labor sector.

1990s
During the second major wave of deindustrialization, Los Angeles lost additional
industrial jobs. This, along with poor community-police relations, contributed to the
area’s instability leading to the South Los Angeles riots in 1992. Despite the efforts of
“Rebuild LA” to bring investment into South Los Angeles after the riots, Florence-
Firestone was not targeted and did not benefit significantly. As a result of the lack of
investment and demographic shifts in the area, tensions between African Americans and
Latinos continued to rise as they competed for low-wage jobs and scarce resources.

Present
Today, Florence-Firestone is a community with both long-term and transient Latino and
African American residents. Florence-Firestone’s commercial landscape consists
primarily of numerous mom-and-pop businesses ranging from specialty restaurants to
tire shops. The effects of deindustrialization are still evident as demonstrated by vacant
and unkempt lots, boarded-up businesses and unused railroad tracks. Nevertheless,
there have been various efforts to revitalize the area. In 1999, residents of Florence-

92
Firestone and Walnut Park symbolically joined together to devise a motto for the area, “A
Community Working Together.” This revitalization effort included the renovation of
Roosevelt Park and Graham Library. Other efforts were the construction of the Alameda
Corridor
21
and most recently, the “La Alameda” Shopping Center which opened its doors
in 2008.
22
Despite these major improvements, public safety remains the major concern
among area residents.

C. Inventory of Parks and Recreational Facilities
Parks and recreational facilities are used for a variety of purposes by all types of people
and groups. Because the needs of park users are diverse, no individual park or
recreational facility can meet the needs of all users. Thus, a diverse and comprehensive
system of facilities is needed to provide a wide range of recreational opportunities.
Existing publicly operated recreational facilities in Florence-Firestone offer a variety of
recreational experiences. This section presents an inventory of existing parks and
recreational facilities offered by DPR, and other facilities available to meet park and
recreation needs of Florence-Firestone residents.

21
The Alameda Corridor is a 20-mile-long rail cargo expressway linking the ports of Long Beach
and Los Angeles to the transcontinental rail network near downtown Los Angeles. It is a series of
bridges, underpasses, overpasses and street improvements that separate freight trains from
street traffic and passenger trains, facilitating a more efficient transportation network.
Construction began in April 1997 and operations started in April 2002. For more information on
the Alameda Corridor, please visit: http://www.acta.org/index.asp

22
La Alameda, a $66 million project, is not only a retail shopping center, but also a community
gathering place for families. The 18.3-acre development features Spanish architecture, and
includes courtyards, plaza spaces, outdoor seating, and fountain. Also located on site are a
technology education center, Sheriff’s sub-station and offices spaces. Over 700 jobs have been
created by La Alameda tenants including (but not limited to): Bank of America, Big 5, Chuck E.
Cheese, Cold Stone, CVS Pharmacy, Jamba Juice, Marshalls, Panda Express, Petco, Ross,
Shoe Pavilion, Starbucks, Wing Stop, and Verizon. (Source: http://molina.lacounty.gov/pages/
Press/ 2008%20Press/07%2012%202008%20La%20Alameda.pdf)

93
County Parks
For DPR’s planning purposes, parks are classified by type based on the size, use, and
physical characteristics of the land. County parks and recreational facilities generally fall
under two systems: local system and regional system as summarized in Tables 9 and
10. The park classifications presented in the two tables are very similar to, but not
identical to the typical park classifications detailed earlier in Table 6.

Table 9: DPR Local Park Classifications
Facility
Acres per
1,000
Population
Suggested
Acreage*
Service
Area Typical Park Features / Amenities
Community
Park
4 / 1,000 10 - 20
acres
1 - 2 mile Passive Park Amenities such as:
informal open play areas, children's play
apparatus, picnic areas with overhead
shelters, barbecues
Active Sports Activities such as: lighted
sports fields, basketball courts, tennis
courts
Additional Amenities such as: aquatics
complex, skate park, arena soccer,
community gardens, dog parks
Park Facilities such as: restrooms,
concession building, community
buildings, maintenance building and
informational kiosks
Neighborhood
Park
4 / 1,000 3 - 10 acres 1/2 mile Passive Park Amenities such as:
informal open play areas, children's play
apparatus, picnic areas with overhead
shelters, barbecues
Active Sports Activities such as:
practice sports fields, basketball, tennis
and volleyball courts
Park Facilities such as: restrooms, on-
site parking, informational kiosk
Pocket Park 4 / 1,000 less than 3
acres
1/4 mile Passive Park Amenities such as: picnic
and seating areas
Active Park Amenities such as:
children's play apparatus
Park Node 4 / 1,000 1/4 acre or
less
No service
radius
area
Varies - can include: plazas, rest areas,
playgrounds, landmarks and public art
installations
*Actual park acreage is determined based on land availability and community needs.
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010.

94

Table 10: DPR Regional Park Classifications
Facility
Acres per
1,000
Population
Suggested
Acreage*
Service
Area Typical Park Features / Amenities
Community
Regional Park
6 / 1,000 20 - 100
acres
up to 20
miles
Passive Park Amenities such as:
informal open play areas, children's
play apparatus, picnic areas with
overhead shelters and barbecues
Active Sports Activities such as:
lighted sports fields, basketball and
tennis courts
Additional features may include one or
more of the following: multiple sports
facilities, aquatics center, fishing lake,
community building and gymnasium
and outstanding views and vistas.
Park Facilities such as: restrooms,
concession building, maintenance
building, informational kiosks and on-
site parking
Regional Park 6 / 1,000 greater
than 100
acres
25+
acres
Passive Park Amenities such as:
group picnic areas with overhead
shelters and barbecues
Additional Amenities may include one
or more of the following features: lakes,
wetlands, auditoriums, water bodies
and campgrounds, water bodies for
swimming, fishing and boating, and
sports fields
Special Use
Facility
6 / 1,000 no size
criteria
No
assigned
service
radius
area
Generally single purpose facilities.
Uses can include passive features such
as: wilderness parks, nature preserves,
botanical gardens and nature centers
Active Sports Uses such as:
performing arts, water parks, aquatic
facilities, skate parks, golf driving
ranges and golf courses
*Actual park acreage is determined based on land availability, and community needs.
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010.

Florence-Firestone is one of the more densely populated unincorporated communities in
Los Angeles County with significant park deficits. County parks in Florence-Firestone
total approximately 70 acres, translating to a ratio of about one acre of parkland per
1,000 residents. Table 11 is a list of the local and regional parks located in Florence-
Firestone.

95

Table 11: Local and Regional Parks in Florence-Firestone
Park Acreage Park Classification
Franklin D. Roosevelt Park 24.6 Community Regional Park
Ted Watkins Memorial Park 27.0 Community Regional Park
Colonel Leon H. Washington Park 13.2 Neighborhood Park
Mary McLeod Bethune Park 5.3 Neighborhood Park
El Parque Nuestro 0.6 Pocket Park
Total 70.7
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010.

• Franklin D. Roosevelt Park
Opened in 1936, Roosevelt Park is one of the oldest parks in the Los Angeles
County system. Construction of the park was authorized by then President
Roosevelt as a Works Progress Administration (WPA) building project during the
1930s Great Depression. The 24.6-acre Roosevelt Park is a large facility that
offers a variety of programs for youth, adults, and seniors. This park is located
next to the Florence Metro Blue Line Station.

• Ted Watkins Memorial Park
Watkins Park was completed in 1941 and is a monumental piece of history in
South Los Angeles. This 27-acre facility was renamed after the founder of the
Watts Labor Community Action Committee (WLCAC) in 1995. Watkins Park is
also home to the Promenade of Prominence Walk of Fame created to celebrate
the accomplishments of community leaders. The mosaic tile mural on the park’s
flagpole serves as a memorial to Ted Watkins and his commitment to the Watts
community. The remaining panels on the flag pole depict colorful images of

96
garden tools, symbolic of the Watts community’s constant growth. In addition,
there is an exterior tile mural at the entry to the Ted Watkins pool house.

Although Roosevelt Park and Watkins Park are classified as “regional” parks due
to their size, they primarily serve the needs of local residents.

• Colonel Leon H. Washington Park
Washington Park is a 13.2-acre facility built in 1970 on land that formerly housed
a large lumber yard. The park is named after Colonel Leon H. Washington, a
leader and independent thinker who founded the newspaper, The Eastside
Shopper, which is now known as The Sentinel. Washington Park is located next
to the Firestone Metro Blue Line Station.

• Mary McLeod Bethune Park
Opened in 1963, Bethune Park is named after one of America’s greatest
educational advocates and civil rights leaders. This 5.3-acre facility features a
gymnasium, large community room, computer lab, baseball diamond, swimming
pool, and one of the first skate parks built by DPR. Located on the back wall
surrounding the pool is a tile mural which features graphic depictions of
swimmers, and is made of porcelain and molded glass tiles.

• El Parque Nuestro
El Parque Nuestro, a new 0.63-acre pocket park, opened in the summer of 2010
and is the first new park created in Florence-Firestone in forty years. This park

97
was named by a Lillian Elementary School student through a contest. The park
is landscaped with drought tolerant plants, offers benches and tables made with
recycled materials, and includes smart irrigation, solar lighting and a concrete
jogging path. Barbeque pits as well as play and fitness equipments are also
available.

With the exception of El Parque Nuestro, all County parks in Florence-Firestone are
examples of projects developed during the Recreation Facility Era during which a “good”
park was one that accommodated as many recreational amenities and organized
recreation activities as possible. Thus very little passive areas or open space can be
found at these parks.

Figure 4 on the following page identifies the location of County parks in Florence-
Firestone as well as public parks in surrounding areas.

98
Figure 4: Public Parks in and surrounding Florence-Firestone

Source: Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010. (Map by S. Mathai.)

99
Trails
Florence-Firestone currently does not have any County-designated trails. However,
there is some interest in the community for trails. Specifically, key findings from our
community input process include:
• Many workshop participants supported pathways that connect community
facilities including parks, libraries, schools, and other key destinations.
• Some participants wanted a bike path along Florence Avenue and safety
improvements along streets and alleys.
• Some thought there should be trails along rail right-of-ways and that trails should
be visible for safety reasons.

While Florence-Firestone lacks County trails, there are opportunities to establish urban
trails in the community, and connections with existing and proposed regional trails
outside of Florence-Firestone. In particular, new urban trails may be developed along
the utility corridor and railroad rights-of-way that across the community if the County is
able to enter into agreements with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
(LADWP) and railroad operators, respectively.

In addition, there are currently two trail-related planning efforts that could benefit the
Florence-Firestone community. First, the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC)
applied and received a federal grant in 2008 to develop the Randolph Greenway Master
Plan for a four-mile corridor that includes the cities of Bell, Huntington Park, Maywood,
Vernon, and the northern portion of Florence-Firestone. Project partners include the Los
Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, Rails to Trails Conservancy, and

100
the National Park Service. The purpose of the proposed Greenway is to create active
transportation and recreation opportunities by providing people of all ages with an
attractive, safe, accessible place to bike, walk, jog, skate, or play.

The second planning effort is the update of the County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master
Plan by the Department of Public Works. The plan covers bicycling issues in all
unincorporated areas, and studies the potential for new and improved bike paths along
flood control facilities.

Other Public Facilities
In addition to County parks, Florence-Firestone is home to various public facilities that
meet the community’s recreational needs:
• Florence-Firestone Service Center
This facility provides comprehensive human services to residents in partnership
with public agencies, private organizations, and businesses. The center brings
traditional public services and links them with non-traditional community-based
service providers. Services include elderly care, a physical fitness room,
emergency food assistance to low-income families, internship opportunities,
mediation and conflict resolution, and mobile van services. Over twenty County
departments and other public and private agencies have satellite offices at the
center. The center was recently renovated to include a large senior area, along
with an improved multi-purpose room with a kitchen, and upgrades throughout
the original 1970’s era building.

101
• Youth Athletic League (YAL) Firestone Activity Center
This center is operated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and is
located at the intersection of Compton Avenue and Nadeau Street. This facility is
a safe gathering place for neighborhood kids to engage in recreational activities
during after-school hours. Ongoing activities include football, cheerleading,
karate, boxing, ballet folklorico, soap box derby racing, art classes, educational
field trips, and tutoring. Although the focus is on youth activities, community
meetings are also hosted at this facility.

• Florence and Graham Libraries
These two libraries are operated by the County of Los Angeles Public Library and
offer the following services to the residents of Florence-Firestone: basic
reference services, computers with internet access, bilingual story times for
children, a homework center, and year-round reading activities.

Private Recreational Facilities
Private recreational facilities can play an important role in meeting the recreational and
fitness needs of communities. Examples of private facilities include health and fitness
clubs. There are no popularly known gyms such as 24 Hour Fitness and LA Fitness in
Florence-Firestone. The closest 24 Hour Fitness is about six miles away in Compton,
while the nearest LA Fitness is seven miles away in Downey. However, nearby
Huntington Park is home to Bally Total Fitness and Curves.

102
Recreational Facilities operated by Nonprofits
The nonprofit sector is playing an increasing role in the provision of recreational
opportunities. Various nonprofits, including churches and other faith-based
organizations, Boys & Girls Clubs, The Salvation Army, and YMCAs offer recreational
services and facilities such as gyms and community centers. Within Florence-Firestone,
The Salvation Army operates the South Los Angeles Youth and Community Center
(7651 S. Central Avenue) which offers community recreation and education programs as
well as youth services. The YMCA closest to Florence-Firestone is the Southeast-Rio
Vista Family YMCA in Huntington Park. This facility offers a variety of programs,
including (but not limited to): aquatics, camp, childcare, health and fitness, arts and
crafts, and computer classes.

City Parks and Recreational Facilities
Where city parks are located near the borders of the unincorporated areas of the
County, those facilities are enjoyed by city and County residents alike. Similarly, local
County parks located within or close to the borders of incorporated cities provide
recreational amenities for both populations. This overlap in local park service radii is an
important factor to consider in the placement of new parks and the delivery of
recreational services. Examples of city parks in close proximity to Florence-Firestone
include Cesar Chavez Park in South Gate, Westside Park in Huntington Park, and
Augustus Hawkins Natural Park and Green Meadows Recreation Center in the City of
Los Angeles.

103
D. Community Input
To ensure that the Florence-Firestone Community Parks and Recreation Plan reflects
the desires and needs of the community, DPR engaged the public in a wide variety of
ways. Specifically, the community input process included stakeholder interviews,
community workshops, focused workshops with seniors and youth, community
questionnaires, surveys of sports groups, and collaboration with staff from other public
agencies. (The community questionnaire and sports group survey used can be found in
the Appendix.) Overall, community members were enthusiastic about park and
recreation issues, and were actively involved in the development of the plan. The input
received is critical to the development of appropriate goals, policies, and implementation
actions to address park and recreation needs in Florence-Firestone.

Stakeholder Interviews
Over 35 stakeholders were invited to meet with DPR staff to discuss park and recreation
issues in Florence-Firestone. Between February and May 2010, DPR conducted over
20 interviews. (Not all invited stakeholders were able to participate.) The stakeholders
interviewed included: the Florence-Firestone Community Leaders;
23
members of the
public; school officials; representatives from the Florence-Firestone Chamber of
Commerce, local churches, and other nonprofit organizations; DPR field staff; and staff
from other County agencies including the Arts Commission, Public Health, Public
Library, Public Works, and Sheriff’s Departments. (Please refer to the Appendix for a
complete list of stakeholders interviewed.)

23
This group consists of leaders in the community from the public, nonprofit, and private sectors.

104

Major issues identified through the interviews include:
1. Safety/Security
• Not enough lighting at parks
• Need safe routes to parks
• Gangs may take control of smaller parks
• Racial tension and awareness of gang territories limit park usage
• Parks need to be well-staffed

2. Lack of Parks and Recreation Facilities
• Range of opinions as to whether smaller or larger parks are needed
• Pocket parks may be appropriately sited near or on school properties
• Need for larger parks with staff onsite
• Need community meeting room and/or cultural/banquet facility
• Provide transportation for kids to experience parks and recreation areas
outside of Florence-Firestone

3. Opportunities for Collaboration
• Parks and Recreation can collaborate more with schools, churches, libraries,
Sheriff’s, Public Health, and nonprofit organizations such as local land trusts
• Sharing and distribution of information and resources
• Joint-use opportunities with existing and future schools
• Public-Private Partnerships

105
4. Recreation Programs
• Need for more classes and activities in music, arts, dance
• Need programs for residents with special needs
• Need for classes and activities that bring different generations together
• Establish “movies in the parks” program

Many of these ideas were also expressed in the completed questionnaires and during
workshops with the community.

Community Workshops
Community workshops were held at Roosevelt Park and Washington Park. Both
workshops had the same format. Following a brief presentation by staff, attendees
participated in a dot sticker exercise in which they expressed their preferences on four
topics: park facilities, park locations/classification, recreation programs, and trails.
Verbal comments were also recorded on large note pads.

106
Figure 5: Dot Exercise Exhibits

Source: Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010.

107
Workshop 1
The first community workshop took place at Roosevelt Park on January 9, 2010. The
attendance was 53. Key findings from this workshop were:
• Many participants:
o Wanted more security at parks, including increasing security lighting
along walking paths.
o Asked for more par course equipment.
o Supported pathways that connect community facilities including parks,
libraries, schools, and other key destinations.
• Some participants identified the following areas as suitable locations for new
parks:
o On east side near South Gate and Huntington Park
o Along Central Avenue in the northwest portion of Florence-Firestone
• Results of the dot sticker exercise were:
The top 3 park classifications were:
1) Park Node
2) Neighborhood Park
3) Community Park
The top 3 adult and senior programs were:
1) Exercise
2) Aquatics
3) Social Clubs
The top 3 park facilities were:
1) Par Course Trail
2) Walking/Jogging Path
3) Family Picnic Area
The top 3 youth recreation programs were:
1) Sports
2) Camps
3) Cheerleading and Drill Team

108
Figure 6: Community Workshop Scenes

Source: Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010.

Workshop 2
The second community workshop was held at Washington Park on January 30, 2010.
The attendance was 33. Key findings from this workshop were:
• Some participants expressed the need for dog parks and/or more space for dogs
at existing parks.

109
• Some thought there should be more parks east of the Metro Blue Line right-of-
way.
• Many participants supported pathways.
• Some participants wanted a bike path along Florence Avenue and safety
improvements along streets and alleys.
• There was some interest in rubberized surface walking/jogging loop trails around
industrial centers, retail centers, and parks.
• Results of the dot sticker exercise were:
The top 3 park classifications were:
1) Community Park
2) Pocket Park
3) Neighborhood Park
The top 3 adult and senior programs were:
1) Arts and Crafts
2) Aquatics
3) Exercise
The top 3 park facilities were:
1) Splash Pad
2) Family Picnic Area
3) Skate Park
The top 3 youth recreation programs were:
1) Cheerleading and Drill Team
2) Sports
3) Dance

Seniors Workshop
A workshop focusing on seniors was held at Bethune Park on February 4, 2010. About
40 seniors participated. Like the two community workshops, participants were given the
opportunity to share their thoughts and participate in a dot sticker exercise to express
their preferences on park and recreation topics. Key findings from this workshop were:
• Many participants expressed the need for more picnic areas, open space, and
playgrounds for grandchildren.
• Pathways were popular among participants.
• Some thought that there should be trails along rail right-of-ways and that trails
should be visible for safety reasons.

110
• Results of the dot sticker exercise were:
The top 3 park classifications were:
1) Neighborhood Park
2) Community Park
3) Pocket Park and Park Node (tied)
The top 3 adult and senior programs were:
1) Exercise
2) Community Events
3) Aquatics
The top 3 park facilities were:
1) Par Course Trail
2) Family Picnic Area
3) Walking/Jogging Path
The top 3 youth recreation programs were:
1) Sports
2) Camps
3) Dance

Youth Workshop
A youth input workshop was held at Drew Middle School on February 25, 2010. About
25 students in a leadership class participated in exercises to design their own park and
respond to a three-question survey. (See Appendix for complete results of this survey.)
Key findings from this workshop were:
• The students desired a wide range of amenities in their parks. (Figure 7 shows
examples of student drawings.)
• Most of the students participated in organized recreational activities and sports.
• Nearly all of the students felt that there were not enough youth sports programs
offered in Florence-Firestone.
• Computer labs in parks were important to nearly all of the students.

111
Figure 7: Examples of Student Drawings

112
Community Questionnaires
Bilingual (English-Spanish) questionnaires were distributed at County parks and libraries
in Florence-Firestone to solicit public input on park and recreation issues. Distribution of
these questionnaires represented DPR’s most comprehensive effort to gather data from
Florence-Firestone residents regarding parks and recreation in the community.
However, this effort had two limitations. First, it was not a scientific survey with a
representative sample, as the questionnaires were not completed by randomly selected
households, but rather park and library patrons. Second, the questionnaires asked
standard questions about traditional park amenities and recreational programs, thereby
limiting the option of responses and perhaps the imagination of respondents. In
particular, the questionnaires were not designed to seek input on unconventional or
more innovative ideas like those presented later this chapter. Nevertheless, helpful and
interesting data were obtained through the questionnaires as summarized below.

About 320 completed questionnaires were collected from the parks and libraries, with
most of the respondents being residents of Florence-Firestone and park patrons. Key
findings from the questionnaires were:
• The questionnaires were completed by people of all ages, ranging from children
(5 to 14) to seniors (66 and older).
• Senior citizens were most well-represented - nearly one-quarter of respondents
were 66 years or older.
• 63% of respondents used the parks daily.
• Roosevelt Park was the most used park in Florence-Firestone.

113
• The four most popular recreation activities were: youth sports, adult sports,
senior activities, and passive leisure (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Participation in Recreational Activities in Florence-Firestone

18%
16%
15%
15%
11%
9%
8%
8%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Youth Sports Adult Sports Passive
Leisure
Seniors
Activities
Educational
Classes
Social Clubs Music and
Dance
Activities
Art and
Culture
Activities
What activities do you participate in?

• Overall, respondents indicated that the following activities were most needed in
Florence-Firestone: senior citizen activities, walking/bicycle paths, arts and
cultural activities, after school and extended day care, and tutoring or homework
assistance (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Needed Recreational Activities in Florence-Firestone
What activities do you feel are needed in Florence-Firestone?
5%
8%
8%
10%
10%
11% 11%
11%
13%
14%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Senior Citizen
Activities
Walking
Paths/Bicycle
Arts and
Cultural
Activities
After School
and Extended
Day Care
Tutoring or
Homework
Assistance
Educational
Classes for
Children and
Adults
Adult Sports Information
about County
Services
Youth Sports Tiny Tots

114
• Not surprisingly, the ranking of most needed activities varied by age as
summarized below:
Age Group Most needed activity was:
5 to 14 Arts and Cultural Activities
15 to 19 Youth Sports
20 to 30 Adult Sports
31 to 50 Walking and Bicycle Paths
51 to 65 Senior Citizen Activities
66 and older Senior Citizen Activities

• About 46% of respondents participated in recreation programs outside of
Florence-Firestone, with youth sports and adult sports being the most popular
programs (see Figure 10). This may suggest additional recreation programs,
especially active sports, are needed in Florence-Firestone.

Figure 10: Participation in Recreational Activities outside Florence-Firestone

22%
19%
15%
13%
12%
11%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Youth Sports Adult Sports Art and
Culture
Activities
Educational
Classes
Senior
Activities
Music and
Dance
Activities
Other Non
Profits (YMCA,
Boys & Girls
Clubs, AYSO)
Which programs do you participate in in other communities?

(Please refer to the Appendix for complete results of the questionnaires.)

115
In addition, over 570 questionnaires were filled out by members of a local church and
students of the school it operates. Key findings from the questionnaires were:
• Children and youth were very well-represented - nearly 75% of respondents were
19 years or younger.
• 40% of respondents used the parks at least once a week.
• Roosevelt Park was by far the most used park in Florence-Firestone.
• The two most popular recreation activities were youth sports and passive leisure.
• Overall, respondents indicated that the following activities were most needed in
Florence-Firestone: youth sports, walking/bicycle paths, tutoring or homework
assistance, and art and cultural activities.
• About 43% of respondents participated in recreation programs outside of
Florence-Firestone, with youth sports being the most popular program.

Sports Group Surveys
Local sports groups and organizations were asked to complete surveys regarding their
use of parks and recreational facilities in Florence-Firestone. Surveys were completed
by over 40 groups that regularly use Roosevelt Park for soccer. Key findings from the
surveys were:
• The sports groups serve nearly a total of 900 participants.
• Half of the sports groups serve adults; none of the groups serve the 16 to 18 age
group.
• More than half (57%) of the groups rated the field conditions as poor; one-third
indicated the fields were in fair conditions.
• Over 90% of the sports groups have plans for expansion.

116

Sports groups also use other parks in Florence-Firestone. Summarized below are
information provided by DPR field staff:
• Watkins Park: Sports groups serve 1,850 participants, about half of which play
soccer; baseball is the next most popular sport, followed by football and softball.
These participants range in age from young children to adults. The park’s fields
are in poor condition due to extensive use.
• Bethune Park: Sports groups serve about 560 participants, ranging in age from
five to over 16. The park’s two fields are in fair condition and are used for
soccer, baseball, softball, and flag football.
• Washington Park: Sports groups serve 80 participants, ranging from young
children to adults. The park’s multi-purpose field is in fair condition and is used
for soccer and football.

Key Findings and Summary of Needs Assessment
As shown on the previous pages, DPR collected a wide range of qualitative and
quantitative data regarding the community’s preferences, needs, and opinions regarding
parks and recreation programs in Florence-Firestone. Overall, residents are concerned
with and desire facilities and programs that address health and fitness, preventive
recreation as an antidote for social problems, family recreation, cultural and arts
opportunities, and sports facilities.

Targeted activities for specific age groups were a common theme throughout the
community input process. While family recreation was identified as being necessary for

117
a successful park and recreation system, specific programs for youth, teens, adults, and
seniors were repeatedly mentioned as desirable in each of the community outreach tools
used. The need for an art and cultural facility was also evident during the community
input process. Some residents suggested that a multi-purpose cultural arts center with a
banquet hall, studios, and classroom spaces be created to benefit and serve the
community.

After studying the existing conditions of Florence-Firestone and analyzing the data
collected through the community input process, DPR determined that the key issues
listed below are the priority needs and demands that must be addressed in the CPRP.
Theoretically, if DPR provided all of the facilities and programs listed, it would meet all of
the needs and demands expressed by the public during the community input process. In
reality, due to financial, land, and other constraints, DPR would only be able to address
some of the needs at a given time. Thus there must be a way to determine what the
greatest needs are and then make decisions accordingly. The rankings provided below
are intended to serve this purpose.

Park Locations
In response to the question of where new parks and recreational facilities should be
located, the community provided a variety of responses:
• On east side near South Gate and Huntington Park
• Along Central Avenue in the northwest portion of Florence-Firestone
• Linear Park along the Utility Right-of-way
• East of the Metro Blue Line

118
• Small parks adjacent to schools
• Near places with high volume of pedestrian/foot traffic

No particular location(s) emerged as being the most popular.

Park Classifications and Facilities
The stakeholder interviews revealed that there is a range of opinions as to whether
smaller or larger parks are needed in Florence-Firestone. While some like the idea of
pocket parks scattered throughout the community, others want larger parks with a full
range of amenities. However, nearly all agreed that for safety/security reasons, parks
should be staffed and well-lit, regardless of size. Based on the aggregation of
quantitative data collected through the dot exercise at all workshops, the ranking of park
classifications is as follows (with 1 being the most popular):
1. Community Park
2. Neighborhood Park
3. Park Node
4. Pocket Park

Also based on the aggregation of quantitative data collected through the dot exercise at
all workshops, the ranking of park facilities is as follows (with 1 being the most needed):
1. Par Course Trail
2. Family Picnic Area
3. Walking/Jogging Path
4. Splash Pad
5. Public Restroom
6. Group Shade Structure
7. Youth Softball Field
8. Informal Play Area
9. Volleyball Court
10. Skate Park
11. Children's Play Equipment
12. Basketball Court

119
13. Soccer Field
14. Tennis Court
15. Information Kiosk
16. On-site Parking

The community’s growing interest in health and fitness is reflected in the high rankings of
par course trails and walking/jogging paths. During workshops, some residents
specifically indicated that walking paths should be improved with security lighting, varied
terrain, and visually pleasing landscaping. Many residents also desire more passive
elements such as family picnic areas and group shade structures.

Sports Fields
While softball and soccer fields do not rank high on this list, additional athletic fields are
clearly needed based on the results of sports group surveys. Sports, especially soccer,
are very popular with both youth and adults in Florence-Firestone. Existing fields
provide opportunities for both informal play and organized sports. The surveys show
that existing fields are highly used: nearly 3,700 participants use the nine fields at
Florence-Firestone parks for baseball, football, soccer, and softball (see Table 12). The
fields are in fair to poor condition because they are used frequently and by many
participants. Not surprisingly, most of the sports groups desire more and better fields,
and have plans to expand in the near future.

120

Table 12: Participation in Sports Groups in Florence-Firestone
Park
Sport
Roosevelt Watkins Bethune Washington Total
Participants
Baseball 192 450 200 0 842
Softball 120 200 60 0 380
Soccer 880 900 300 50 2,130
Football 0 300 0 30 344
TOTAL 880 1,850 560 80 3,682

Recreation Programs
The community supports a wide variety of recreation programs. Based on the
aggregation of quantitative data collected through the dot exercise at workshops and the
community questionnaires, the ranking of adult and senior programs is as follows (with 1
being the most needed):
1. Exercise
2. Aquatics
3. Arts and Crafts
4. Community Events
5. Social Clubs
6. Field Trips
7. Dance
8. Sports
9. Cultural and Holiday Celebrations

Based on the aggregation of quantitative data collected through the dot exercise at
workshops, the community questionnaires, and the youth survey, the ranking of youth
recreation programs is as follows (with 1 being the most needed):
1. Sports
2. Camps
3. Dance
4. Cheerleading and Drill Team
5. Educational
6. Aquatics

121

Trails
The community is overwhelmingly supportive of additional places to walk and exercise.
The aggregation of quantitative data collected through the dot exercise at workshops
indicates that residents prefer pathways over multi-use trails, but desire both.
Specifically, the community wants:
• Rubberized surface walking/jogging loop trails around industrial centers, retail
centers, and parks.
• Multi-purpose trails along railroad easements and utility corridors.
• Safe paths of travel connecting key community destinations.

E. Market Data
This section contains a summary of market data for Florence-Firestone (also known as
Florence-Graham Census Defined Place (CDP) in demographic reports). Specifically, I
obtained from ESRI Business Analyst the following: the community’s recreation
expenditures, sports market potential, and health market potential. These data both
supplement the input collected through the public participation process and offer
additional information that is critical to understanding and meeting the community’s
recreational needs. For comparison purposes, data was also acquired for Huntington
Park (which is adjacent to Florence-Firestone and nearly identical in population size) and
the County of Los Angeles.

122
Recreation Expenditures
Florence-Firestone residents spend significantly less on recreation than other Los
Angeles County residents. This is not surprising considering the community’s median
household income is also much lower than the countywide median. Recreation
expenditures in Florence-Firestone are slightly lower, but very similar to that in
Huntington Park. Florence-Firestone residents spend close to the national average for
the rental or repair of sports, recreation, or exercise equipment, as indicated by the
spending potential index (SPI) of 94. Table 13 compares Florence-Firestone residents’
recreation expenditures with those of Huntington Park and the county as a whole.

Table 13: Recreation Expenditures
Place Florence-Firestone Huntington Park L.A. County

Recreation Expenditures
SPI Average
Amount
Spent
SPI Average
Amount
Spent
SPI Average
Amount
Spent
Fees for Participant Sports 61 $65 66 $70 110 $117
Fees for Recreational Lessons 64 $88 69 $94 120 $163
Membership Fees for Social/
Recreation/Civic Clubs
56 $92 60 $99 112 $183
Exercise Equipment and Gear 47 $39 51 $42 85 $69
Bicycles 78 $16 83 $16 122 $24
Rental/Repair of Sports/
Recreation/ Exercise Equipment
94 $4 97 $4 135 $5
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2010.
Data Note: The Spending Potential Index (SPI) is household-based, and represents the amount spent for a
product or service relative to a national average of 100.

123
Sports and Leisure Market Potential
Walking for exercise is the most popular sports activity among Florence-Firestone
residents, with over 14% of adults participating in this activity. Walking is followed by
soccer, basketball, and swimming. However, even though walking tops the list,
Florence-Firestone residents are still much less likely than other U.S. residents to walk
for exercise, as indicated by the low market potential index (MPI) of 52. This result may
be due to the lack of walking paths or urban trails, the fear of crime, and the lack of
security lighting on existing paths as many residents expressed during the community
input process. Florence-Firestone residents are much more likely to participate in
soccer than other Los Angeles County residents and U.S. residents; this result is
consistent with our findings through the community input process. Table 14 compares
Florence-Firestone’s sports and leisure market potential with those of Huntington Park
and Los Angeles County as a whole.

Table 14: Sports and Leisure Market Potential
Place Florence-Firestone Huntington Park L.A. County
Consumer Behavior % of
Adults
MPI % of
Adults
MPI % of
Adults
MPI
Walking for Exercise 14.3% 52 15.2% 55 23.8% 86
Soccer 9.1% 230 7.8% 199 5.9% 149
Basketball 9.0% 102 7.7% 87 8.2% 93
Swimming 8.4% 47 7.5% 42 14.8% 83
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2010.
Data Note: A Market Potential Index (MPI) measures the relative likelihood of the adults in the specified
area to exhibit certain consumer behavior or purchasing patterns compared to the U.S. An MPI of 100
represents the U.S. average.

124
Health Market Potential
Nearly one in four Florence-Firestone residents exercise at home two or more times a
week, yet very few households in the community own stationary bicycles, treadmills, or
weight lifting equipment. Many residents may choose to exercise at home because
safety is a major concern in the community. Few residents exercise at private clubs or
other facilities. This result is to be expected given the lack of such facilities and the
limited ability of most residents to pay for club membership. Table 15 compares
Florence-Firestone’s health market potential with those of Huntington Park and Los
Angeles County as a whole.

Table 15: Health Market Potential
Place Florence-Firestone Huntington Park L.A. County
Consumer Behavior % of
Adults
MPI % of
Adults
MPI % of
Adults
MPI
Exercise at home 2+ times/week 24.8% 84 23.4% 80 27.5% 94
Exercise at club 2+ times/week 6.2% 54 6.3% 54 12.5% 108
Exercise at other facility 2+
times/week
5.2% 64 5.3% 66 7.7% 95
Own stationary bicycle 3.0% 50 3.3% 56 4.7% 79
Own treadmill 5.6% 58 5.3% 55 7.2% 74
Own weight lifting equipment 7.2% 58 7.0% 57 9.9% 80
Used exercise program for diet
method
3.7% 43 4.1% 47 7.6% 87
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2010.
Data Note: A Market Potential Index (MPI) measures the relative likelihood of the adults in the specified
area to exhibit certain consumer behavior or purchasing patterns compared to the U.S. An MPI of 100
represents the U.S. average.

125
F. Role of the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation in
Florence-Firestone

The Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) is one of the
largest public park and recreation agencies in the United States. With nearly 1,500
employees, DPR is responsible for the administration of more than 144 facilities,
including 94 local and regional parks, 19 golf courses, 337 miles of riding and hiking
trails, and such unique facilities as the Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic
Garden, Hollywood Bowl, and John Anson Ford Amphitheatre. Within Florence-
Firestone, DPR owns and operates five parks: Franklin D. Roosevelt Park, Ted Watkins
Memorial Park, Colonel Leon H. Washington Park, Mary McLeod Bethune Park, and El
Parque Nuestro. Many residents consider these parks to be community assets and
gathering places.

Over the years, DPR and its staff have contributed significantly to the improvement of
Florence-Firestone. Throughout the community input process, residents repeatedly
expressed their appreciation for DPR staff, especially the superintendents responsible
for the daily management of the parks. Three recent efforts that deserve recognition
are: the creation of “Fitness Zones”; the opening of El Parque Nuestro; and the Park
after Dark Program.

• DPR has been working with the Trust for Public Land (TPL) to establish “Fitness
Zones” at existing parks in underserved neighborhoods including Florence-
Firestone. Fitness Zones are custom-designed installations of easy-to-use
outdoor gym equipment. The equipment resembles that found in private health

126
clubs, but is free for all to use and appropriate for a variety of ages and fitness
levels. Each Fitness Zone can be installed in less than a month for a cost of
$45,000. Fitness Zones have been installed at Roosevelt Park and El Parque
Nuestro. According to DPR’s field staff, the fitness equipment is very popular
with park users. Their observation is consistent with Cohen (2009)’s finding that
Fitness Zones offer a cost-effective approach to increasing physical activity,
attracting new users to parks, and increasing park usage.

• El Parque Nuestro, a new 0.63-acre pocket park, opened in the summer of 2010
(see Figure 11). In addition to DPR, Supervisor Gloria Molina’s office and the
Department of Public Works were very involved in the development of the park.
This park was named by a local elementary student through a contest. The park
is landscaped with drought tolerant plants, offers benches and tables made with
recycled materials, and includes smart irrigation, solar lighting and a concrete
jogging path. Barbeque pits as well as play and fitness equipments are also
available. The $2.1 million park was funded by Proposition 40, the California
Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of
2002.

127
Figure 11: El Parque Nuestro in Florence-Firestone

Source: C. Lau, 2011.

• Through the Parks after Dark (PAD) program, DPR extended hours and offered
additional activities at Watkins Park and Roosevelt Park. This model program
was funded through the LA84 Foundation and was a collaborative effort involving
other County departments including: Chief Executive Office, Sheriff, Probation,
Public Library, Public Health, Community and Senior Services, Human Relations
Commission, Public Defender, and District Attorney. Additional programming
and activities for all community residents included sports activities, cultural and
educational activities, musical concerts in the parks, movies in the parks,
employment opportunities for local youth and resource fairs. The PAD program
provided youth with these productive activities to decrease the likelihood of
participation in at-risk behavior and is a component of the County’s Gang
Initiative intended to reduce gang violence.

128
These efforts are also noteworthy because they show that DPR is collaborating more
with other partners.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, DPR is currently working on the Florence-Firestone
Community Parks and Recreation Plan (CPRP). I am serving as the primary author of
this plan and have been actively involved in the public participation process, which has
included: community workshops; interviews with stakeholders; focused workshops with
seniors and youth; and surveys of residents and sports organizations using County
parks.

The purpose of the Florence-Firestone CPRP is to plan for parks and recreational
services that meet the needs of residents. County parks and recreational facilities are a
vital part of enhancing the quality of life for community residents. The goals, policies,
and implementation actions set forth in this plan address the growing and diverse
recreation needs of Florence-Firestone. The plan is intended to provide strategic
direction for implementing a bold “green-rich” vision for Florence-Firestone. The
Florence-Firestone CPRP is the first plan developed by DPR for a specific
unincorporated community. The plan offers focused policies and implementation actions
to address park and recreation needs in Florence-Firestone identified through the
community input process. Based upon community input and direction from DPR
management, the top three implementation actions proposed in the draft plan are:

• Expand recreation services by pursuing joint-use options for facilities and
program/event venues. For example, DPR can enter into joint-use agreements

129
with the Los Angeles Unified School District to provide the use of schools for
County-sponsored and community-sponsored recreational programs and
activities.

• Pursue opportunities to develop multi-benefit parks and trails in areas such as
power-line alignments and transportation right-of-ways.

• Determine land acquisition priorities (based on opportunities identified in the
plan), identify funding options for acquisitions, and prepare a five-year
implementation plan for land acquisition.

As explained in Chapter 3, this paper proposes an alternative approach that focuses on
the provision of park and recreational services in a variety of ways and settings involving
a diverse group of stakeholders. Specifically, this means providing more and improved
recreational services through multiple-use facilities and partnerships with other public,
nonprofit, and private organizations. To illustrate what the implementation of this
approach would be like, this paper presents a case study on Florence-Firestone,
focusing on the role of DPR in the community. Essentially, the alternative approach
recognizes that DPR alone cannot meet the growing and diverse park and recreation
needs of Florence-Firestone, despite its best efforts and intentions due to budgetary and
other constraints. Instead, all stakeholders must be actively involved collectively and
individually. This is consistent with the community input received which called for DPR
to collaborate more with schools, churches, libraries, Sheriff’s, Public Health, and
nonprofit organizations such as local land trusts.

130

DPR must proactively partner with other stakeholders to comprehensively meet the park
and recreation needs of Florence-Firestone residents. Such partnership will be
challenging, and will require a high level of coordination and cooperation. However, this
may be done by building on the efforts and successes of the Florence-Firestone
Community Enhancement Team (CET) which consists of representative from public,
nonprofit, and private organizations, and meets regularly to address issues relating to
County services and accountability. Community leaders were identified and invited to
participate as members of the CET to determine priorities for service enhancements
such as public safety, code enforcement, traffic, road and street maintenance,
development of infrastructure, and community identification and involvement.

G. Stakeholder Power Analysis
Stakeholder power analysis is a tool that can help us understand how people affect
policies and institutions, and how policies and institutions affect people (International
Institute for Environment and Development, 2005, p. 2). The development of strategies
to improve and increase the supply of parks and recreational services in Florence-
Firestone involves and affects a broad and diverse collection of stakeholders. These
stakeholders can be organized into three groups: primary or established actors;
secondary or emerging actors; and tertiary or yet-to-be-involved actors.

• Primary or established actors are those who have been directly involved in parks
and recreation issues in Florence-Firestone, including: residents, especially
children; DPR; environmental justice and park advocacy groups; local and state

131
politicians; conservancies; nonprofit recreation organizations; and law
enforcement agencies.
• Secondary or emerging actors refer to those who have been less directly
involved and/or only recently emerged as partners in developing strategies to
provide additional parks and recreational services. They include: business
interests and chambers of commerce; school officials; churches and faith-based
organizations; land trusts; public works agencies; public health officials;
economic development and redevelopment agencies; and libraries officials.
• Tertiary or yet-to-be-involved actors are those who are currently not involved, but
have the potential to help address the park and recreation needs of Florence-
Firestone residents. They include: colleges and universities; professional sports
leagues and teams; sports apparel and equipment suppliers; and utility providers
and railroad companies.

Described on the following pages are the roles of these groups. Table 12 then
summarizes the interest, impact, and strategies for intervention for each stakeholder.

Primary or Established Actors
• Residents in Florence-Firestone, especially Children: These residents live in
an underserved community of concentrated poverty with safety issues and a high
prevalence of obesity. In particular, nearly one-third of children in Florence-
Firestone are obese due in part to the lack of physical activity and the shortage of
safe places for recreation. Florence-Firestone residents, especially children and

132
at-risk youth, are the intended beneficiaries of strategies to improve and increase
the supply of parks and recreational services in Florence-Firestone.
• Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR): DPR offers
parks and recreational services in Florence-Firestone. Currently, DPR is
primarily concerned with maintaining and improving existing parks, and offering
recreation programs at these facilities. The only new park built in recent years is
El Parque Nuestro. DPR needs to proactively partner with other stakeholders to
comprehensively meet the growing and diverse recreational needs of the
residents, especially children and at-risk youth.
• Environmental Justice and Park Advocacy Groups: Environmental justice
groups, such as The City Project and People for Parks, are the leaders of the
urban parks movement in Los Angeles. They seek to eliminate unfair park,
school, and health disparities based on race, ethnicity, poverty, youth, and
access to cars. These groups contributed significantly to the development of
new parks at the Cornfield and Taylor Yard. They generally support the joint use
of schools and parks, and the development of new urban parks for active
recreational activities such as soccer.
• Local and State Politicians: Local and state political representatives play a key
role by advocating for new parks and securing funding for their development. As
an unincorporated area, Florence-Firestone does not have its own city
government and is served instead by the County of Los Angeles, with the Board
of Supervisors as its version of a city council. Florence-Firestone lies within the
boundaries of two County supervisorial districts: the First District represented by
Supervisor Gloria Molina and the Second District by Supervisor Mark Ridley-

133
Thomas. To be implemented, any new strategy to enhance the supply and
quality of parks and recreational services would require the leadership and
support of local and state political leaders.
• Conservancies: The Rivers and Mountains Conservancy (RMC) applied for and
received a federal grant in 2008 to develop the Randolph Greenway Master Plan
for a four-mile corridor that includes the cities of Bell, Huntington Park, Maywood,
Vernon, and the northern portion of Florence-Firestone. Project partners include
the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers Watershed Council, Rails to Trails
Conservancy, and the National Park Service. In addition, the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy was involved in the creation of Walnut Nature Park,
located just east of Florence-Firestone.
• Nonprofit Recreation Organizations: Nonprofit recreation organizations include
groups that develop and offer recreational opportunities for youth, adults, and
seniors in communities. Some of these organizations rely on parks and schools
to offer recreational services, while others have their own facilities. Examples of
nonprofit groups include The Salvation Army, the YMCA, Boys & Girls Club, Kids
In Sports, and after-school programs providers.
• Law Enforcement Agencies: The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is
actively involved in crime prevention efforts in Florence-Firestone, including
operation of the Youth Athletic League (YAL) Firestone Activity Center. This
facility is a safe gathering place for neighborhood kids to engage in recreational
activities during after-school hours, including (but not limited to): boxing, karate,
art classes, and tutoring. The Sheriff’s Department was also involved in the
development of Parks after Dark Program.

134

Secondary or Emerging Actors
• Businesses and Chamber of Commerce: Business interests generally support
parks, especially larger ones with the potential to generate economic benefits:
enhancing real estate values, and attracting tourists and businesses. The
Florence-Firestone Chamber of Commerce is very active in the community and is
supportive of parks. Its stated mission is to “promote the economic, civic and
social welfare of the people of Florence-Firestone, and to do generally all things
necessary for the advancement, protection, health, happiness, and prosperity of
the community.”
• School Officials: The joint-use of schools for community recreation is not a new
concept and has been done for over a hundred years. School officials make
decisions regarding the construction of new schools, and joint use agreements
with park agencies and other groups. The Los Angeles Unified School District
(LAUSD) serves many of the underserved areas in Los Angeles County including
Florence-Firestone. LAUSD’s commitment and participation are needed to open
up schools for community use and implement the Community-School-Park
proposal.
• Churches and Faith-based Organizations: Similar to schools, churches and
faith-based organizations have historically offered recreational services to meet
the needs of residents, especially children. Florence-Firestone is home to
numerous churches and other places of worship which have the potential to do
more to improve and address the needs of residents. Specifically, faith-based
groups can organize and mobilize the community over health and recreation

135
related concerns, especially with respect to the need for more physical activity
opportunities to combat the obesity crisis. Churches can also open up their
facilities for community recreation and offer much needed after-school programs
for kids.
• Land Trusts: Land trusts are generally tasked with the acquisition of land for
recreation and conservation purposes. The Los Angeles Neighborhood Land
Trust (LANLT) is an example of a land trust that creates small, accessible
community green and open spaces, including parks and community gardens, in
Los Angeles’ underserved neighborhoods. Although all of its projects have been
in the City of Los Angeles, the executive director of LANLT has expressed a
desire to develop small parks and community gardens in Florence-Firestone.
The Trust for Public Land (TPL) and the Los Angeles Community Garden Council
are also interested in similar projects.
• Public Works Agencies: The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
(DPW) has managed numerous capital improvement projects in Florence-
Firestone, including the recent development of El Parque Nuestro. As the
agency responsible for streetscape and sidewalk improvements, DPW is in the
position to improve the walkability of the community and develop complete
streets.
• Public Health Officials: Public health officials generally support the
development of new parks because they provide opportunities for physical
activity, especially for children. However, public health experts must evaluate the
potential health concerns of placing new parks at locations near freeways and on

136
brownfields or contaminated sites. Public health officials must continue to
disseminate health information to the community.
• Economic Development and Redevelopment Agencies: The Community
Development Commission (CDC) serves in the County of Los Angeles as an
affordable housing, and community and economic development agency. The
CDC's wide-ranging programs benefit residents and business owners in
unincorporated areas of the County and in various incorporated cities that
participate in different CDC programs (these cities are called "participating
cities"). CDC is actively involved in Florence-Firestone, including the funding of
numerous community improvement projects and nonprofit organizations serving
residents.
• Libraries Officials: The County of Los Angeles Public Library operates the
Florence and Graham libraries in Florence-Firestone. They offer the following
services: basic reference services, computers with internet access, bilingual story
times for children, a homework center, and year-round reading activities. Many
youth spend time at the two facilities during after-school hours.

Tertiary or Yet-to-be-involved Actors
• Colleges and Universities: Colleges and universities typically have community
outreach programs to enhance relations with their surrounding neighborhoods.
The University of Southern California (USC), for example, has proactively
reached out to the North University Park neighborhood and participates in
numerous community improvement efforts, such as assisting with area schools
through tutoring or afterschool programs. Considering that USC is within a short

137
driving distance from Florence-Firestone, there is the potential for greater
involvement by the university and its athletics program in particular to address
recreational needs in the community.
• Professional Sports Leagues and Teams: Professional sports leagues and
teams typically engage in community service in the cities in which they are
located. However, these efforts are limited and appear more as stunts to
improve public relations. Local professional sports teams can do more to
address the needs of underserved communities like Florence-Firestone by
focusing their efforts and making longer-term commitments rather performing
occasional acts of generosity. Teams like the Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels,
Galaxy, and Chivas USA have much to offer and also have the opportunity to
gain additional fans through improved outreach efforts in Florence-Firestone.
• Sports Apparel and Equipment Manufacturers and Suppliers: Sports apparel
and equipment manufacturers and suppliers can donate their products and/or
sponsor improvements of park facilities. For example, Nike sponsored the
refurbishment of a basketball court in Skid Row. Given the popularity of sports,
especially soccer, in Florence-Firestone, the community can certainly benefit
from any donation of sports apparel or equipment.
• Utility Providers and Transportation Agencies/Companies: Utility providers
include public and quasi-public entities and private corporations that offer water,
electricity, gas, flood control, and other utility services. Transportation agencies
and companies include public transit operators and railway companies. Both
utility providers and transportation agencies own properties and rights-of-way
which may be used for recreational purposes. DPR has partnered with the Los

138
Angeles County Flood Control District, Southern California Edison, and the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power in various parts of the county, but not in
Florence-Firestone.

Table 16 summarizes the interest, impact, and strategies for intervention for each
stakeholder. Interest and impact are measured in terms of low, medium, or high to
show: 1) how interested is the stakeholder; and 2) how much impact does the
stakeholder have in addressing the recreational needs of Florence-Firestone residents.
A discussion of the stakeholders’ power and potential then follows.

Table 16: Stakeholders – Interest, Impact, and Strategies
Group Stakeholder Interest
(Low, Medium, High)
Stakeholder Impact
(Low, Medium, High)
Strategies for
Intervention
Primary or Established Actors
Residents in
Florence-Firestone,
especially Children
• High: Want more
parks and
recreational
facilities in their
communities.
• Medium: They
have some
opportunities to
impact decisions
regarding parks
and recreation.
• Participate in
public meetings,
protests, and
rallies.
• Contact EJ groups
and politicians.
Los Angeles County
Department of Parks
and Recreation
• High: Their
mandate is to
meet the park and
recreation needs
of residents.
• High: DPR offers
parks and
recreation
services in
Florence-
Firestone.
• Carry out its
mission to provide
quality recreational
opportunities.
• Implement
decisions and
policies made by
local politicians.
• Apply for state and
federal funding.
• Collaborate with
other public,
nonprofit, and
private partners.

139
Table 16 (Continued)
Group Stakeholder Interest
(Low, Medium, High)
Stakeholder Impact
(Low, Medium, High)
Strategies for
Intervention
Environmental (EJ)
Justice and Park
Advocacy Groups
• High: Want more
parks and
recreational
services, and
access to school
facilities in
underserved
communities.
• Medium to High:
Impact depends
on strategies
employed and
presence (or
absence) of
sympathetic
politicians.
• Participate in
public meetings.
• Pressure and/or
partner with
politicians.
• Litigate or threaten
to litigate.
Politicians • High: Politicians
generally have
high interest in
park and
recreation issues
in this area.
Interest depends
on popular opinion
and/or pressure.
• High: They make
important policy
decisions
regarding parks
and recreation.
• Make policy
decisions
regarding parks
and recreation.
• Lobby for funding
at state and
federal levels.
• Introduce and/or
amend legislation.
Conservancies • High: Their
mandate is to
meet the park and
recreation needs
of residents as
well as conserve
lands.
• High: They create
and/or fund new
parks and trails in
underserved
areas.
• Carry out their
mandate.
• Implement
decisions and
policies made by
state politicians.
• Apply for federal
funding.
Nonprofit Recreation
Organizations
• High: Their
mission is to offer
no or low-cost
recreational or
after-school
programs for
youth.
• High: They offer a
variety of
recreational
programs and
services that
directly benefit
residents,
especially youth.
• Offer recreational
and after-school
programs and
services.
Law Enforcement
Agencies
• High: Their
mandate is to
maintain and
improve public
safety, including
anti-gang efforts.
• High: They lead
and participate in
efforts to offer
positive
alternatives,
including
recreational
opportunities, for
youth.
• Operate the YAL
Firestone Activity
Center.
• Participate in Park
after Dark
program.

140
Table 16 (Continued)
Group Stakeholder Interest
(Low, Medium, High)
Stakeholder Impact
(Low, Medium, High)
Strategies for
Intervention
Secondary or Emerging Actors
Business Interests
and Chamber of
Commerce
• Medium: Support
parks with
potential to
generate
economic
benefits.
• High: Their
support can push
a proposal
forward. They
have the attention
of politicians.
• Raise money to
support park
improvements.
• Influence,
pressure and/or
partner with
politicians.
School Officials • Medium to High:
They can become
very involved
through joint-use
agreements.
• High: They can
decide whether to
participate in joint-
use agreements.
• Participate in joint-
use agreements
and open up
facilities for
community use.
Churches and Faith-
based Organizations
• Medium: They
want to positively
impact the
community, but
are not directly
involved in
recreation.

• Medium: They
offer some
services and open
up some of their
facilities, but can
do more, including
organizing and
mobilizing the
community.
• Organize and
mobilize the
community
• Open up facilities
for community
recreation.
• Offer after-school
programs for kids.

Land Trusts • High: Their
mandate is to
acquire land for
recreation and
conservation.
• Medium: Their
impact depends
on availability of
funds, land, and
partners.
• Acquire land for
pocket parks and
community
gardens.

Public Health
Officials
• High: They
generally support
development of
new parks.
• Medium to High:
They can
influence
politicians in
decisions related
to parks and
recreation from
the public health
perspective.
• Inform politicians
and local decision-
making.
• Raise concerns
and public
awareness about
the need for more
places for physical
activity.
• Disseminate
health information
to community.

141
Table 16 (Continued)
Group Stakeholder Interest
(Low, Medium, High)
Stakeholder Impact
(Low, Medium, High)
Strategies for
Intervention
Economic
Development and
Redevelopment
Agencies
• Low to Medium:
Their mandate is
to improve the
community, with a
particular focus on
economic
development and
affordable housing
issues.
Recreation is a
secondary
consideration.
• Medium to High:
They are able to
use
redevelopment
funds to acquire
land, including
properties which
may be suitable
for park and
recreation
purposes.
• Fund community
improvement
projects and
nonprofits offering
a variety of
services.
• Acquire land for
redevelopment
through the
payment of fair
market value or
eminent domain.

Libraries Officials • High: Staff at the
two local libraries
are concerned
about the youth
and services
available to them.
• Medium: The two
libraries are safe
havens for many
neighborhood
youth and offer
key services.
• Operate two local
libraries popular
with neighborhood
youth.

Tertiary or Yet-to-be-involved Actors
Colleges and
Universities
• Low: Florence-
Firestone is
located in the
immediate
neighborhood of
any college or
university.
• Low to Medium:
Impact depends
on their
willingness to get
involved and
invest in the
community.
• Offer sports camps
using coaches and
student athletes.
• Open up campus
recreational
facilities for use by
kids in Florence-
Firestone.

Professional Sports
Leagues and Teams
• Low: They
currently have
little interest,
although this
could change with
some solicitation.
• Medium: They
have the potential
to impact this
community
positively through
focused and
sustained efforts.
• Run sports camps
for neighborhood
kids using coaches
and professional
athletes.
• Fund park
improvements.
• Donate team
apparel and
equipment.

142
Table 16 (Continued)
Group Stakeholder Interest
(Low, Medium, High)
Stakeholder Impact
(Low, Medium, High)
Strategies for
Intervention
Sports Apparel and
Equipment Suppliers
• Low: They
currently have
little interest,
although this
could change with
some solicitation.
• Medium: They
have the potential
to impact this
community
positively through
focused and
sustained efforts.
• Donate sports
apparel and
equipment.
• Sponsor park
improvements.
Utility Providers and
Transportation
Agencies/Companies
• Low: They would
rather not be
involved for
liability and other
reasons.
• Medium to High:
They can have a
significant impact
if they are willing
to work with DPR
to introduce
recreational uses
on their properties
and rights-of-way.
• Allow recreational
uses on their
properties and
rights-of-way.

The stakeholders identified above have varying degrees of power to control decisions
that have effects on park and recreation policies and institutions. They also have
different levels of potential to affect, or to be affected by, policies and institutions. The
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) defines power and
potential as follows (p. 10):

Power to influence policies or institutions stems from the control of decisions with
positive or negative effects. Stakeholder power can be understood as the extent to
which stakeholders are able to persuade or coerce others into making decisions, and
following certain courses of action. Power may derive from the nature of a
stakeholder’s organization, or their position in relation to other stakeholders. Other
forms of power may be more informal (for example, personal connections to ruling
politicians).

Potential to affect, or to be affected by, policies and institutions resides in particular
characteristics specific to context and location – such as knowledge and rights. Of
particular concern here are the stakeholders who have high potential but little power.
These stakeholders’ problems, needs and interests are likely to be the most
important for many initiatives to improve policies and institutions processes.

143
According to IIED, there are four general strategies to manage stakeholder relations
based on power and potential, as shown below in Table 17.

Table 17: Four General Strategies for Stakeholder Relations Management
Stakeholder Power /
Potential
High Potential Low Potential
High Power Collaborate with Mitigate impacts, defend
against
Low Power Involve, build capacity and
secure interests
Monitor or ignore
Source: International Institute for Environment and Development, 2005.

Stakeholders can be positioned in relative terms according to the broad criteria of power
and potential on vertical and horizontal axes. Table 18 shows the relative positions of
stakeholders in Florence-Firestone based on power and potential.

Table 18: Power and Potential of Stakeholders in Florence-Firestone
Stakeholder
Power / Potential
High Potential Low Potential
High Power • County Supervisors
• School Officials
• Utility Providers and Railroad
Companies
• Colleges and Universities
• Professional Sports Leagues
and Teams
Low Power • Residents
• County Departments
• Environmental Justice Groups
• Conservancies
• Nonprofit Recreation
Organizations
• Business Interests
• Churches and Faith-based
Organizations
• Land Trusts
• Sports Apparel/Equipment
Manufacturers and Suppliers

144
As shown in Table 18, stakeholders with both high power and potential are County
Supervisors, school officials, and utility providers and railroad companies. Specifically,
County Supervisors Molina and Ridley-Thomas have tremendous power and influence in
Florence-Firestone because they supervise the activities of all County agencies
(including DPR, Public Works, Public Health, Regional Planning, Sheriff’s, Community
Development Commission) and establish County policies for the area. Each Board
office also acts as a liaison between the public and County agencies. As Chapter 5
explains, the Supervisors’ leadership and support are necessary to implement the
alternative approach of providing recreational services in Florence-Firestone.

School officials with LAUSD also have high power because they make decisions and
policies concerning existing and new schools in Florence-Firestone, including joint use
agreements. Their commitment and permission are necessary to open up schools for
community use. In addition, utility providers and railroad companies are powerful
entities with high potential because they own properties and right-of-ways which are
currently not used for recreational purposes, but may be made available as parks and/or
trails in the future. Although influential, even Supervisors Molina and Ridley-Thomas do
not have direct control over the planning and use of facilities or properties owned by
LAUSD, LADWP, and railroad companies.

Obviously, the residents of Florence-Firestone are the most important stakeholders in
our discussion as they are the intended beneficiaries of the alternative approach of
providing recreational services. They have high potential, but limited power if left
unorganized and fragmented. As important institutions in Florence-Firestone with

145
significant membership, churches and other faith-based organizations are in the unique
position to organize and mobilize the community over health and recreation related
concerns, especially with respect to the need for more opportunities for physical activity
to combat the obesity crisis. Other stakeholders with the potential to organize and
mobilize residents include environmental justice groups, nonprofit recreation
organizations, and the local chamber of commerce. When organized and united, the
residents gain power and have much greater influence over decision-makers including
County Supervisors, LAUSD officials, and executives of utility and railroad companies.
Residents are also empowered when given opportunities to be heard and provide input.

Colleges and universities, professional sports leagues and teams, and sports apparel/
equipment manufacturers and suppliers are identified as stakeholders with low potential
relative to the potential of the other stakeholders. Contrary to the strategies proposed by
IIED for stakeholders with low potential (i.e. mitigate impacts, defend against, monitor/
ignore), my proposal is to also collaborate with them, even though their impact would be
less than those stakeholders with higher potential.

The above analysis represents a very utilitarian approach to understanding the power
and potential of stakeholders. It is intended to inform our discussion, especially with
respect to the feasibility of implementing an alternative approach of providing
recreational services. While helpful, this analysis may be expanded upon with additional
data from those stakeholders who were unable to participate in interviews conducted as
part of the Florence-Firestone CPRP’s community input process due to time constraints
and other factors.

146
H. New Ways, Locations, and Partners to Provide Recreational Services in
Florence-Firestone

With the shortage of available land in urban areas, planners need to consider less
traditional sites and locations to meet the recreational needs of underserved
communities. As Garvin (2000) points out, opportunities to enhance the public realm will
continue to open up when changes in population or economic conditions render previous
land uses obsolete (p. 47). Local governments must continue to seize these
opportunities by reusing a wide range of abandoned and underused areas, streets,
highways, and rail-road properties. Baylson (2009) refers to these spaces as “pre-park”
spaces and believe that planners should highlight the possibilities of the spaces
becoming parks in the future (p. 26). After all, these projects represent exciting
opportunities for built-up areas where increasing the amount of park and recreation
spaces is challenging and costly.

There are numerous examples of joint-use facilities and reuse of existing facilities for
recreation purposes. In Urban Parks and Open Space (1997), Garvin and Berens offer
15 case studies documenting the continuing effort to adapt and reuse abandoned and
underutilized urban land for recreation purposes. They believe that there are still plenty
of city streets and railroad rights-of-way that can be reclaimed as public open space (p.
19). Opportunities also exist in areas where plenty of land once used for industrial
manufacturing purposes now sits vacant because the cost of cleaning it up and
retrofitting it for public use is high or because obsolete zoning regulations prohibit their
use for nonindustrial purposes (p. 20).

147
Future facilities that offer opportunities for recreation may not appear like the parks of
today or the past; their form does not matter as long as they provide the services parks
offer. Planners must be open to new and creative ideas such as flexible park design,
mobile park spaces, temporary use of existing public and private spaces for recreation,
and play areas that are drastically different from today or yesterday’s parks.

Given budget, land, and other constraints, DPR must be creative and bold in how it
meets the park and recreation needs of an underserved community like Florence-
Firestone. Just as no single agency can do it all, no single solution will be adequate or
sufficient. Thus this section builds upon the recommendations of the Florence-Firestone
CPRP, but also presents a wide variety of ideas, suggestions, and proposals that may
be too unconventional, experimental, and/or politically controversial to be included in an
official government planning document such as the CPRP.

Recognizing that parks are not the only places where people recreate and that DPR is
not the only provider of recreational opportunities, this section offers twelve
combinations of alternative ways, locations, and partners to offer more and improved
recreational services in Florence-Firestone. These examples are presented in summary
form in Table 19 and then explained on subsequent pages.

148

Table 19: Twelve Examples of Alternative Ways, Locations, and Partners
Example

Way Location(s) Partner(s)
1. Joint-Use at Schools Schools LAUSD, People for
Parks
2. Use of Utility Corridor and Rail
Rights-of-way for Recreation
Utility corridor and rail
rights-of-way
LADWP, Transportation
Agencies
3. Development of Pocket Parks and
Community Gardens
Small vacant lots LANLT, L.A. Community
Garden Council, TPL,
Residents
4. Reuse of Existing Buildings for
Recreation
Existing buildings Private operators of
recreational facilities
5. Temporary Use of Parking and
Vacant Lots for Recreation
Parking lots and
vacant lots
Individual property
owners, churches,
County departments
6. Temporary Street Closures for
Recreation
Streets Department of Public
Works, Metro
7. Walking Path along Florence
Avenue
Florence Avenue Department of Public
Works, Metro
8. Mobile Gyms and Mobile Art
Vehicles
Any location where
the vehicles may be
parked
Private vendors, non-
profit organizations,
Arts Commission
9. Transportation to Outside Parks
and Recreational Facilities
Parks and
recreational facilities
outside of Florence-
Firestone
Rental car companies,
Metro, nonprofit
organizations
10. Donations of Home Exercise
Equipment or Active Video Game
Systems
Individual homes Exercise equipment/
sporting goods
manufacturers/retailers,
video game
manufacturers and
retailers
11. Vouchers for Nonprofit and Private
Recreational Facilities
Nonprofit and private
recreational facilities
Nonprofit and private
operators of
recreational facilities,
private donors
12. Sponsorships for Parks Parks Chamber of Commerce,
professional sports
leagues and teams,
commercial interests

149
1. Joint Use at Schools
Increasing access to recreational facilities that already exist at schools is one of the most
effective ways to provide more opportunities for physical activity and play in
neighborhoods. After all, even the most underserved neighborhoods have schools. At a
time of budget cuts and shortfalls, maximizing access to existing facilities—rather than
focusing on constructing new ones—is the most efficient and economical use of public
resources.

Schools offer recreational amenities which may be made available to the public during
non-school hours. In addition, asphalt lots on school grounds may be converted to new,
attractive playgrounds and grass fields open to the community. However, many school
facilities are often locked and inaccessible to residents who might otherwise use them on
weekday evenings and weekends. Understandably, school districts lock their facilities
because they lack the capacity and funds to run programs, and they may have concerns
about additional legal or maintenance costs that might arise from using school property
beyond regular school hours.

Joint use agreements offer a way for school districts to open their facilities for community
use. A joint use agreement refers to a written agreement between a school district and
one or more public or private entities setting forth the terms and conditions for sharing
the use of the district’s facilities. Such an agreement can provide community access to
school property by allowing the district to share with another agency the costs and risks
associated with opening the property for after-hours use.

150
Florence-Firestone is served by LAUSD which operates seven elementary schools and
two middle schools in the community. Also, two new elementary schools and a new high
school are under construction as of this writing. LAUSD school properties total
approximately 62 acres, with about 40% (25 acres) of that devoted to recreational
amenities such as hard courts, playgrounds, and ball fields. If recreational amenities at
all schools were open for community use during non-school hours, Florence-Firestone
would be very well-covered from a service-radii perspective. Specifically, much of
Florence-Firestone lies within a half-mile radii of an elementary, middle, or high school.

One of DPR’s priorities has to be to negotiate with and enter into a joint-use agreement
with LAUSD to make school grounds in Florence-Firestone available for public
recreation. The agreement would allow school resources, including playgrounds and
hard courts, to be used by residents during non-school hours.

As mentioned earlier, the Community-School-Park Plan has emerged as a strategy to
maximize the use of and enhance existing facilities in Los Angeles by opening up
schools for public recreation and community services, and replacing asphalt on school
playgrounds with lawns and trees (Foley et al, 2007). The plan also calls for the creation
of new joint-use facilities that serve the community as both schools and parks. This
approach would be implemented through joint- and community-use agreements
involving LAUSD and the County of Los Angeles (representing the unincorporated
areas). These agreements allow school resources, including fields, recreation areas,
and fitness facilities, to be used by community members during after school hours,
providing significant benefit to the surrounding community. In addition, the plan seeks to

151
increase green space in underserved neighborhoods by replacing asphalt on school
grounds with turf, trees, and gardens. Figure 12 illustrates what happens if one section
of Florence Avenue Elementary School’s asphalt playground is replaced with grass.

Figure 12: Replacing asphalt with grass at Florence Avenue Elementary School

Sources: http://www.bing.com/maps/; http://maps.google.com/

Existing
Conditions

152
Figure 12 (Continued)

Sources: http://www.bing.com/maps/; http://maps.google.com/
Proposed
Conditions
This is an example of an
area where asphalt may
be replaced with grass.

153
DPR is not new to the arena of joint use agreements. Examples of DPR’s existing
school partners include LAUSD (but not in Florence-Firestone), Castaic Union School
District, Rowland Unified School District, Westside Union School District, and Whittier
City School District. Of particular relevance in Florence-Firestone is that DPR currently
has a Community Recreation Joint Use Agreement (CRJUA) with LAUSD to operate
Walnut Nature Park which is located in Walnut Park, an area immediately east of
Florence-Firestone. This is a joint use agreement involving the County, LAUSD, and the
Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. The park provides the community with
organized activities and open recreation in space that was once an empty lot.

New York City offers an example of a successful joint-use program with multiple
partners. Through its Playgrounds Program, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) is working
with the Departments of Education and Parks and Recreation to provide safe places to
play within a ten-minute walk of every child in the city. Fewer than half of New York
City's public elementary schools have usable playgrounds for the nearly 630,000
students they serve. Despite past efforts to convert school yards to playgrounds, many
schools still have little more than barren asphalt lots for play areas. TPL is working to
transform these vacant school lots into playgrounds and community parks. The effort is
in partnership with the City of New York as part of Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC 2030. In
addition, private funders are involved and include MetLife, Credit Suisse, Deutsche
Bank, and The Michael and Susan Dell Foundation (Harnik, 2010, p. 113).

TPL has an ambitious agenda. The goal of the Playgrounds Program is to create over
200 acres of new parkland and provide neighborhood places for more than 380,000

154
children to play, exercise, and socialize with family and friends (TPL, 2009).
Participatory design is a critical component of the program. At each site, TPL facilitates
a participatory design process that involves students, school staff, and community
members. An important part of this process is planning for the use and care of the new
playgrounds. TPL works with community partners to run programs at the playgrounds
and to keep them open to the public after school and on weekends. These groups are
integral to the success of the playgrounds, keeping them active and safe year-round and
allowing the neighborhood to fully utilize them.

2. Use of Utility Corridor and Rail Rights-of-way for Recreation
Utility corridors and railroad right-of-ways are prime potential locations for multi-benefit
parks. Multi-benefit parks are created through collaborative efforts among entities such
as city, county, state, and federal agencies, private organizations, private landowners,
and industries. These parks are characterized as having more than one function and
contributing to multiple program goals. There are utility corridors and railroad right-of-
ways in Florence-Firestone which have the potential to be used for recreational
purposes. Specifically, during the community input process, many residents supported
the idea of developing multi-purpose trails along utility corridors.

Utility Corridor
Utility corridors are linear strips of land used for the present or future location of utility
lines within its boundaries. These corridors are owned and maintained by utility
providers which include public agencies and private corporations that offer water,
electricity, gas, flood control, and other utility services.

155
Florence-Firestone is home to a major electricity transmission corridor that cuts across
the community (Figure 13). This corridor is owned by the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power (DWP) and runs in an east-west direction along parts of 92
nd
Street,
touching Washington Park, and then north-south along Success Avenue leading to Ted
Watkins Parks. The linear nature of this corridor makes it a suitable location for an
urban trail which may meet both the community’s recreation and alternative
mobility/transportation needs. DPR must work with DWP to determine whether portions
of this 27-acre corridor may be used for park and/or trail purposes. The neighboring City
of South Gate was successful in working with DWP to develop a park under the portion
of the utility corridor in the city. The 9-acre Cesar Chavez Park (Figure 14) is located at
2541 Southern Avenue, and offers two playgrounds.

Figure 13: Utility Corridor in Florence-Firestone

Source: Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010.

156
Figure 14: Cesar Chavez Park in South Gate

Source: Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010.

Despite a multitude of studies, there remains considerable debate over what, if any,
health effects result from exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) emitted by
power lines (Portier & Wolfe, 1998, p. 7).
24
There is still no clear answer to the question:

24
The generation, transmission, and use of electric energy is associated with the production of
weak EMFs. These fields are a fact of daily life: they are emitted by power lines, transformers,
service wires, and electrical panels as well as by home appliances.

157
can exposure to electric and magnetic fields resulting from the production, distribution,
and use of electricity promote cancer or initiate other health problems?

Railroad Right-of-Ways
One of the defining characteristics of Florence-Firestone is the rail right-of-ways which
run across the community in a north-south fashion, and accommodate the Metro Blue
Line as well as freight trains. At this time we do not know whether these right-of-ways
could be used for recreational purposes such as trails. Further research will be
necessary to determine the feasibility and practicality of developing rail-trail or rail-with-
trail projects (as explained below) in Florence-Firestone. In particular, DPR needs to
have discussions with these potential transportation partners in Florence-Firestone
including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), Union Pacific Railroad, and Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway.

Many are familiar with the concept of rail-trails—multi-use trails developed on former
railroad corridors. With the increasing popularity of rail-trails across the country,
communities are looking for other innovative ways of securing land for safe, popular and
effective trail development. An emerging answer is the rail-with-trail. Rails-with-trails
are trails adjacent to or within an active railroad corridor. The rails-with-trails concept
provides more opportunities for the creation of trail systems that enhance local
transportation systems, offering safe, attractive community connections.

158
Rails-with-trails can also offer a solution to rail companies and local governments
concerned about safety risks posed by those who illegally cross rail lines. By providing a
safe alternative for cyclists and pedestrians, often with fencing between the pathway and
the railway, rails-with-trails can eliminate the previous incentive to use the tracks as a
shortcut. In addition, rails-with-trails enhance local transportation networks by providing
non-motorized local connections that are sometimes preferable to on-road bike lanes or
sidewalks located on congested, dangerous roadways.

Safety is probably the biggest concern when considering a rail-with-trail project. Both
railroads and potential trail managers may be apprehensive about placing a public trail
close to an active railroad track, fearing an increase risk of accidents along the corridor.
However, many successful rail-trails across the country stand as a testament to the
ability of trains and trails to coexist.

New York offers another example of particular relevance here: the recent conversion of
the High Line into an above ground linear park (see Figure 15). The High Line was built
in the 1930s as part of a public-private infrastructure project called the West Side
Improvement. It lifted freight traffic 30 feet in the air, separating trains from the streets of
Manhattan's largest industrial district. No trains have used the High Line since 1980.
Friends of the High Line, a community-based nonprofit group, was created in 1999 when
the historic structure was under threat of demolition. The group worked in partnership
with the City of New York to preserve and maintain the structure as an elevated public
park.

159
Figure 15: The High Line in New York

Source: J. Yom, 2010.

The first section of the High Line is now open as a public park, owned by the City of New
York and operated under the jurisdiction of the New York City Department of Parks and

160
Recreation. Friends of the High Line is the conservancy charged with raising private
funds for the park and overseeing its maintenance and operations. When all sections
are complete, the High Line will be a mile-and-a-half-long elevated park, running through
the West Side neighborhoods of the Meatpacking District, West Chelsea and
Clinton/Hell's Kitchen. It features an integrated landscape combining meandering
concrete pathways with naturalistic plantings. Fixed and movable seating, lighting, and
special features are also included in the park. Access points from street level are
located every two to three blocks. Many of these access points include elevators, and
all include stairs.

3. Development of Pocket Parks and Community Gardens
Although small in size, pocket parks and community gardens can be significant assets in
dense, underserved communities like Florence-Firestone. As part of the preparation of
the Florence-Firestone CPRP, DPR conducted a detailed assessment of vacant land in
Florence-Firestone using its Geographic Information System (GIS). This analysis
revealed that there are a variety of properties which may potentially be acquired and
developed into parks and recreational facilities, including land owned by the County of
Los Angeles or other public agencies, tax-defaulted properties, and privately owned
parcels which are vacant or underutilized. (DPR has mapped all of these properties;
however, due to privacy concerns, this map will not be made available to the public.) All
of these properties total approximately 20 acres, with over half of the parcels being less
than a quarter of an acre in size (as indicated in Table 20).

161

Table 20: Potential Parkland based on Size of Parcels
Park Type Required
Acreage
Number of
Vacant Parcels
Community Park 10 to 20 0
Neighborhood Park 3 to 10 0
Pocket Park 0.25 to 3 26
Park Node < 0.25 33
Source: Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, 2010.

Given the small size of available properties, the acquisition and merger of multiple
parcels of land would be necessary to create a community or neighborhood park.
Alternatively, DPR could maximize the use of these small parcels. After all, acquiring
and combining numerous parcels to create new parks is a costly and time-consuming
endeavor. Size may not be that important provided that the property offers an amenity
or amenities that meet community needs. The 0.51-acre Willie "Woo-Woo" Wong
Playground (formerly “Chinese Playground”) in San Francisco’s dense Chinatown is a
prime example of a small yet very well-used recreational facility (Yep, 2009, pp. 17-36).
Opened in 1927, the playground has historically been one of the most popular in the city
and is centrally located within Chinatown’s boundaries. The playground is surrounded
by churches, the YMCA, and residential apartments. This multi-level facility was built
into the side of a hill and contains two sand play areas, three game and sports areas,
and a big community recreation center and indoor gym. The recreation center runs an
after-school program that helps kids with homework and offers snacks and activities.

As the first and only pocket park in Florence-Firestone, Parque El Nuestro can serve as
a case study to show how smaller, unstaffed parks would be used in the community.

162
During the community input process, some stakeholders expressed concerns over the
safety and security of smaller parks; they were particularly fearful that pocket parks
without the supervision of staff could be taken over by gangs.

In 2004 the City of Los Angeles created the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust
(LANLT), a nonprofit organization, to create small, accessible community green and
open spaces, including parks and community gardens, in Los Angeles’ underserved
neighborhoods. During our stakeholder interview, LANLT’s executive director expressed
a strong desire to develop smaller parks and community gardens in Florence-Firestone.

LANLT uses a community-based model to create small, accessible community green
and open spaces, including parks and community gardens. Community organizing is a
key component of this model. To this end, LANLT holds community meetings, forms
community management groups, trains residents to take on leadership roles,
collaborates to create programming that meets community needs, and celebrates
community participation through Community Build Days, opening celebrations and
special park events.

Since 2004, LANLT has been involved in creating or renovating nine park and garden
projects, seven of which are being managed and programmed by LANLT and local
community management committees (Table 21). In addition, LANLT has a number of
projects in the planning stage as shown in Table 22.

163

Table 21: Parks created and managed by LANLT
Park Name Neighborhood Address
11
th
Avenue Park Hyde Park 6116 11
th
Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90043
Beverly-Union Park Historic-Filipinotown 1644 Beverly Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Estrella Park South Los Angeles 1956 Estrella Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90007
Francis Avenue Garden MacArthur Park/
Koreatown
2909 Francis Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90005
Marsh Skate Park Elysian Valley 2945 Marsh Street
Los Angeles, CA 90039
Marson Park Panorama City 15262 Marson Street
Panorama City, CA 91402
Richardson Family Park South Los Angeles 2700 S. Budlong Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90007
Source: LANLT, 2008.

Table 22: LANLT Projects in Planning Stage
Project Name Neighborhood
Fremont High School Wellness Center and Community Garden South Los Angeles
Gage and Avalon Pocket Park South Los Angeles
Fox and Laurel Canyon Pocket Park Pacoima
Nevin Elementary School Park South Los Angeles
Source: LANLT, 2011.

Whether LANLT will be able to meet its goal of creating more pocket parks and
community gardens depends on a variety of factors, including: continued political and
financial support; availability of other funding sources; opportunities to partner with other
organizations; and community support and participation. In addition, LANLT’s
experience strongly suggests that residents need to be involved in the creation and
maintenance of new parks and recreational sites. Such involvement helps residents to

164
see parks and recreational resources as their own, rather than the government’s. This
approach is similar to the idea of “sweat equity” which is required of households
receiving housing assistance from nonprofit organizations like Rebuilding Together
(formerly Christmas in April) and Habitat for Humanity: recipients are asked to help
themselves while receiving outside assistance.

Community gardens offer multiple benefits: they can supply food, provide beauty,
educate youth, reduce pesticide exposure, grow social capital, preserve mental health,
instill pride, and raise property values (Harnik, 2010, p. 83). Also, community gardens
make very efficient use of space. For example, an area that can only fit a tennis court
provides enough space for 75 garden plots (Ibid, p. 84). Gardens should have neat
edges where they can be visible and where people, vehicles, and irrigation water can
easily reach them (Ibid, p. 84). Harnik also believe that gardens should be recognized
as an integral part of a community’s park system.

As of 2009, Seattle is the only city with a truly sophisticated community garden structure
and system. The city’s P-Patch program proactively plans sites, negotiates, sets rules,
and protects gardens throughout the city. Started in 1973, the program was named after
Rainie Picardo, the farmer who first allowed residents to begin gardening on his land.
Today, P-Patch has sixty-eight gardens, an annual budget of $650,000, and a staff of
six. Seattle has more garden plots per capita than any other major city.

DPR should support the development of community gardens on its parks, vacant land, or
surplus County-owned properties as a means to meet the needs of lower-income

165
minority residents. Irazábal and Punja (2008) clearly point out in their article the
importance of urban community gardens to impoverished, Latino residents. In particular,
they observed first hand how community gardens serve as “a catalyst for neighborhood
revitalization, give stabilization to neighborhoods, are cheap alternatives to city parks,
create venues for community organizing and networking, supply fresh food in areas that
lack proper access to grocery stores, and offer opportunities for exercise and therapy for
residents” (p. 13). Given the positive impacts of community gardens on neighborhoods
in physical and quality of life conditions, DPR should work with groups like LANLT, TPL,
and the Los Angeles Community Gardens Council to proactively seek out opportunities
to accommodate them.

4. Reuse of Existing Buildings for Recreation
Underperforming assets, including existing buildings, may be converted to recreational
facilities that add value and provide benefits to communities. Low-income and minority
neighborhoods often have a disproportionately high number of underperforming
properties. These underused properties may be vacant or abandoned, occupied by
marginal or declining businesses or industries, or constrained from development by
absentee ownership, bankruptcy, crime and safety concerns, environmental
contamination, or negative perceptions of the areas, including those arising from racial
or ethnic prejudices (Arnold, 2007, p. 106). Planners and local officials can work with
community residents to transform these properties into facilities that meet recreational
needs where appropriate. Recently, the “Redfields to Greenfields” initiative has
emerged and refers to the transformation of underperforming, underwater and
foreclosed commercial real estate into parks and conservation areas, some permanent

166
and some only landbanked until the market wants them again (Lerner, 2010). Redfields
to greenfields studies have been completed for Atlanta, Cleveland, Denver, Miami-Dade,
Philadelphia and Wilmington (Delaware); studies are being prepared for Detroit,
Houston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix.
25

The conversion of existing buildings for recreational use is growing in popularity and has
been carried out by both commercial interests and public agencies. Warehouses, for
example, have been converted to sports facilities for indoor soccer, badminton, handball,
and batting cages (Gold, 2008). An example is the conversion of a Wal-Mart to a
recreation center in South Dakota.

In the Black Hills town of Spearfish in South Dakota, the relocation of a Wal-Mart in 2005
gave the city an opportunity to build the new Spearfish Recreation and Aquatic Center in
the 70,000-square foot space (Stromberg, 2009, p. 6). The vacant building and four-
acre property cost the city $2.7 million in 2006. The overall project cost of $11.5
million—mostly funded through sales tax revenue bonds—was a major expenditure in a
city with a $28 million operating budget in 2009. The facility includes ball courts,
exercise and community rooms, a day care center, a water park, and about 30,000
square feet of unused space available for further expansion. One major challenge was
accommodating a gymnasium in a space with columns about every fifty feet. The roof
was raised in that section of the building, allowing for an elevated walking track around
the gym—but otherwise the shell remained intact.


25
For more information on redfields to greenfields, please visit: http://rftgf.org/joomla/

167
Even vacant stores or art gallery spaces may be converted to indoor parks as illustrated
by the “Park Here” installation in New York. Made available in the winter when it was too
cold to use outdoor parks, this “pseudopark” featured artificial turf, fake trees created by
stapling plastic foliage to wooden trunks, light boxes through which sunlight emanates,
and a sound system broadcasting bird chirps (Kaminer, 2011). Although relatively small
and temporary, the “park” was very well used by a variety of people, including nearby
office workers, young couples, and families with children (see Figure 16). The
installation was the work of a series of corporate partnerships set in motion by
individuals operating the gallery space.

Figure 16: “Park Here” Pseudopark in New York

Source: New York Times, 2011.

168
Recreational facilities can also be developed on the rooftops of existing buildings. One
of the most dramatic examples is perhaps the adidas Futsal Park Shibuya in Japan
(Figure 17). Constructed in 2001 as an introduction to 2002 FIFA World Cup (hosted
jointly by Japan and South Korea), the adidas Futsal Park promotes a miniature version
of soccer, futsal, on a 14,000 square-foot pitch and commands a breathtaking 270-
degree view of Shibuya. Inspired by a former playground on site before the construction
of the transportation complex, the futsal park hosts nightly tournaments among adults,
offers professional game viewing venues, and includes a futsal school for toddlers and
children. Some consider the park a marvel of urban planning, to maximize the usage of
spaces not generally associated with activities such as futsal.

Figure 17: adidas Futsal Park Shibuya in Japan

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tokyo_rooftop_football.jpg

169
DPR staff recently met with a private developer who expressed an interest in providing
sports facilities as part of commercial/retail developments. This meeting is encouraging
considering public-private partnerships in the development of recreational activities are
rather uncommon, but will be more important because as most public agencies are
become more financially constrained. Futsal fields, in particular, are the most
appropriate facilities to pursue given the popularity of soccer in Florence-Firestone and
the relatively small amount of space they require (comparing to regulation size soccer).

Neighboring South Gate offers an example of a successful partnership between a local
government and a private corporation in developing a soccer facility. Working with the
city, Goals, a Scottish firm, just opened the doors to a new soccer complex at South
Gate Park in summer 2010.
26
Reported to be the first of its kind in the United States, the
Goals Soccer Center features ten floodlit mini-soccer fields equipped with rebound walls,
netting and artificial turf (see Figure 18). Built on 3.5 acres in the northeast corner of the
park, the $5.5-million facility also has one larger field for two teams of seven players.
The smaller fields are built for two teams of five. Each has been named after famous
soccer stadiums such as Azteca Stadium in Mexico City, Maracana in Rio De Janeiro,
and San Siro in Milan, Italy. In a city where over 90% of the population is Latino —about
half are foreign born— and the median household income is less than $43,000, the cost
of a single game at the complex may prove to be a bit high for some families (Vives,
2010). Company officials want the complex to serve the region, not just South Gate
residents, and indicate that similar soccer parks are immensely popular in Britain and
hope for the same response in Southern California.

26
http://www.goals-soccer.com/CentreDetails.aspx?BranchId=1

170
Figure 18: Goals Soccer Complex in South Gate

Source: Goals, 2010.

Another example of an innovative soccer facility is the Soccer Central Indoor Soccer
Arena in Watsonville, California. It is the first and only facility of its kind in the Monterey
Bay region. The facility is a 34,000-square foot state-of-the-art Clamshell Building,
which is a relocatable tent-like structure. Soccer Central offers two playing fields, and
hosts indoor soccer leagues for men, women, co-ed and youth teams.

Looking into the future, DPR needs to consider what a less auto-dependent Florence-
Firestone would be like. Specifically, auto-related uses such as gas stations, auto
shops, and car dealer lots may be converted into parks and recreation sites in the future.
Many of these uses are strategically located along major streets or convenient
intersections. Given the attractiveness of these locations, DPR should coordinate the
redevelopment of these sites with stakeholders like the Community Development
Commission and the Department of Public Works.

171

Real estate analysts have noticed an emerging trend in creative commercial reuses: the
conversion of auto dealerships to other uses. With car sales plunging and U.S.
automakers downsizing during the recession, more than 2,000 dealerships have closed
across the country since the beginning of 2009 and sales of dealerships increased some
70% in 2009 over 2007 (Spivak, 2010, p. 61). Many were acquired by rival dealerships,
but some have found new uses including (but not limited to): a discount grocery store in
a town in Michigan, classroom space for a technical school in Tulsa, a yoga studio in Los
Angeles, the headquarter for a plumbing company in Pittsburgh, a new church in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania etc. Dealership sites are generally in some demand because
they typically offer a medium-sized building with lots of parking along a well-trafficked
thoroughfare. Overall, some tenants across the country are being drawn to distressed
commercial real estate because of the properties’ low lease rates, visible location, or
promising redevelopment plan.

Future facilities that offer opportunities for recreation may not resemble the parks of
today or the past; their form does not matter as long as they provide the services parks
offer. Playgrounds, for instance, have come a long way since the early days of sand
pits, steel slides, and open-backed infant swings. David K. Israel (2009) offers a glimpse
of ten unusual playgrounds from around the world on his website.
27
An example is
Nishi-Rokugo or “Tire Park” in Tokyo, Japan, which offers dinosaurs, monsters, bridges,
slides, and swings created using 3,000 tires donated by the nearby Kawasaki plants

27
For photographs of these playgrounds, please visit http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/34277

172
(Figure 19). This park is not just for kids; parents can even haul tires up specially
designed tire steps and tube down wide concrete slides. The idea of a tire park is
interesting and seems fitting in Florence-Firestone which was once home to Goodyear
and Firestone tire manufacturers.

Figure 19: Nishi-Rokugo or “Tire Park” in Tokyo

Source: http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/34277

173
5. Temporary Use of Parking and Vacant Lots for Recreation

Related to Loukaitou-Sideris’ (1995) creative park ideas is the temporary use of public
spaces for park and recreation purposes. An example of creating parks temporarily is
the “PARK(ing) Day” event which began in 2005 when Rebar, a San Francisco art
collective, converted a single metered parking space into a temporary public park in an
area of San Francisco that was underserved by public open space.
28
The project was
devised as a creative exploration of how urban public space is allocated and used. For
example, up to 70% of San Francisco's downtown outdoor space is dedicated to the
vehicle, while only a fraction of that space is allocated to the public realm. Paying the
meter of a parking space enables one to lease or occupy scarce urban real estate on a
short-term or temporary basis. Since 2005, the project has grown into PARK(ing) Day,
an annual worldwide event, created independently by groups of artists, activists, and
residents.

More than 200 temporary parks were constructed on the PARK(ing) Day held on
September 21, 2007 – entirely by volunteers and in over fifty cities worldwide (Merker,
2010, p. 47). The installations ranged from dinner parties to croquet courses, dog parks
to massage parlors, community health clinics to urban micro-farms. Some participants
insinuated advertising and business promotion into their installations (for example, a
Starbucks set up a park in Florida). Nevertheless, what most of the Park(ing) Day
installations had in common were the sense of humor they exhibited and their promotion
of some kind of artistic, cultural, ecological, or social agenda (Ibid, p. 47).


28
For more information on PARK(ing) Day, please visit http://www.parkingday.org/

174
In addition to parking spaces, empty lots or parking lots may be used temporarily for
recreational purposes. Empty lots or partly built projects may be found in numerous
communities as physical manifestations of the current economic downturn. Stalled and
abandoned construction sites are among the “most visible scars of a downturn” that
ravaged the commercial and residential real estate markets (Popper, 2010). In New
York City alone, 709 projects were idle in 2010, up from 398 in 2009, according to an
inventory maintained by the city (Ibid). The LentSpace park in downtown Manhattan, for
example, was the result of transforming an empty lot surrounded by worn-out chain-link
fencing into an urban oasis with wildflowers, wooden benches, and sculptures (see
Figure 20). The project was funded by $1 million in contributions collected by the Lower
Manhattan Cultural Council.
Figure 20: LentSpace in Manhattan

Source: M. Falco for the New York Times, 2010.

175
Florence-Firestone is home to numerous small vacant or underused parking lots which
have the potential to be used as temporary recreation areas. Specifically, these lots can
be made available for recreational use in the evenings and on weekends (or whenever
they are not needed for their primary use) for sports such as basketball, soccer, and
skateboarding. Mobile gyms may also park at these lots. The temporary use of land for
recreational purposes may sound strange at first, but is similar to the use of vacant lots
for seasonal activities, such as the sale of pumpkins for Halloween and Christmas trees.
Within the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, the Department of Regional
Planning currently issues temporary use permits (TUP) for such uses. Figures 21 offers
illustrations of how vacant or parking lots in Florence-Firestone may be used for active
recreation.

176
Figure 21: Possible Use of Parking or Vacant Lots for Active Recreation

Sources: http://www.bing.com/maps/; http://maps.google.com/

Existing
Conditions
Parking Lot on Florence Avenue

177
Figure 21 (Continued)

Sources: http://www.bing.com/maps/; http://maps.google.com/; City of Bell, 2010.

Proposed
Conditions
Vacant or underused parking lots in Florence-Firestone may be used for active sports
activities such as skate-boarding. Portable skating ramps may be set up in the
evenings and/or on weekends.

178
Figure 21 (Continued)

Sources: http://www.bing.com/maps/; http://maps.google.com/

Church Parking Lot on Compton Avenue
Existing
Conditions

179
Figure 21 (Continued)

Proposed
Conditions
Source: EA Sports, 2010.
Vacant or underused lots may be used for active sports activities such as
basketball and soccer. Portable basketball hoops and soccer goals may be
set up at these locations in the evenings and/or on weekends.

180
6. Temporary Street Closures for Recreation
Closing some streets for recreational activities either permanently or temporarily is
another way to create additional opportunities for physical activity. There are potentially
hundreds of acres of streets and roadways in most cities available for recreational use.
Some cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, El Paso, Miami, and New York, recently
began experimenting with the idea of once-a-summer or once-a-month road closures on
regular city streets, following the example of the “ciclovias” that have become immensely
popular in Bogotá, Colombia and several other Latin American cities (Harnik, 2010, pp.
145-146).

Inspired by Bogotá’s ciclovía, Los Angeles recently held the CicLAvia event which
opened up some of the city’s streets to pedestrians and bicyclists, creating a temporary
web of public space where participants could walk, bike, socialize, celebrate and learn
more about their own city. On October 10, 2010, 7.5 miles of the city’s 6,449 miles of
roadways were temporarily closed to automobile traffic and open for recreational
purposes (Neville, 2010, p. 29). From Boyle Heights to Downtown, MacArthur Park to
East Hollywood, CicLAvia encouraged Angelenos to not only make active use of their
streets, but to rediscover the roadways and neighborhoods that too often go unnoticed in
automobiles. An estimated 100,000 turned out for the inaugural event, far exceeding the
expectations of organizers, who had questioned whether Los Angeles could
accommodate and tolerate the idea of shutting down heavily traveled streets for no other
reason than to create additional opportunities for Angelenos to walk, bike, or socialize
(Rubin, 2010). Organizers hope to begin hosting events four to six times in 2011 and
monthly in 2012 (Neville, p. 31). The next CicLAvia is scheduled for April 2011.

181

The idea of closing streets temporarily recognizes the urgency of addressing the
recreational needs of residents, especially children. DPR can learn from New York
City’s Playstreets and Summer Play Streets programs. The city’s Departments of Health
and Mental Hygiene, Transportation, and Parks created Playstreets to battle the
childhood obesity epidemic. The Playstreets program allows communities to open up
their streets to residents for play on a recurrent basis (Figure 22). It is a quick and low-
cost way to create active play space, and is a health measure that directly targets the
city’s most important at–risk population: children.
29

Figure 22: A Playstreet in New York

Source: New York Times, 2010.


29
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_things_to_do/programs/playstreets.html

182
Similarly, the Police Athletic League (PAL) uses the Summer Play Streets program to
offer sports and games, cultural arts activities, and crime prevention education.
30
Youth
are offered a weekly prevention and life skills program and are also introduced to the
many local resources available to them through a community connections component.
Youth learn how to identify their local police department precinct as well as their local
elected officials, to foster stronger working relations and finally the summer play street
experience culminates with a borough day celebration. The goal of PAL’s program is to
enrich the summer experience for New York City youth with outdoor, adult-supervised
recreational, educational and developmental activities in their communities during the
summer months.

DPR needs to work with other County departments including Public Health, Public
Works, and Sheriff’s to determine how the Playstreets or Summer Play Streets program
may be implemented in Florence-Firestone. Specific streets should be identified for
potential conversion to Playstreets during the summer.

Opportunities for providing additional green spaces are also available wherever
vehicular traffic does not require all the space allocated to it such as empty traffic circles,
barely used sections of parking lots, and overly wide right-of-ways (Garvin, p. 50).
These unused, paved areas can be transformed into island gardens with trees, shrubs,
and flowers. Such areas, however, must be free of such constraints as underground

30
The PAL is New York City’s largest, nonprofit, independent youth organization. Founded in
1914, PAL serves 70,000 New York City boys and girls each year with recreational, educational,
cultural and social programs. PAL is the official youth agency of the New York Police
Department.

183
utilities, vaults, and light posts. In 1996 the New York City Parks Department identified
2,700 such sites and established a Greenstreets Program to reopen them to public use
(Ibid, p. 50). As of July 2000, it had reclaimed 1,100 of these sites, transforming them
into island gardens that average 2,200 square feet in size. The department landscapes
these islands with trees, shrubs, and groundcover that require little maintenance and
have a high tolerance of urban environmental stresses, such as drought, soil
compaction, and pollution. Recently, temporary parks were established on pavement
unneeded by cars and buses at both Times Square and Herald Square in New York City
(Houstoun, 2009, p. 100). These mini-parks included a protected bike lane and two
triangular slivers of landscaped sitting areas; at Times Square, a stadium for
performances was built at the intersection of Broadway and Seventh Avenue.

Inspired by New York City, San Francisco has established the “Pavement to Parks”
program.
31
According to the city’s planning department, San Francisco’s streets and
public rights-of-way make up one-quarter of the city’s land area, more space than is
found in all of the city’s parks. Many city streets are excessively wide and contain large
areas of wasted space, especially at intersections. “Pavement to Parks” projects seek to
temporarily reclaim these unused spaces, and quickly and inexpensively transform them
into new public plazas and parks. During the temporary closure, the performance of
these plazas is evaluated to understand their usage, determine whether any adjustments
need to be made in the short term, and ultimately, decide whether the temporary closure
should be a long-term community investment.


31
For more information on “Pavement to Parks” projects, please visit:
http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/

184
7. Walking Path along Florence Avenue
Neighborhoods with great sidewalks may not need as many parks as those without.
Although sidewalks are not given much thought by park advocates, good ones actually
serve some of the same “people-to-people sociability functions” as parks and plazas
(Harnik, 2010, p. 40). Like parks, good sidewalks have benches and great shade-
providing trees. Parks obviously offer much more than sidewalks, but the latter have the
major advantages of being closer to home and often feeling safer.

The Evergreen Cemetery jogging path is an innovative example of how a community
may be improved through the development of a new walking path (Figure 23). In East
Los Angeles, the low-income historically immigrant Boyle Heights neighborhood is so
park poor that for at least fifty years, hundreds of exercise-hungry residents took to
jogging around the historic Evergreen Cemetery, a private graveyard, even though the
sidewalk environment was unsafe.

Figure 23: Evergreen Cemetery Jogging Path in Boyle Heights

Source: Prevention Institute, 2010.

185
Organizing into the Evergreen Jogging Path Coalition, residents successfully lobbied the
city to appropriate $800,000 to encircle the cemetery with 1.5-mile, top-of-the-line new
rubberized sidewalk that has become the pride of the area (Harnik, 2010, pp. 40-41).
This path promotes social interaction and neighborhood goodwill, and encourages good
health through exercise (Rojas, 2010, p. 42). Over a thousand people use the jogging
path daily, including runners, walkers, dog-walkers, stroller-pushers, and socializers.
The path has become a linear plaza serving all members of the community. The elderly
strolls the path in the morning, younger folks use it in late afternoons, and women walk
pushing baby strollers in the evening. Vendors also strategically station themselves
around the jogging path. Even though the cemetery does not function as a park, its
sidewalk has almost become one.

Walking for exercise is very popular among Firestone-Firestone adults. Florence
Avenue, in particular, is the major thoroughfare in the community and is often filled with
pedestrians. It is encouraging to see streetscape improvements (see Figure 24) being
made to the street by the Department of Public Works (DPW). With these
improvements, Florence Avenue is beginning to look more like a “complete street” that is
designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. According to the National
Complete Streets Coalition (2011), there is no singular design prescription for a
complete street, but it may include: sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders),
special bus lanes, comfortable and accessible public transportation stops, frequent and
safe crossing opportunities, median islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb
extensions, narrower travel lanes, and roundabouts.

186
Figure 24: Florence Avenue Proposed Streetscape Improvements

Source: Ahbe, 2009.

187
DPR should work with DPW to make Florence Avenue a recreational resource.
Currently, DPR has no jurisdiction over streetscapes. Trees and benches should be
added to help make Florence Avenue safe, comfortable, and interesting to pedestrians.
Also, signage identifying location of and distances to community destinations should be
placed along the avenue to encourage walking. These improvements will help establish
Florence Avenue as a linear recreational resource connecting places such as the
Florence Blue Line Station, shops, and Florence Library. These proposed
improvements are consistent with Principle 23 of the Charter of the New Urbanism:
“Streets and squares should be safe, comfortable, and interesting to the pedestrian.
Properly configured, they encourage walking and enable neighbors to know each other
and to protect their communities.”

Adding informational signage along Florence Avenue can also help increase usage of
the street by pedestrians and recreational walkers. Specifically, signs should indicate
distance (to let walkers know how far they have walked) and show distances to
community destinations including Roosevelt Park, Florence Library, schools (potential
joint-use facilities), and the temporary recreation areas that may be created on vacant or
parking lots along Florence Avenue for active sports such as basketball, soccer, and
skateboarding. Figure 25 illustrates the need for additional trees along Florence Avenue
to make it more like a linear park and recreational resource.

188
Figure 25: Transforming Florence Avenue into a Recreational Resource

Existing
Conditions
The aerial photograph above shows that there are currently very few trees along Florence Avenue.
Proposed
Conditions
The illustration above shows how the addition of trees can enhance and improve Florence Avenue.
Along with other street improvements, this can encourage residents to use Florence Avenue as a linear
park or recreational resource.
Examples of signage to other recreational resources include:

189
8. Mobile Gyms and Mobile Art Vehicles
In addition to the reuse and conversion of existing facilities for recreation purposes,
planners must also explore flexible park design and mobile park spaces. Loukaitou-
Sideris (1995) was perhaps ahead of her time when she stated “the ever-changing urban
form and social ecology of neighborhoods calls for a flexible rather than rigid park design
and for spatial layouts that can be easily changed in response to future needs…One can
even think of mobile parks-spaces whose equipment and furniture can be transported to
other parts of the city if the need arises” (p. 101). The idea of mobile parks-spaces may
seem strange at first, but may be entirely appropriate given the success of the mobile
library, and the lack of land and money to develop permanent recreational facilities.
The goal is to bring in outside resources to a community in need.

Privately operated mobile gyms may be found in cities across the United States,
including Atlanta, Cleveland, Columbia (Maryland), and Los Angeles. These gyms
provide additional opportunities for residents to work out and are flexible in that they can
be parked at any location where vehicles are allowed. While most of these mobile gyms
target adults and contain modern exercise equipment, there are a number of companies
that operate vehicles specifically for children (see Figure 26). For example, the
Gymagic Bus (based in Pennsylvania) is a mini-gym on wheels equipped with: bars,
beam, incline mats, barrel mats, a zip line, monkey bars, mini-tramp, and rock climbing
wall for kids.
32


32
http://www.gymagic.com/site/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=3

190
Figure 26: Examples of Mobile Gyms

Sources: Miracle Mobile Fitness; Gymagic Bus, 2010.

New York City has even experimented with mobile pools (Bongiorno, 2010). For the first
time ever, the city invited residents to swim in pools made from repurposed garbage
dumpsters as part of its 2010 Summer Streets program (Figure 27). The city shut down
Park Avenue to cars on three consecutive Saturdays (August 7, 14, and 21) so that
people could spread out to bike, walk, play, watch live theater, and swim. On one
Saturday, 420 residents swam in one of the three pools located near the Grand Central
viaduct on Park Avenue between 40th and 41st Streets. Because only ten people could
swim comfortably in a pool at a time, the city distributed bracelets on a first-come first-
serve basis to ensure that swimmers entered in shifts.

191
Figure 27: Dumpster Pool in New York City

Source: D. Belt, 2010.

The pools' designer, David Belt, is with the firm Macro Sea which created its first
dumpster pool in Brooklyn in 2009. Each 8-by-22 foot dumpster pool is surrounded by a
wrap-around deck and has its own built-in water filtration system. Each dumpster is first
equipped with a layer of felt and pool lining liners before being filled with around 4,600
gallons of chlorinated water and weighs approximately 50,000 pounds. Belt indicated
that these code-compliant portable pools can be used in any city, and are relatively

192
inexpensive and easy to transport so that a city could move pools around to different
neighborhoods. It costs about $200 to move a dumpster on the back of a truck in New
York City. Also, it is significantly cheaper to use dumpster pools than to build and
maintain permanent pools and the parks where they are typically located. When
Summer Streets close, the pools were moved to an undisclosed location in East Harlem
for an end-of-the-summer surprise pool party for junior high and high school students.

Mobile pools could be used in Florence-Firestone, especially during the hot summer
months. The demand for these facilities could be high given the popularity of swimming
for both children and adults in the community.

During the community input process, some residents also expressed a need for more
opportunities for kids to experience the arts. The Imagine Bus Project (TIBP) is an
example of an organization that reaches out to children and youth in underserved
communities to provide sustained, positive and creative outlets for personal expression
using visual arts techniques.
33
TIBP was founded in San Francisco in 1998 and has
since experienced significant growth, evolving from a single mobile art studio into a
prominent arts education organization providing classes in partnership with public
schools and additional partnering agencies. TIBP partners with local school districts,
juvenile detention centers, after school programs, and community based organizations to
provide professional teaching artists who bring thoughtful ideas, age appropriate
curricula, and projects that empower children and youth to explore their creative

33
http://www.imaginebusproject.org/index.html

193
potential, to work collaboratively, to develop critical thinking skills, and to build
confidence and self-esteem.

Figure 28: Kids inside the Mobile Art Studio

Source: The Imagine Bus Project, 2010.

9. Transportation to Outside Parks and Recreational Facilities
Florence-Firestone residents are more dependent on public transportation than other
residents in the county.
34
The relationship between automobile ownership and access to
parks is not often discussed, but cars clearly make a big difference. Cars give people
mobility and options. A low-density single-family neighborhood with high levels of car
ownership and easy parking do not require as many parks nearby. Residents may like
having parks, but cars greatly reduce the challenge of distance (at least for the age
group that can drive), “pulling distant parks into a realistic orbit of reachability” (Harnik,

34
Over 12% of Florence-Firestone residents use public transportation to travel to work,
comparing to just 7% countywide (Census Bureau ACS).

194
2010, p. 39). In theory, bikes can extend the reach of a park because in a given amount
of time, the average person can bike about four times farther than s/he could walk (Ibid,
p. 39). However, in practice, bikes do not help that much because they account for such
a small share of trips made.

Unlike the idea of mobile gyms, this proposal brings residents to outside recreational
resources (as opposed to delivering outside services to the community). With cars or
some form of transportation, residents can travel to recreational facilities outside of
Florence-Firestone, including beaches, arts and cultural facilities, regional parks, state
parks, and national parks.

The idea of transporting inner city residents to outside parks and recreation areas is not
new. Started in 1877, The Fresh Air Fund was one of the first organizations created to
give inner city kids summer vacations from the streets of New York (Weis, 2005).
Originally, the Fresh Air Fund arranged rural home stays for its participants; this program
continues to serve thousands of children each summer. In the early 20th century, the
fund started its first overnight camp, Camp Hidden Valley, to meet the unmet needs of
kids with polio-related disabilities. Today, Hidden Valley continues to serve disabled
children with state-of-the-art facilities, alongside four other camps with a range of
missions on the Fund’s 3,000-acre reservation in upstate New York. Over 127 years,
the Fund has served more than 1.7 million of New York City’s children living in
underserved areas.

195
Many other organizations nationwide have since adapted and expanded the Fresh Air
Fund’s ideas, from Inner City Outings to the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.
Organizations that take kids out of the inner city are generally trying to make effects last
through two tactics: longer-term commitments with repeat visits to the countryside, and
increased academic content.

For example, San Francisco-based Seven Teepees combines year-round excursions out
of the city with an in-city clubhouse. This program is called Outdoor Education and
involves annual weeklong camping trips in national parks, including summer river-rafting
expeditions; other parts of the program are rather rigorous, including a daily learning
center that offers activities to help kids improve their academic skills. Similarly, in the
early 1990s, the Fresh Air Fund started a new camp to address concerns about youth
unemployment: Camp Mariah, named for pop singer Mariah Carey, who provided much
of the new camp’s funding (Weis, 2005). Due to the success of this camp, the Fresh Air
Fund built four other camps to provide some of the same services–academic
components like reading and writing, in addition to critical thinking, computer, and
communication skills.

More locally, the Southeast-Rio Vista Family YMCA in Huntington Park offers a
weeklong summer camp program at Camp Round Meadow in the Big Bear Mountains
for children in grades 3 through 8. Activities include archery, horseback riding, low
ropes, canoeing, nature walks, hiking, pioneering, theme dress up days, swimming, and
drama. The YMCA provides financial assistance to families who are unable to afford
program fees.

196

Currently, DPR is only able to offer limited outside excursion trips for Florence-Firestone
residents due to budgetary constraints. More specifically, the department does not have
enough vans to provide transportation. DPR could contact car rental companies or
transportation agencies that might be willing to donate vans or buses for some period of
time, such as the summer. DPR also needs to work with DPW to expand its Summer
Beach Bus program to include Florence-Firestone. The program was only offered in the
following communities in summer 2010: Altadena, Antelope Valley, Castaic/West Ranch,
Charter Oak/Duarte, East Los Angeles, La Crescenta/La Cañada Flintridge, and
Topanga Canyon. In addition, DPR could work with the Southeast-Rio Vista Family
YMCA to expand its program and specifically reach out to Florence-Firestone residents
who might not be aware of its availability.

10. Donations of Home Exercise Equipment and Active Video Game Systems

Recreation also takes place in individual homes and is made possible in part through the
use of home exercise equipment and increasingly, active video game systems. As
reported earlier, nearly one in four Florence-Firestone adults exercises at home two or
more times a week. However, what they do for exercise is unclear because very few
households in the community actually own home exercising equipment such as
stationary bicycles or treadmills. Many residents choose to exercise at home likely
because safety is a major concern in Florence-Firestone. Although generally small in
size, many front yards in residential areas across the community are used as play areas
for children and exercise areas for adults.

197
DPR could work with manufacturers and/or retailers of home exercise equipments to
donate a number of treadmills, elliptical, and/or exercise bikes to selected Florence-
Firestone households. In exchange, residents would agree to participate in academic
studies to monitor health effects of using the equipment.

Recently, active video game systems have also been used as a means to exercise
within homes. Nintendo Wii, for example, is an active video game console that uses
wireless remote controls and motion sensors instead of joysticks, toggles and control
pads (see Figure 29). The best known game is Wii Sports which comes free with the
console and allows players to play baseball, bowling, golf, tennis, and boxing. Another
game, Wii Fit, is even used by some as a personal training or fitness tool. Park expert
Peter Harnik (2010) does not have a high opinion of active video game systems and
almost mockingly categorizes them as a “sensational and seductive electronic
technology that enables a player to stand in front of a TV and swing a remote control like
a racket” (p. 36).

Studies have shown that active game systems do offer some potential health benefits.
One study conducted in Liverpool, England concluded that playing active video games
uses significantly more energy than playing sedentary computer games but not as much
energy as playing the sport itself (Graves et al, 2008, pp. 592-594). Also, the energy
used when playing active Wii Sports games was not of high enough intensity to
contribute towards the recommended daily amount of exercise in children. A more
recent study by scientists at the University of Oklahoma was more positive and found
that playing active video games could be as effective for children as moderate walking

198
(Graf et al, 2009, pp. 534-540). While they do not recommend children stop playing
outside or exercising, their research concluded that active video games offer a good
alternative to moderate exercise for many children of today’s generation who are
sedentary and at high risk for obesity and diabetes.

Figure 29: Wii Console and Games

Source: Nintendo, 2010.

Not only do active game systems like the Wii offer possible benefits to children, they
have also been helpful for the elderly. A growing number of elder care facilities use the
Wii to encourage residents to exercise. For example, the Wii has become very popular
among residents at the Amity at Greenacre aged care facility in Sydney, Australia
(Dixon, 2008, pp. 28-31). Staff found that seniors who play the Wii are improving in
areas such as balance after using the Wii because it requires them to stand and bend.

199
Physical and occupational therapists at a rehabilitation center affiliated with the Ohio
State University and the Virtua Health Centre in Berlin have even prescribed “Wii-
therapy” to people recovering from strokes and other injuries (Ibid, p. 29). The Wii may
also encourage intergenerational interaction. At Greenacre, the console has been used
during focus group meetings allowing relatives to play with residents; there are also
plans for Wii party with grandchildren (Ibid, p. 30).

Additional research is needed on the use of the Wii and other active game systems for
exercise and fitness purposes. DPR could work with manufacturers and/or retailers of
video game systems to donate a number of consoles to selected Florence-Firestone
households. In exchange, residents would agree to participate in academic studies to
monitor and analyze health effects of using the game system. Game consoles could
also be donated to the senior center at Roosevelt Park which would offer a more
controlled environment for a local study on the potential benefits of Wii play for seniors in
Florence-Firestone.

11. Vouchers for Nonprofit and Private Recreational Facilities
The basic idea of vouchers is to give residents resources so that they can purchase the
recreational services of their choice from authorized providers including nonprofit and
private recreational facilities. The residents exchange the vouchers for recreational
services offered by their preferred provider. The provider of the services then returns
them to the issuing agency and receives cash for the vouchers acquired. The
fundamental principle is that vouchers can be used to subsidize potential users directly,
rather than allocating that same amount of subsidy to a service or facility, or to an

200
organization which offers that service or operates that facility (Crompton, 1983, p. 537).
Also, it is less costly for a public agency to offer vouchers than to directly provide the
needed recreational services. Existing examples of government-administered voucher
programs include the food stamp program, Section 8 rental housing assistance, and
Medicare.

Florence-Firestone is home to only one major nonprofit or private recreational facility: the
South Los Angeles Youth and Community Center operated by The Salvation Army.
There are no popularly known gyms such as 24 Hour Fitness and LA Fitness in
Florence-Firestone. The closest 24 Hour Fitness is about six miles away in Compton,
while the nearest LA Fitness is seven miles away in Downey. However, nearby
Huntington Park is home to Bally Total Fitness and Curves. The YMCA closest to
Florence-Firestone is the Southeast-Rio Vista Family YMCA in Huntington Park.

Given the lack of funding, DPR would not be able to issue vouchers for recreational
services. However, DPR could seek donations from private gym operators in the form of
gift cards or certificates, giving some residents access to these facilities. 24 Hour
Fitness, for example, may donate gift cards that can be used for 90-day sport club
membership, including personal training sessions.

12. Sponsors for Parks
Facing severe budget constraints, a handful of states have partnered with corporations
and local governments to keep parks open. California, for example, recently cut $14.2
million from its state park system’s 2010 fiscal year budget and officials say that 100 of

201
the state’s 279 parks could be closed (Stromberg, 2009, p. 6). In addition to raising fees
and other measures, the state is looking for sponsors. In a press release, Ruth
Coleman, the director of California State Parks, said the agency is seeking “support from
cities, counties, corporations, and nonprofit organizations who may want to sponsor or
operate particular parks to help keep them open,” although the agency did not detail how
such an approach would work (Ibid, p. 6).

Not only are more park agencies actively pursuing outside assistance, some private
corporations have also taken the initiative to get involved in the provision of recreational
opportunities. Companies like Kraft Foods, MetLife, CVS and Dr Depper/Snapple Group
are contributing millions in charitable dollars to build neighborhood playgrounds for
children. Playground projects offer companies the opportunities to boost their
reputation, gain credibility, and involve employees in local community projects. For
example, Dr Pepper/Snapple Group pledged $15 million to build or fix 2,000 playgrounds
over the next three years, while MetLife Foundation has donated $850,000 in the last
three years for 400 play spaces in the U.S. and Mexico (Olson, 2010). Kraft Foods even
used its employees to help build 13 playgrounds in Chicago at a total cost of more than
$1.4 million (Ibid). Corporate-financed playgrounds, or play spaces typically bear a
plaque with the sponsoring company’s name and receive positive local news coverage.

Most recently, Planters, famous for their peanuts and other snacks, announced a plan to
transform unused land in New Orleans, New York City, San Francisco, and Washington,
D.C., into natural, green spaces called “Planters Groves” (American Society of
Landscape Architects, 2011). These peanut-shaped urban parks will be made of

202
reclaimed materials and featuring native trees and plants. Each park will be designed to
blend with the local feel of the city, but will include a Mr. Peanut statue on a peanut
bench. Planters will partner with the Corps Network, which enrolls more than 30,000
urban young people in community service, education, and training. The Corps Network’s
local member Corps will lead the maintenance, ongoing programming and seasonal
planting with community partners. In addition, a biodiesel-fueled Planters “Nutmobile”
will be parked at these groves sometimes (see Figure 30). Other times, the Nutmobile
will travel through twelve cities to “grow stronger communities through volunteering”
(Ibid).

Figure 30: Nutmobile in a Planters Grove

Source: American Society of Landscape Architects, 2011.

One way to fund and implement park projects is through an adopt-a-park program.
Established in 1982, Seattle's Adopt-a-Park Program has been nationally recognized for

203
the public-private partnerships it supports. The purpose of the program is to upgrade
and improve park playground equipment and facilities using the resources of the city's
citizens and civic groups. The citizens develop pride of ownership in "their" park project
while assisting the city to provide safer and better equipped facilities with the least
amount of tax money being spent. Individuals, community organizations, businesses,
schools, and youth groups all participate in the program, which offers tools, materials,
technical support and insurance to its volunteers. Through the Adopt-a-Park Program,
adopters may provide clean-up and maintenance as well as help with building and site
improvement projects and a variety of other special projects. Examples of previous
projects include: building renovation, trail building, litter pick-up, painting, planting,
weeding, and general maintenance.

DPR has been trying to replicate the success of Seattle’s program. In conjunction with
the Friends of Greater Los Angeles Parks, a nonprofit organization, DPR has a program
in place to work with private organizations to sponsor existing parks, recreation or
scholastic programs, and beautification or maintenance projects. Sponsorship is
intended to augment, rather than supplant public funding. It remains to be seen whether
the County’s Adopt a Park Sponsorship Program will have a significant impact or
improve the quality of life. In particular, sponsorship has been limited in areas such as
South Los Angeles which has traditionally been underserved and avoided by large
private businesses. Nevertheless, the program could succeed provided that DPR is able
to enlist the participation of individuals, community, groups, schools, youth groups, local
businesses, and professional sports teams in the area. In addition, this program could

204
offer substantial social benefits by helping to build social capital and increasing the
potential for social interaction among diverse members of a community.

Within Florence-Firestone, DPR in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce should
seek sponsorships and donations from college and professional sports teams, sports
apparel and equipment manufacturers and retailers. Professional sports leagues and
teams in Los Angeles do engage in community service projects on occasion. However,
these efforts are limited and appear more as stunts to improve public relations. Local
professional sports teams can do more to address the needs of underserved
communities like Florence-Firestone by focusing their efforts and making longer-term
commitments rather than performing occasional acts of generosity.

Teams like the Lakers, Clippers, Dodgers, Angels, Galaxy, and Chivas USA have much
to offer and have the opportunity to gain additional fans through improved outreach
efforts in Florence-Firestone. Sports apparel and equipment manufacturers and
suppliers can also donate their products and/or sponsor improvements of park facilities.
For example, Nike sponsored the refurbishment of the basketball court at 6
th
and Gladys
Street Park in Skid Row, while the Lakers provided funding for the state-of-the-art
gymnasium at Lafayette Park Recreation Center. Organizations like the Los Angeles
Galaxy and Chivas USA can similarly contribute to the replacement or improvement of
soccer fields in County parks which are in relatively poor condition due to heavy use.
Given the popularity of sports, especially soccer, in Florence-Firestone, the community
can certainly benefit from any donation of sports apparel or equipment or the
improvement of existing recreational facilities.

205
Chapter 5:
Implementation Challenges

Recognizing the need to be practical and realistic, Chapter 5 addresses implementation
issues including the administrative and political, equity and ethical, financial, legal, and
public safety challenges of pursuing the alternative approach of offering recreational
services in underserved communities like Florence-Firestone. Of particular importance
is the political feasibility of shifting a parks agency from being primarily a producer and
guardian of parks to being a facilitator of recreational services within the context of a
community where crime and safety are major concerns.

A. Administrative and Political Challenges
The shift in focus to recreational services would result in administrative and
organizational changes at DPR. These changes are necessary for DPR to collaborate
effectively with other stakeholders in offering recreational services in non-traditional
ways and settings. In working with a diverse group of stakeholders or partners, DPR
would face a variety of administrative challenges. To a large extent, these challenges
depend upon whether the partner is another public agency, a nonprofit, or a commercial
interest.

Working with Other Public Agencies
DPR already works with a wide variety of local, state, and federal public agencies. For
example, some DPR staff are in daily contact with other County departments like Public
Works, the Community Development Commission (CDC), and the Chief Executive Office
(CEO). However, these interactions are typically due more to the bureaucratic and

206
hierarchical nature of County government rather than out of the motivation to collaborate
proactively. In particular, DPR coordinates with Public Works, CDC, and CEO on park
improvement and development projects because DPR was compelled to relinquish its
project management responsibilities years ago. This change was due primarily to cuts
to DPR staff and the designation of Public Works as the manager of nearly all of the
County’s major capital improvement projects, including parks and recreational facilities.

The unequal relationship between DPR and other County agencies can be problematic.
For example, while Public Works is fully aware of and manages all park improvement
and development projects, DPR lacks knowledge about and has very limited influence
over infrastructure projects undertaken by Public Works. As pointed out earlier, DPR
does not have jurisdiction over streetscape, even though streets and sidewalks are often
used for recreation and obviously contribute significantly to the health of a community.
Temporary street closures for recreation and the development of Florence Avenue as a
linear recreational resource are two ideas presented in Chapter 4 which would require
DPR to work proactively with Public Works. At this point we do not know whether DPW
management would be open to these proposals or collaborate with DPR on such
projects.

A related challenge is the lack of coordination and sharing of information among County
agencies. This issue was evident during the stakeholder interviews in which
representatives from other County departments expressed the need to better understand
what County parks offer in terms of recreational services and programs. While this
problem can be easily addressed through the sharing and distribution of brochures,

207
more serious coordination issues exist. For instance, as the redevelopment agency
responsible for the County’s unincorporated areas, the CDC has been actively seeking
opportunities to improve the community of Florence-Firestone. In particular, it has
targeted certain parcels of land for acquisition and redevelopment, some of which have
also been identified by DPR as potential sites for new recreational uses as part of the
Florence-Firestone CPRP. The lack of communication and coordination between CDC
and DPR on land acquisition and related issues could result in missed opportunities to
incorporate recreational amenities as part of economic development and redevelopment
projects.

In addition to County agencies, DPR must also work with other public agencies,
including school districts and utility companies to implement the alternative approach of
meeting recreational needs. The joint use of schools and introduction of recreational
uses over utility corridors or rail rights-of-way could only be realized through these
partnerships. At a time of severe budget constraints, maximizing access to existing non-
County facilities that can serve recreational uses “as-is” or with limited conversion or
improvement—rather than trying to build new ones—makes economic sense.

Ideally, school facilities should be planned, constructed, and used in a way that enables
them to effectively serve the requirements not only of the schools but also of the
community at large. In reality, schools are under the jurisdiction of school districts rather
than local municipalities. In the case of Florence-Firestone, public schools are operated
by LAUSD and the County has no direct control over the planning and use of school

208
facilities. Thus a joint use agreement between LAUSD and the County would be
required to open up school facilities for community use during non-school hours.

There are various administrative challenges associated with joint use. In the case of
new schools, issues can arise in the planning phase because the needs and budget
contributions of the school district and the local jurisdiction have to be ascertained and
synchronized. Both parties need to provide input and negotiate compromises to resolve
conflicting requirements. As an example, DPR was in discussions with LAUSD before
the construction of South Region High School #2 began at a site adjacent to Bethune
Park. However, a joint use agreement was never finalized and LAUSD ultimately started
building the new school. Fortunately, although construction of the high school is almost
complete, joint use at this facility is still possible because recreational amenities at the
school are intended to be complementary to those at Bethune Park. Earlier this year,
DPR resumed the process of working on an agreement with LAUSD. The challenge with
finalizing this agreement is that a principal has yet to be assigned to the new high
school. While LAUSD’s director of joint use is very supportive of making this school a
joint-use facility, implementation of the joint use agreement requires the approval and
cooperation of the principal and his/her staff.

In joint use projects, managers from both parties must also remember that even though
a school district and the local jurisdiction are funded by the same taxpayers, they do not
necessarily have the same constituencies or the same methods of solving problems
(Crompton, 1999, p. 297). In other words, they have different political realities. From
the outset, the joint use agreement must detail the respective roles of the two entities in

209
a facility’s operation, management structure, operational objectives, the budgetary
responsibilities of each party in meeting operational costs, and a means to resolve
subsequent disputes.

The joint use of school facilities also involves potential “morale costs” which are incurred
when individuals become frustrated by the actions of others that adversely affect them
(Crompton, 1999, p. 297). Inevitably, there are instances when both parties want to use
the same facilities at the same time and it is not possible. From a community
perspective, the nonavailability of facilities during school hours exclude some groups,
such as evening shift workers, lunch-time enthusiasts, and homemakers, from using the
facility at the time most convenient for them (Ibid, p. 297). Similarly, coaches and
teachers may be frustrated because they cannot schedule basketball or soccer games at
their convenience if they intrude into the community’s time.

In addition to schools, utility providers and transportation agencies are other entities that
own properties in Florence-Firestone which may be used for recreational purposes. In
particular, DPR needs to have discussions with DWP, Metro, Union Pacific Railroad, and
BNSF Railway regarding the potential of developing recreational uses on their properties
and rights-of-way. Some utility and transportation companies are receptive to requests
for recreational use of their resources. Their response depends to a large extent on how
they secured the rights-of-way.

A utility company typically secures a right-of-way under one of two legal arrangements.
The first method is by easement which means the company does not own the land, but

210
has the right to run its lines across the property. Thus, the company does not have the
authority to grant permission to a parks agency to use the right-of-way for recreation.
Instead, permission has to be given by each individual landowner along the right-of-way.
This process requires a very tedious, and often unsuccessful, effort, especially when the
land is being used for other purposes. Second, when the company owns the right-of-
way, it can grant permission to park agencies to use the land for recreation. However,
there may be reluctance to grant easements due in large part to liability concerns.
(Liability is addressed in detail in the “Legal Challenges” section of this chapter.)

Working with Nonprofits
Many of DPR’s existing and future partners are nonprofit organizations. Nonprofits play
a distinct role in society and an important role in the field of recreation. They function as
quasi-public organizations in that they fulfill a partial business and a partial public role.
Nonprofits in the recreational field include sports clubs to professional associations, to
direct service providers. Examples of DPR’s existing nonprofit partners include: YMCAs,
Boys & Girls Clubs, Little League, and TPL. Future partners could include: People for
Parks, the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust (LANLT), the L.A. Community
Gardens Council, and churches and other faith-based organizations. Typically, the
mission of nonprofits includes being a conduit for resources passing from donors and
other funding sources, through the organization, to various constituent and stakeholder
groups consisting of members, clients, participants, students, or customers (Perry &
Makopondo, 2005, p. 30). Another goal of nonprofits is to function as a resource
magnet, attracting new resources to accomplish organizational purposes.

211
In the spirit of cooperation, parks and recreation departments like DPR must use the
coalition building process with nonprofits to leverage its resources by, in effect,
extending or multiplying themselves through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or
other written forms of agreement to provide continuation of services that might otherwise
be cut or as a cost-effective means to add new services. Generally, this produces five
outcomes (Ibid, p. 30):
• It enables parks and recreation departments to leverage resources to meet
community needs.
• It reduces public overhead by transferring the overhead to the nonprofit sector.
• It provides revenue and opportunity for nonprofits.
• It fosters and strengthens the public-private partnership.
• It is the most efficient use of community resources.

Partnering with nonprofits requires strong leadership, facilitation, networking and
collaboration skills. Strong leadership is needed because undoubtedly something of
value will seemingly be given up for the better good of the whole. For example, a
program that has been nurtured over many years or a facility with long tradition and
history in a community may be targets for this consideration. It requires facilitation skills
to work with various stakeholders and through deep personal stakeholder interests that
might exist to maintain the status quo. Networking skills are also necessary to identify
and sift through the list of potential partners with an eye toward forging strong
institutional bonds. Finally, collaboration skills are needed to create a shared vision and
develop trust with the new partner(s) to feel comfortable enough to know that the

212
interests of current and future parks and recreation constituents will be well served by
the new partner(s).

Instead of competing with each other, park agencies and nonprofit organizations must
each recognize their interdependence. After all, the two sectors share many of the same
constituents. Building coalitions, collaborations and partnerships provides mechanisms
for resource sharing based upon common interests and values if there is an effort made
to focus on the needs of constituents rather than the needs of the organization.

Working with Commercial Interests
Parks and recreation agencies like DPR offers various potential opportunities that
commercial interests may find of value. They include increased public awareness,
image enhancement, product trial or sales opportunities, and hospitality opportunities. In
return, businesses can offer support to park agencies through investments of money,
media exposure, and in-kind services.

To serve as a facilitator of recreational services, DPR must proactively work with
businesses, such as private operators of recreational facilities, rental car companies,
exercise equipment and sporting goods manufacturers or retailers, video game
manufacturers and retailers, and professional sports leagues and teams. Collaboration
with these partners are necessary to implement proposals such as mobile gyms,
transportation to outside parks and recreational facilities, donations of home exercise
equipment or active video game systems, vouchers for private recreational facilities, and
sponsorships for parks.

213

Public agencies like DPR face a number of challenges when seeking to partner with
commercial interests. First, the potential partners must recognize and accept as
legitimate their different value systems. Public agencies are required to serve the whole
community, especially its disadvantaged members; are concerned with social outcomes
and benefits that are relatively intangible and difficult to measure; and are constrained by
bureaucratic procedures and regulations that are needed to ensure accountability for
their expenditure of public funds (Crompton, 1999, p. 173). In turn, commercial interests
have the goal of maximizing their return on investment, which is often obtained by
focusing on narrowly defined, responsive target markets. The different value systems
may result in negative stereotypes and attitudes between those working in the different
sectors. To facilitate communication and liaison, these stereotypes and attitudes must
be removed.

To succeed, partnerships with the commercial sector require mutual respect that may
not come easily. A parks agency’s reputation for competence, fairness, professionalism,
and thoroughness is likely to be of particular importance to gaining the confidence of the
business community (Crompton, 1999, p. 160). Building trust so that both sides
appreciate the value systems and goals guiding the other’s actions takes vision, time,
and skill. Understanding and reconciling the different philosophies can happen only
through communication and liaison. The best way to foster this communication is
through forums whereby both sides come together to engage in active listening, to
explain constraints and opportunities with their services, and to discuss how they might
collaborate to offer these services. Trust and confidence between the partners are likely

214
to grow as interaction progresses and as the organizations become more familiar with
one another.

New Roles and Responsibilities for DPR Staff
Shifting to the alternative approach of providing recreational services would result in new
roles and responsibilities for DPR staff. The exact organizational impacts are difficult to
determine at this time, and would depend on the number and type of partners and
projects DPR takes on as a facilitator of recreational services. However, I anticipate that
the following changes would be necessary.

DPR’s park planners would serve more as coordinators and facilitators helping the
department to seek out, partner, and collaborate with other public, nonprofit, and private
organizations to provide much needed recreational services. To some extent, this shift
is already happening as I find myself spending more time meeting with outside
organizations like school districts, land trusts, and other nonprofits, and working on
projects such as joint use agreements. This change is consistent with my belief that one
of my primary responsibilities as a planner is to coordinate or bring the appropriate
players to the table and facilitate, negotiate, or broker solutions to problems. Similarly,
architects and landscape architects would devote more time working with outside entities
on the improvement of existing parks (rather than the development of new parks) and
the design of temporary play areas at unconventional locations such as streets or
parking lots. For example, DPR’s design professionals have already been working with
TPL on the appropriate siting of outdoor fitness equipment at County parks.

215
Serving as a facilitator of recreational services also would require much more proactive
marketing and solicitation of outside resources, including sponsorships, donations, and
volunteers. This translates to a greater need for staff with skills and training in
marketing, grant writing, public relations, and volunteer recruitment. Currently, there is
only a handful of DPR staff that handle such responsibilities. However, some existing
staff could be trained to take on these duties. In addition, more contracts and legal staff
would be required to prepare and review agreements with outside partners. While park
planners and marketing staff could initiate the process of partnering and cooperating
with other partners, contract specialists and attorneys would work out the details of
agreements, contracts, and/or MOUs. Given budget constraints, DPR might not be able
to hire additional contracts staff; similarly, County Counsel might not be able to provide
more lawyers to assist DPR.

In addition, implementation of the alternative approach would mean new roles and
responsibilities for DPR’s field staff. Specifically, staff would need to coordinate
recreation classes and programs at any new pocket park to be created. They would also
be responsible for setting up, taking down, and providing the sports equipment (such as
basketball hoops, soccer goals, portable skate ramps) necessary for the temporary use
of parking or vacant lots or the temporary closure of streets for recreation. Staff would
also need to visit these locations regularly to ensure safe play and proper use of the
equipment. Alternatively, volunteers could be recruited for these responsibilities,
especially if they live in close proximity to locations that would be used temporarily for
recreation purposes. However, any volunteer must be screened to ensure
trustworthiness and reliability.

216

Political Challenges
As an unincorporated community, Florence-Firestone does not have its own city
government and is served instead by the County of Los Angeles, with the Board of
Supervisors serving as its version of a city council. Florence-Firestone lies within the
boundaries of two County supervisorial districts: the First District represented by
Supervisor Gloria Molina and the Second District by Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas.
The boundary between the two districts generally runs north-south along Compton and
Graham Avenues.

Both Supervisors Molina and Ridley-Thomas have been very supportive of DPR and its
efforts in Florence-Firestone. With the discretionary funds allocated to them, both
Supervisors have contributed to park improvement projects and recreational activities,
such as after-school programs, that are sorely needed in the community. Recently,
Supervisor Molina, for example, aided in the development of El Parque Nuestro. The
Supervisors’ staff have also provided valuable input and guidance in the development of
the Florence-Firestone CPRP, especially with respect to the community input process.
They understand the importance and value of park planning, but want to see tangible
results beyond the completion of a planning document. This is understandable
considering how often plans are left sitting on bookshelves unimplemented. As Neuman
(1998) points out, the common critiques of plans are: “Plans become marginal when not
connected to power. Plans restrict development and impinge on the “free” market.
Plans are too general and future-oriented to deal with daily concerns. Plans take too
long to prepare, and by the time they are adopted they have been overtaken by events.

217
Plans attempt to accomplish too much and end up doing little or nothing” (p. 213).
Unlike the failed plans of the past, the Florence-Firestone CPRP is already being used
by DPR staff for grant application and land acquisition purposes. Also, this document is
very much connected to power in that it was crafted with substantial input from the
Supervisors’ offices and community residents.

The two Supervisors would likely support DPR assuming the role of a facilitator of
recreational services because this shift could result in potential cost savings and
improved or expanded services for underserved communities like Florence-Firestone.
The Supervisors’ leadership and support are critical to the implementation of the
alternative approach of providing recreational services. As explained earlier, this
approach relies upon partnerships with a wide variety of public, nonprofit, and private
organizations. While DPR can initiate discussions with some of these organizations,
others may be less willing or more difficult to connect with. Because of their political
power and influence, the supervisors’ offices can help by bringing these stakeholders to
the table. For example, I recently participated in a meeting initiated by Supervisor
Ridley-Thomas’ office which involved DPR, a local school district, the Boys & Girls Club,
and a nonprofit seeking to create additional soccer fields in underserved communities.
This meeting was needed to work out the details of the shared use of facilities among
the different groups and was made possible by the Supervisor’s office.

The Supervisors can also help address the coordination issues DPR has with other
County departments. Specifically, the Supervisors’ offices can direct Public Works to
work with DPR on proposals such as the temporary closure of streets for recreation,

218
development of Florence Avenue as a linear recreational resource, and the expansion of
the beach bus to Florence-Firestone. Also, the Supervisors’ offices can request that the
CDC coordinate with DPR on its economic development and redevelopment efforts,
especially with respect to land acquisition opportunities.

Similarly, the Supervisors’ intervention would be necessary to achieve joint use at
schools and introduce recreational uses on utility corridors/rail right-of-ways in Florence-
Firestone. Past interactions with these stakeholders reveal that discussions and
negotiations at the staff level can drag on for extended periods of time due to the
complexity of such arrangements and the bureaucratic nature of the organizations. To
expedite matters, the Supervisors’ office would need to get involved and be in direct
contact with the leadership of LAUSD and utility or transportation companies.

The John A. Johnson Achievement Plus Elementary School in Minnesota is an example
of a successful collaborative effort that began with the vision of two political leaders and
involved a diverse group of stakeholders. In the 1990s, when the St. Paul school district
was looking to open a new school to accommodate the influx of immigrant children into
the city, a state senator and a city councilmember advocated for the renovation of an
abandoned high school in the Payne-Phalen neighborhood in East St. Paul (Khadduri et
al, 2007, p. 22). Located on the top of a hill and unused since 1963, the high school had
become a symbol of blight in the community. The state senator and councilmember
thought that renovating the building and creating a new school had the potential to
catalyze broader change in the impoverished neighborhood.

219
In 1997, the Wilder Foundation formed a partnership with the Saint Paul Public Schools,
the State of Minnesota, Ramsey County and the City of St. Paul to operate the
“Achievement Plus” model in three St. Paul public schools, including the abandoned high
school in Payne-Phalen (Ibid, p. 22). After a yearlong community planning process, the
decision was made to renovate the school building into a K-6 elementary school to be
named the John A. Johnson Achievement Plus Elementary School. The Saint Paul
YMCA joined the planning process later, resulting in a new YMCA building that is
attached to the elementary school. Despite the challenges of partnership, everyone
involved in the project agrees that if Johnson Elementary and the YMCA had not
collaborated, it would have been a failure for the community school concept, a waste of
resources, and a missed opportunity to leverage the simultaneous revitalization of two
important neighborhood institutions (Saint Paul Public Schools, 2004, p. 35).

Opened in 2000, Johnson Elementary School has approximately 300 students, 92% of
whom qualify for free or reduced price lunch. The school has a wing for offices and
meeting rooms to house supportive services. In addition, a local nonprofit operates a
family center on campus, which provides housing assistance, referrals, English-
language classes, and school conferences. As evidence of its community orientation
and popularity, over 170 public events and activities were held at the school within the
first three months of 2004 (Khadduri et al, p. 22). Although the local parks department
was not involved, this school is an example of successful multi-party collaboration.

220
B. Equity and Ethical Challenges
Equity Challenges
There are unfair park and health disparities in Los Angeles based on ethnicity, income,
and access to cars (García & White, 2006, p. 3). Children of color disproportionately live
in communities of concentrated poverty without enough parks and playgrounds to play or
exercise in, and do not have the means to reach parks in other neighborhoods. The
health implications of the lack of physical activity are significant. Children in
underserved communities are much more likely to suffer from obesity, diabetes, and
other diseases related to inactivity (L.A. County Department of Public Health, p. 5). This
paper seeks to expand recreational choice and opportunity for all persons, but especially
those who are disadvantaged. Needs for parks are typically higher in more densely
populated areas, where people have no or little private outdoor space and have limited
mobility. Children, the elderly, and people without cars are among those with the
greatest needs for close access to parks and other recreational facilities. I agree with
Joassart-Marcelli (2010) who argues that if public policy were to be both efficient and
equitable, we would expect to find a greater allocation of resources in areas of higher
needs. The alternative approach of providing recreational services proposed in this
paper is intended specifically to address the park and recreation needs of underserved
communities like Florence-Firestone.

In broad terms, all of the proposals presented in Chapter 4 aim to help a community in
need and advance equity by maximizing the use of existing resources, introducing
additional resources to the community, and/or providing access to outside resources.
However, the ideas would vary in their reach, i.e. the number of residents they could

221
help. In particular, the joint use of schools would likely have the greatest impact and
reach because much of Florence-Firestone lies within a half-mile radius of an
elementary, middle, or high school, and the schools are distributed fairly evenly across
the community. If recreational amenities at all schools were open for community use
during non-school hours, many residents, especially children, would have increased
opportunities to exercise within walking distance from their homes. Conversely,
proposals such as the donation of home exercise equipment or active video game
systems and vouchers for nonprofit and private recreational facilities would have much
less impact and reach because only a limited number of households would benefit; the
exact number of recipients would depend on the generosity of donors and would be out
of DPR’s control.

Ethical Challenges
According to Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, ethics refer to “the discipline dealing
with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.” Most of us generally
know what is good and bad and what is right and wrong, but there are often gray areas
that are more difficult to distinguish, including matters pertaining to the administration of
local government. As a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, I
subscribe to the Institute’s Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. As I shared in
Chapter 1, one section of the code is especially relevant to this paper, the goal of
meeting the needs of underserved communities, and my role as a planner:

We shall seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity
for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs
of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration.
We shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions, and decisions that
oppose such needs. –Section A.1.f

222

My project is an attempt to alter policies, institutions, and decisions to plan for and meet
the recreational needs of underserved communities like Florence-Firestone. However,
while the AICP Code of Ethics is certainly useful, it alone cannot help me or other
planners decide what the right thing to do is in every possible work situation, especially
in those less obvious, gray areas.

Frederickson and Frederickson (1995) point out that “much of the negative perception of
government ethics and the ethics of public officials is based on public observations of
the misdeeds of those who are elected or politically appointed” (p.163). The media has
also contributed to this perception. According to De Vries (2002), “At lower
governmental levels, and regarding less well-known figures, matters of cheating, fraud,
corruption, abuse of power, scandals, and so forth reach the newspapers and tabloids
more often than ever before” (p. 310). Members of the public often base their opinion of
civil servants on past experiences and/or on sensational news stories of corrupt or
incompetent public officials.

Ethnical issues could arise when DPR works with the commercial sector. As discussed
earlier, to succeed, partnerships with businesses require mutual respect and trust that
may not come easily. According to Crompton (1999), successful partnerships could
depend on the ability and willingness of park and recreation managers who would go out
on a limb, bend the rules, or push the envelope to expand their vision beyond tradition
(p. 160). A mere mentioning of “bending of rules” raises red flags and suggests possible
wrongdoing. Instead of rule bending, DPR contracts and legal staff should work out the

223
detailed terms and conditions of agreements with commercial interests at the beginning.
Individual park and recreation managers should not be given the discretion to bend rules
or make exceptions, because such power could lead to unethical behaviors.

In seeking donations and sponsorships, DPR should focus only on those entities that
promote healthful living, physical activity, sports, arts, and other activities that contribute
positively to the mental and physical well-being of participants. Examples of such
entities include professional sports teams or leagues, and sports apparel and equipment
manufacturers or retailers. As a health-promoting agency, DPR must not seek
donations and sponsorships from entities that have the potential to adversely impact the
health of residents. Examples include tobacco and alcohol companies, and fast food
restaurants. It would be unethical and counterproductive to allow these entities to
advertise at County parks or sponsor recreational activities. For example, sponsorship
by tobacco companies confers upon them “a positive image and an aura of
respectability, which obscures their role in causing an array of fatal diseases”
(Crompton, 1999, p. 437). Faced with budget cuts, the Los Angeles Unified School
District recently decided to turn to corporate sponsors to raise money. School district
officials have made it clear that while a Nike athletic field or Dell computer lab would be
fine, they would not allow cigarette or alcohol companies to market on campuses; they
also would not allow soft drink companies to advertise because of the soda ban on all
campuses (Llanos, 2010). LAUSD analysis suggests that this proposal could raise $18
million a year – money that would be used to fund athletic programs and extracurricular
activities that would otherwise be eliminated (Ibid).

224
C. Financial Challenges
Quimby fees are the primary funds for parks and recreation in Los Angeles County. As
explained in Chapter 2, little fees have been collected in underserved communities like
Florence-Firestone, Willowbrook/West Compton, and East Los Angeles where limited
new housing has been built. Because Quimby fees must be spent in the immediate area
where they are collected, the money generated in suburban areas like the Santa Clarita
Valley cannot be redistributed to more needy unincorporated areas like Florence-
Firestone.

Another financial challenge is the lack of funding for the operation and maintenance of
existing parks and recreation programs. Typically, there are more funds available for the
development of new parks and recreational facilities. A potential new source of money
for recreation programs is the Tobacco-Use Prevention Education Program which
provides funding through an application process for tobacco-specific student instruction,
reinforcement activities, special events, intervention, and cessation programs for
students (California Department of Education, 2011).
35
Funds through this program can
be used for youth programs that address alcohol and other drugs, sexual health,
tobacco, and violence.

Some of the proposals shared in Chapter 4, such as a new futsal park or a tire park that
commemorates the history of Florence-Firestone, will be costly to implement. These
projects cannot be funded as part of the tight budgets of park agencies alone. Thus, one

35
Proposition 99, approved by California voters in the November 1988 general election,
increased, by 25 cents, the tax on each pack of cigarettes sold in the state. The annual Budget
Act appropriates funds from the Tobacco Surtax Fund for several purposes, including tobacco-
use prevention education in schools.

225
of the goals of this paper is to offer a vision of what could be and generate sufficient
private interest, resulting in the contribution of outside funding and assistance to make
them possible. For example, the CicLAvia event held in Los Angeles on October 10,
2010 was made possible through private donations and grants which covered the
$280,000 cost of holding the event (Neville, p. 29). Similarly, as mentioned previously,
the Fresh Air Fund is able to operate Camp Mariah to address concerns about youth
unemployment because pop singer Mariah Carey provides much of the camp’s funding.

Another example of private donations for recreation is the successful effort to raise funds
to purchase and protect the land around the Hollywood Sign. Earlier this year, the Trust
for Public Land (TPL) raised enough money to buy and protect the 138-acre Cahuenga
Peak behind the world-famous Hollywood Sign. This effort would have been
unsuccessful if Playboy magazine founder Hugh Hefner did not step forward to close the
gap with a $900,000 donation toward the $12.5 million needed (TPL, 2010). Hefner's gift
capped a year-long effort, which began with $1 million gifts each from The Tiffany & Co.
Foundation and Aileen Getty. At the original April 14, 2010 deadline, TPL still needed to
raise $1.5 million. Fortunately, TPL received a extension to April 30, and The Tiffany
Foundation and Ms. Getty came forward again with a $500,000 matching grant, which
TPL would receive if the remaining $1 million was raised. Hefner's gift closed that final
gap and enabled TPL to realize the Tiffany and Getty challenge funds.

The permanent protection of Cahuenga Peak is a significant addition to Griffith Park that
enhances recreation opportunities for visitors and residents of Los Angeles. There was
a groundswell of support for the project in Los Angeles, with local residents holding bake

226
sales, rallies, and fund-raising concerts on the Sunset Strip. Over 27,000 supporters
signed up on Facebook and viral videos chronicled the partnership's efforts. Hollywood
leaders donated $3.2 million, including major contributions from The Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences, CBS Corporation, The Entertainment Industry Foundation,
Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall, the Lucasfilm Foundation, NBC Universal, Sony
Pictures Entertainment, Steven Spielberg, Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros.
Entertainment Inc. and Time Warner Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Foundation.
Other Hollywood contributors include Creative Artists Agency, Tom Hanks and Rita
Wilson, and Norman Lear.

Obviously, any proposed park and recreation project in Florence-Firestone would not be
the same as a famous landmark like the Hollywood Sign. Nevertheless, this example
offers hope and serves as a reminder that the generosity of private donors can save an
existing or even create a new recreational resource.

In addition to private individuals, some private corporations are also willing to donate
funds and volunteers for park and recreation projects. As mentioned previously,
companies like Kraft Foods, MetLife, CVS and Dr Pepper/Snapple Group are
contributing millions in charitable dollars to build neighborhood playgrounds for children.
Playground projects offer companies the opportunities to boost their reputation, gain
credibility, and involve employees in local community projects. Dr Pepper/Snapple
Group, for example, pledged $15 million to build or fix 2,000 playgrounds over the next
three years, while MetLife Foundation has donated $850,000 in the last three years for
400 play spaces in the U.S. and Mexico (Olson, 2010).

227

Chapter 4 has also presented some proposals which are more modest in scale and cost.
They include the temporary use of parking or vacant lots for recreation, mobile gyms,
and transportation to outside recreational resources. Through focused and aggressive
marketing and fundraising, DPR could possibly generate outside private support of these
proposals. While these ideas are innovative, they are not unrealistic. As discussed
previously, these proposals have actually been implemented elsewhere in the U.S. and
have proven to be successful in meeting the recreational needs of underserved
communities. In addition, the CDC may be able to fund some of these proposals with its
allocation of federal community development block grant (CDBG) funds because of the
high numbers and concentration of low-income households in Florence-Firestone.
Similarly, the Los Angeles County Arts Commission may possibly support the proposal
of a mobile art vehicle through grants.

D. Legal Challenges

There are various legal challenges to implementing the alternative approach to meeting
recreational needs. Major challenges include: compliance with State laws regarding joint
use of school facilities; liability issues; compliance with the policies and regulations of
utilities and railroad companies; and local planning requirements

Joint Use of School Facilities
The community use of school facilities is encouraged and regulated through the
following five State laws (Cooper & Vincent, 2008):

228
• Community Recreation Act: This focuses exclusively on recreation, authorizing
school districts and local governments to enter into agreements to use school
facilities to establish community recreation programs.

• School Facility Joint Use Program: This provides grant funding to remodel or
construct new joint use facilities on school sites. It provides grant funding, subject
to local matching funds, to construct qualifying types of joint use projects on K-12
school sites. Generally, to qualify, a project must construct new or reconfigure
existing school buildings to build or increase the size of a multipurpose room,
gymnasium, child care facility, library, or teacher education facility.

In addition to other requirements, the district must have entered into a joint use
agreement with a governmental agency, public community college, college or
university, or a nonprofit organization approved by the State Allocation Board.
The joint use agreement must specify the method of sharing capital and
operating costs, the responsibilities for the operation and staffing of the facility,
and the manner in which the safety of the pupils will be ensured. The agreement
must also specify the amount the school district and joint use partner will
contribute toward the 50 percent local share of eligible project costs. This
program was the impetus for Westside Union School District to enter into a joint
use agreement with the County, which resulted in Department access to the
recently constructed gym at Joe Walker Middle School in Quartz Hills.

• California Civic Center Act and the Community College Civic Center Act:
This focuses more generally on community use of public schools, directing public
schools and community colleges to make their facilities available for after-hours
use for many different purposes, including recreation. Its significance to
prospective joint use agreements is that it allows schools to recover costs and, in
certain circumstances, charge fair market value for use of its facilities. The
governing body may charge no more than its direct costs to any entity that
arranges for and supervises sports league activities for youth defining direct
costs as “those costs of supplies, utilities, janitorial services, services of any
other district employees, and salaries paid school district employees
necessitated by the organization’s use of the school facilities.” Before charging
for the use of its facilities, the governing body must adopt a policy specifying
which activities qualify for fees limited to direct costs.

• After School Education and Safety Program: This provides funding for
schools to host before- and after-school and summer academic and enrichment
programs for children.

• 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program, part of the No Child
Left Behind Act: provides funding for schools to host after-school academic and
enrichment programs.

229
The joint use of schools as recreational facilities has been successful in many
communities, but there are real and perceived constraints to allowing public access to
school property for physical activity. These constraints include concerns about funding,
cleanup, security, supervision, and maintenance of school facilities outside of regular
school hours. In addition, the fear of liability, such as lawsuits arising from injuries to
recreational users of school properties, may discourage school officials from
participating in joint-use agreements (Spengler et al, p. 395).

The joint use of schools as recreational facilities requires thoughtful strategic planning
and implementation. It will also require increased and quality communication between
school officials and local jurisdictions. Studies suggest that joint use facilities and the
accompanying programs can improve and expand over time as joint use partners build
relationships with one another (Cooper & Vincent, 2008, p. 44). If structured and
implemented properly, school districts and partnering jurisdictions can achieve the
following:
• Make more efficient use of existing school facilities and grounds;
• Reduce the need for public acquisition of expensive property in order to provide
public services;
• Build facilities or implement programming that might not otherwise be available
(including obesity prevention and educational enrichment programs);
• Increase communication and build or improve relationships between local school
districts and local jurisdictions; and
• Increase public access to local resources and improve community cohesion.

230
Liability has been a traditional barrier to the implementation of joint use agreements.
Specifically, liability concerns and perceptions may discourage school officials from
allowing public access to school property for physical activity. School administrators fear
potential lawsuits arising from injuries to recreational users of school facilities. This
concern can be addressed by having adequate insurance coverage and including
limitations on liability language in the joint-use agreement. For example, an agreement
may contain the following language: “No liability shall attach to any board of education,
individually or collectively, for personal injury suffered by reason of the use of such
school property pursuant to such agreement” (Spengler et al, p. 394). This language
has proven to be sufficient in the State of North Carolina which has adopted legislation
allowing a school board to enter into an agreement with non–school groups, shielding
the respective board from any liability if injury or death is incurred by a third party while
that third party is on school property participating in the activity agreed to by contract
(Ibid, p. 394). Unfortunately, some school districts or officials have denied community
use of schools due to perceived liability risks. Given the health benefits of the joint-use
of schools for physical activity, school administrators must be better educated about
accident rates, liability issues, and protections offered (Ibid, p. 392).

Policies of Utility Providers

DPR needs to manage and nourish its relationships with utility providers. However, the
policies of these partners must be considered in relation to the Department’s intended
recreational use of their property. For example, Southern California Edison (SCE) and
the Department of Public Works do not typically enter into the long-term (20+ years)
agreements needed for DPR to demonstrate land tenure to qualify for recreational

231
improvement grants. Consequently, DPR would not be able to obtain grant funding to
make recreational improvements to their property even if they consented to recreational
use. Fortunately, they are willing to renew short-term agreements, making continued
use possible. By contrast, long-term arrangements for the Los Angeles County Flood
Control District are typically not a problem and therefore should be sought where
recreation use is feasible.

The linear utility corridor and rail rights-of-way in Florence-Firestone provide land where
new park and/or trail uses may be introduced. For this to happen, DPR must work with
DWP and the railroad companies operating lines across the community. In particular,
DPR must clearly understand the economic, liability and maintenance concerns of DWP
and the railroad companies. Utilities typically have several major concerns regarding the
recreational use of utility corridors or rights-of-way (Carlson, 2004):
• Greatly increased exposure to tort liability when entrants are injured on account
of "attractive nuisances" and other potentially hazardous structures. This is
especially true along open concrete lined canals where the water can be fairly
swift and difficult to escape.
• Interference with regular operation and maintenance activities and the resulting
associated increase in operating costs. Increased operation and maintenance
cost are a critical concern especially for small utility companies with tight
budgets.
• Increased crime such as vandalism of structures, dumping of garbage, off-
highway vehicle use. Protection of structures and facilities is another critical
concern.

232
• Conflicts between maintenance crews and trail users.
• Increased encroachments of adjacent landowners.
• Public safety.
• A lack of a defined management entity. When the trail passes through multiple
jurisdictions or municipalities, there will be differences in quality of maintenance
and design throughout the length of the trail.
• Lack of funding sources.
• Securing consensus among the landowners over whose property the easement
crosses. Addressing adjacent landowners concerns can be a monumental
undertaking unto itself.

The initial challenge for DPR is to combine an active outreach initiative with sincere
interest in the concerns of utilities. When affected groups are given appropriate
measures of respect, credit and attention, they are more likely to become advocates of
the project and less likely to be swayed by the opposition.

The risk of personal injury and the resulting claims/lawsuits from trail use can be
reduced through careful trail design, construction and maintenance, but can never be
fully eliminated. Given this, certain precautions can be taken to minimize the risks:
• Exposure to liability can be reduced via state recreational use statutes. Their
intent is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to
the public for recreational purposes. While these statutes do not grant immunity
and cannot prevent suit, they do limit landowner liability. Efforts to educate the

233
public about the dangers associated with these rights-of-way are critical in
creating a safe environment and reducing claims.
• Establishment of a creative risk management program. A few of the actions a risk
management program could include are: an intensive education program,
signage clarifying potential hazards, public safety devices, safety feature
standards, restricting time of use to daylight hours, and formal trail patrols.
• Indemnification and hold harmless clauses within the recreational use
agreement.

Introduction of public trails along these corridors requires intensive active cooperation
and planning between the parks agency and the utility company or transportation entity
in order to minimize operation and maintenance impacts. Some of the measures that
can help diminish these impacts include:
• Funding solutions such as seeking out a utility company who may be interested
in utilizing the proposed corridor to improve and/or expand its system of delivery.
• Agreeing on an annual operation plan and reimbursing for additional operation
costs.
• Establishing times for specific operation and maintenance tasks so the trail can
be closed down.
• Establishing design standards such as separating trail from maintenance roads.
• Providing adequate signage and intensive education programs.
• Conducting informal/neighborhood patrols.

234
• Developing a policy providing that the needs of the affected company or agency
should take precedence over the needs of the public when necessary; and the
establishment of a coalition which oversees the whole length of the trail.

Local Planning Requirements
The temporary use of parking and vacant lots for recreation may require DPR to obtain
temporary use permits (TUP) from the Los Angeles County Department of Regional
Planning, which is the planning agency for all unincorporated areas of the County,
including Florence-Firestone. Currently, a TUP is required for seasonal activities, such
as the sale of pumpkins for Halloween and Christmas trees on vacant lots. According to
Regional Planning, the following items are required as part of the application for a TUP:
• A completed TUP application form;
• Fees;
• Burden of Proof;
• Acknowledgement letter from the local office of the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department or Highway Patrol; and
• Copies of a plot plan drawn to scale indicating: lot or parcel dimensions and
nearby streets/roadways; location of all buildings on the subject property;
specific location where the event will take place; location and layout of
parking within the subject property to serve the event; and if off-site parking is
to be used, a separate parking plan.

235
The Burden of Proof requires an applicant to substantiate the following:
• That the operation of the requested use at the location proposed and within
the time period specified will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute
a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare.

• That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate such
temporary use without material detriment to the use, enjoyment or valuable of
the property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site.

• That the proposed site is adequately served by streets or highways having
sufficient width and improvements to accommodate the kind and quantity of
traffic that such temporary use will or could reasonably generate.

The temporary use of parking and/or vacant lots for recreation is intended to address the
public health needs of residents by providing additional spaces for physical activity within
walking distance of homes. With this in mind, DPR should not have any issues
substantiating the three items listed on the Burden of Proof. DPR’s design staff can
prepare the required plot or site plan to show the required items. The only issue of
concern may be on-site parking. However, parking should not be a problem as most, if
not all, of the users of the temporary recreation sites would be encouraged to walk rather
than drive because of their proximity to their homes.

As partner County agencies, Regional Planning may also exempt DPR from the
requirement to obtain TUPs and provide another means to permit the temporary use of
parking or vacant lots for recreation.

236
E. Public Safety Challenges

Because public safety is a major concern in Florence-Firestone, DPR must further
consider and understand how crime impacts communities and the use of parks and
recreational facilities. A recent study found that children living in unsafe neighborhoods
or those characterized by poor housing and the presence of garbage and litter on streets
had an approximately 30 to 60% higher chance of being obese or overweight than
children living in better conditions (Singh et al, 2010). Thus Florence-Firestone not
surprisingly has a high level of childhood obesity given the safety issues in the
community.

Safety shapes residents’ decisions about where to live, work, go to school, shop for
groceries, play, and whether to go for a walk in the neighborhood or to a local park. In
one study, people who classified their neighborhoods as “not safe at all” were three
times more likely to be physically inactive during leisure time than those who considered
their neighborhood to be “extremely safe” (Vest & Valadez, 2005, pp. 926-928). Another
study also found that walking habits vary according to an individual’s perception of safety
and physical surroundings (Loukaitou-Sideris, 2006). Effective public safety measures,
such as community-based anti-crime and anti-gang initiatives, can reduce fear of crime
and violence. Where possible, such efforts should be targeted on specific “hot spots” for
crime and violence that impede access to parks, playgrounds, and other recreational
facilities.

In Florence-Firestone, youth crimes involving gangs is a particularly problematic issue.
DPR has traditionally played a key role in the alleviation of youth crime and is uniquely

237
suited to be a primary community resource to address this issue. In particular, some of
the DPR field staff, including park superintendents, are from the neighborhood and are
experienced in establishing trusting relationships with the youth, including both at-risk
youth as well as current and past gang members. Also, DPR offers a variety of
programs and services for children and youth. The Parks after Dark program is an
example of DPR’s most recent initiative to provide youth with productive activities to
decrease the likelihood of participation in at-risk behavior, including gang activity. The
ideas presented in Chapter 4 are additional proposals to offer positive options or
opportunities for recreation, especially for youth. Specifically, one of the proposals is the
temporary closure of streets for recreation in the summer. This idea requires DPR to
work with other County departments including Public Health, Public Works, and Sheriff’s
to determine how New York City’s successful Playstreets or Summer Play Streets
program may be implemented in Florence-Firestone.

Not surprisingly, the Sheriff’s Department is DPR’s key partner in addressing youth
crime issues. As mentioned earlier, the Sheriff’s operates the Youth Athletic League
(YAL) Firestone Activity Center and was also involved in the development of the Park
after Dark Program. During our stakeholder interview with Lieutenant Babbit of the
Sheriff’s Department, he referred to sports as “the great equalizer” which offers hope
and opportunity for youth growing up in a very difficult environment. He sees sports as a
vital tool in community building, as it serves as a way to develop confidence, hone a
variety of skills, and instill a culture of discipline, respect for the rights and welfare of
others, and the value of hard work, especially among young people.

238
The need for alternatives for youth is also a prevalent theme in the research conducted
for the Los Angeles County Gangs and Violence Reduction Strategy prepared for
Florence-Firestone (Advancement Project, 2009). Parents, youth, school personnel, law
enforcement and others identified primary prevention activities as a key part of a gang
prevention strategy. Interestingly, one youth’s advice on how to keep children out of
gangs was to “Keep the young people involved in sports, extracurricular activities, etc.
Those that get in trouble is because they don’t have something to do” (p. 40). However,
when asked if recreational activities are available to youth in the area, one parent
responded, “There are some, but sometimes they can’t go play there because gang
members are hanging around” (p. 40). Thus parks and other recreation areas must be
safe and gang-free if they are to be used.

During the community input process, some stakeholders expressed fears that pocket
parks without staff could be taken over by gangs. This is certainly a legitimate concern.
It can, however, be addressed through the siting and programming of the parks. In
particular, in acquiring land for pocket parks or community gardens, DPR and its
partners should prioritize those sites that are near schools or adjacent to locations with
high pedestrian traffic and visibility. As Jane Jacobs (1961) argued in her writing, eyes
on public places like parks and streets are critical to ensuring safety. After all, public
safety or peace is not kept primarily by law enforcement officers, but by “an intricate,
almost unconscious, network of voluntary controls and standards among the people
themselves, and enforced by the people themselves” (p. 32). Also, the offering of
recreation programs at pocket parks can increase their usage and popularity among

239
residents, thereby discouraging negative elements from congregating at these public
facilities.

The majority of those interviewed also felt that afterschool programs, mentoring
(particularly male mentors) and recreational activities were part of the solution
(Advancement Project, 2009, p. 40). Additionally, many agreed that there was a need to
teach youth life skills, demonstrate the importance of consequences and good decision-
making, and expose them to alternative activities that would compete with the lure or
pressure of gang membership.

This study offers a wide variety of strategies to reduce gangs and violence. Two ideas
of particular relevance are:
• Increase community events that maximize utilization of public spaces, including
parks and schools, and engage families to increase their awareness about
prevention resources. Ensure access to the events for all members of the
community (e.g., location, bilingual outreach, weekends and evening hours,
culturally competent activities, adequate support for families, etc.) (p. 67).

• Increase the availability of free or low-cost extracurricular activities (e.g.,
recreational activities, arts and theatre programs) and other programs that teach
youth skills and/or trades (e.g., junior achievement) for middle and high school
age youth (p. 67).

These strategies are consistent with a number of proposals in Chapter 4, including the
joint use of schools, temporary use of parking or vacant lots for recreation, temporary
closure of streets for recreation, mobile gyms, and mobile art vehicles.

Safety is a major barrier to the implementation of joint use agreements with school
districts. Safety is such a significant concern that it prompted school districts such as

240
LAUSD to build fortress-like schools and lock up these facilities during non-school hours.
According to Copper & Vincent (2008), practical strategies to address safety concerns
include: 1) having parks department staff and/or volunteers supervise the use of
recreational facilities on school campuses during non-school hours; 2) recruiting
community residents to serve as recreation leaders and/or volunteers to supervise the
use of recreation facilities on campuses; 3) requesting additional patrol by local law
enforcement staff of schools open during non-school hours; 4) installing additional gates
to secure areas of schools not available for community use; and 5) monitoring school
facilities with security cameras (pp. 29, 31, 36). In addition, by opening up school
facilities for after-school programs and recreation, joint-use agreements have the
potential to reduce local gang activity by offering at-risk youth additional opportunities to
play, learn, and serve in the evenings and on weekends.

241
Chapter 6:
Conclusion and Next Steps

Chapter 6 is the concluding chapter of this paper and details the next steps DPR could
take to implement the alternative approach to meet the recreational needs of
underserved communities like Florence-Firestone. This chapter is intended to provide
the practical guidance necessary to make the vision of a healthier and improved
Florence-Firestone a reality.

Vision
Vision is critical to the implementation of the alternative approach of providing
recreational services. Vision as used here refers to a vivid, creative conception or
anticipation of what could be. I agree with Frederik Polak (1973) that “the future may
well be decided by the images of the future with the greatest power to capture our
imaginations and draw us to them, becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.” After all, images
help us visualize what could be. Thus I intentionally offered images in Chapter 4 to
illustrate proposals that may be too unconventional, experimental, and/or politically
controversial to be included in the Florence-Firestone CPRP. However, these ideas are
not impractical or unrealistic; they have been successfully implemented in places as
needy as and denser than Florence-Firestone.

Reflecting upon the CPRP community input process, I now feel compelled to ask myself
the following questions:
• Have we only shown the community what has been rather than what could
be?

242
• Have we limited the community or ourselves with past and present images of
parks?

Unfortunately, I think we must answer both questions in the affirmative because we have
only shared traditional or conventional ideas with them. Similarly, the community
questionnaires only asked standard questions about traditional park amenities and
recreational programs, thereby limiting the option of responses and perhaps the
imagination of respondents. In particular, the questionnaires were not designed to seek
input on unconventional or more innovative ideas like those presented in Chapter 4. We
must recognize that parks of the future or the means to deliver recreational services
need not resemble what we are or the community is familiar with as long as the same or
similar services and opportunities are offered.

By offering a vision of what could be, this paper is also an attempt to generate sufficient
private interest which may result in the contribution of outside funding and assistance to
make some or all of the proposals in Chapter 4 a reality. Table 19 (“Twelve Examples of
Alternative Ways, Locations, and Partners to offer Recreational Services” in Chapter 4)
may be thought of as a menu of options or ideas for the community, partners, private
donors, and other interested parties to consider and select from. Figure 31 on the
following page is a collage and visual summary of these ideas.

243
Figure 31: Visual Summary of Ideas

244
As emphasized throughout this document, the active participation and cooperation of the
partners identified earlier would be necessary to successfully implement the alternative
approach. While some of the stakeholders are already involved, their efforts, for the
most part, have not been collaborative and rather limited in scope. This paper aimed to
communicate the importance and urgency of meeting the park and recreation needs of
underserved communities like Florence-Firestone, and motivate all stakeholders to
immediate action collectively.

Most importantly, implementation of the alternative approach would require the
leadership of Supervisors Gloria Molina and Mark Ridley-Thomas, Florence-Firestone’s
representatives on the County Board of Supervisors. Specifically, they would need to: 1)
support DPR taking on the role as the facilitator of recreational services; 2) help address
the coordination issues DPR has with other County departments; 3) intervene to achieve
joint use at schools and introduce recreational uses on utility corridors/rail right-of-ways;
4) fund innovative recreation projects out of their allocations of discretionary funds; 5)
allocate funding for the training of existing staff and/or the hiring of additional staff to
handle responsibilities needed for DPR to fulfill the facilitator role; and 6) use their
political power to support and advocate for Florence-Firestone residents.

Shifting to the alternative approach of providing recreational services would result in new
roles and responsibilities for DPR staff. The exact organizational impacts are difficult to
determine at this time, and would depend on the number and type of partners and
projects DPR takes on as a facilitator of recreational services. However, I anticipate that
the following changes would be necessary. DPR’s park planners, for example, would

245
serve more as coordinators and facilitators helping the department to seek out, partner,
and collaborate with other public, nonprofit, and private organizations to provide much
needed recreational services. Serving as a facilitator of recreational services would also
require much more proactive marketing and solicitation of outsides resources, including
sponsorships, donations, and volunteers. This translates to a greater need for staff with
skills and training in marketing, grant writing, public relations, and volunteer recruitment.
In addition, more contracts and legal staff would be required to prepare and review
agreements with outside partners. Finally, implementation of the alternative approach
would mean new roles and responsibilities for DPR’s field staff. Specifically, staff would
need to coordinate recreation classes and programs at any new pocket park to be
created. They would also be responsible for setting up, taking down, and providing the
portable sports equipment necessary for the temporary use of parking or vacant lots or
the temporary closure of streets for recreation. Staff would also have to visit these
locations regularly to ensure safe play and proper use of the equipment.

While some may think of recreation as simply “fun and games,” I strongly disagree.
Based on my research, including both direct interactions with the community and review
of the literature, recreation contributes significantly to the quality of life in Florence-
Firestone. In particular, the provision of additional opportunities for recreation and
physical activity could help address a variety of problems the community faces, such as
high levels of obesity and related diseases, gang violence, and anxiety or stress related
to finances and the economy.

246
Soccer, in particular, is so much more than just a sport to many Florence-Firestone
residents. Not only do many residents play soccer at local parks, they are also very
loyal to and passionate about professional teams in Mexico and Spain. This was evident
in the sports group surveys we collected as many soccer teams used the names of
famous teams in the two countries. The impact soccer has on an immigrant community
like Florence-Firestone cannot be underestimated. As Pescador (2007) explains, soccer
offers Mexican Americans “an opportunity to use recreational facilities, enter a voluntary
association, structure a social life after work, reaffirm Mexican culture, and recreate
Mexican traditions in combination with American values” (p. 83). In a recent study,
Castano et al (2010) explore the meaning of soccer for low-income consumers in Mexico
who attended matches every week. Results of their interviews highlight several themes
describing benefits that individuals attain as a result of a strong relationship and
identification with a particular team. First, this relationship provides a buffer from
feelings of anxiety that emerge from everyday problems. Second, it promotes social ties
and feelings of belongingness. Third, it helps in the creation of family identity. Finally,
these individuals gain an inner sense of self worth. Florence-Firestone residents who
play and/or watch soccer are likely to experience similar rewards.

Given the severity of the obesity crisis and the community’s desire for facilities and
programs that address health and fitness, DPR and its partners need to act promptly in a
collaborative manner. In particular, some of the proposals, including mobile gyms,
playstreet, dumpster pool, mobile art vehicle, and transportation to outside recreational
resources, could be implemented as soon as the summer of 2011. Table 23 presents

247
the next steps that DPR could take as the facilitator of recreational services in Florence-
Firestone.

Table 23: Next Steps
No. Alternative Way Next Steps for DPR

1. Joint-Use at Schools • Complete agreement with LAUSD on the
joint use of South Region High School #2.
• Work with LAUSD and People for Parks to
pilot community-school-park projects.
• Keep the Supervisors’ offices informed about
these negotiations. Ask for their involvement
if no progress is made.
2. Use of Utility Corridor and Rail
Rights-of-way for Recreation
• Contact DWP and railroad companies to
begin discussions.
• Keep the Supervisors’ offices informed about
these negotiations. Ask for their involvement
if no progress is made.
3. Development of Pocket Parks and
Community Gardens
• Meet with CDC, LANLT, TPL, and L.A.
Community Gardens Council to identify
potential parcels for acquisition.
• Jointly pursue grants for land acquisition and
development.
• Involve community residents in the design of
new pocket parks and community gardens.
4. Reuse of Existing Buildings for
Recreation
• Conduct research to identify existing
buildings suitable for reuse.
• Coordinate with CDC.
• Contact private providers of recreational
facilities to determine interest in operating in
Florence-Firestone.
5. Temporary Use of Parking and
Vacant Lots for Recreation
• Contact private owners of selected parking
and vacant lots suitable for recreation use.
• Meet with Regional Planning to determine
whether temporary use permits would be
required.
• Solicit donations of portable sports
equipment include basketball hoops, soccer
goals, and skate ramps.

248
Table 23 (Continued)
No. Alternative Way

Next Steps for DPR
6. Temporary Street Closures for
Recreation
• Meet with Public Works, Sheriff’s, and Public
Health to identify streets suitable for
temporary closure.
• Solicit donations of portable sports
equipment include basketball hoops, soccer
goals, and skate ramps.
7. Walking Path along Florence
Avenue
• Meet with Public Works to discuss this
proposal.
• Give residents tour of the Evergreen
Cemetery jogging path to generate interest
for a similar path in Florence-Firestone.
• Keep the Supervisors’ offices informed. Ask
for their involvement if no progress is made.
8. Mobile Gyms and Mobile Art
Vehicles
• Contact and visit with private operators of
mobile gyms in the Los Angeles area.
• Meet with CDC to discuss the funding of new
mobile gyms.
• Meet with the Arts Commission to discuss
the funding of a new mobile art vehicle.
9. Transportation to Outside Parks
and Recreational Facilities
• Contact rental car companies such as
Enterprise or Budget for possible donation of
vans for transportation in the summer.
• Refer residents to the camp program offered
by the Southeast-Rio Vista Family YMCA.
10. Donations of Home Exercise
Equipment or Active Video Game
Systems
• Contact companies such as Precor,
NordicTrack, Sports Authority, Big 5, and
Nintendo for donations.
• Contact local universities such as USC and
UCLA for their interest in conducting studies
regarding the home use of exercise
equipment and active video games systems.
11. Vouchers for Nonprofit and
Private Recreational Facilities
• Contact the Southeast-Rio Vista Family
YMCA, The Salvation Army, 24 Hour
Fitness, LA Fitness, Curves, and Bally Total
Fitness for donations of gift cards or trial
memberships.
12. Sponsorships for Parks • Work with the Florence-Firestone Chamber
of Commerce to contact local professional
sports teams such as the Lakers, Dodgers,
and Chivas USA for sponsorships.

249
Conclusion
This paper has presented an alternative approach that focuses on the provision of park
and recreational services in a variety of ways and settings involving a diverse group of
stakeholders. Specifically, this means providing more and improved recreational
services through multiple-use facilities and partnerships with other public, nonprofit, and
private organizations. This approach recognizes that DPR alone cannot meet the
growing and diverse recreation needs of underserved communities like Florence-
Firestone, despite its best efforts and intentions due to budgetary and other constraints.
Instead, DPR must proactively collaborate with other stakeholders who in turn must
recognize their role and contribute to the community accordingly. Additionally, this paper
has offered ideas and proposals based upon community input, and the latest
approaches in the provision of parks and recreational services. The residents of
Florence-Firestone deserve the best parks and recreational services available. It is my
hope that this paper was able to accurately describe the needs of the community,
capture the residents’ desires and ideas, offer an exciting vision of what could be, and
provide practical guidance to make that vision a reality.

250
Bibliography

24 Hour Fitness. (2008). Magic Johnson Signature Clubs. Retrieved on April 4, 2008,
from http://www.24hourfitness.com/clubs/magic/

Aboelata, M. J. (2004, July). The Built Environment and Health: 11 Profiles of
Neighborhood Transformation. Oakland, CA: Prevention Institute.

Advancement Project. (2009, June). Los Angeles County Gangs and Violence Reduction
Strategy: Florence-Firestone. Retrieved on September 1, 2009, from
http://www.advancementprojectca.org/doc/gangvioredu_Florence_Firestone_Final_R
eport_with_Appendices.pdf

American Institute of Certified Planners Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
(2008). Retrieved June 9, 2008, from http://www.planning.org/ethics/conduct.html

American Planning Association. (2008). About the American Planning Association.
Retrieved on April 24, 2008, from http://www.planning.org/aboutapa/overview.htm

American Planning Association. (2006). Planning and Urban Design Standards.
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

American Society of Landscape Architects. (2011). Planters Groves: A Good Thing?
Retrieved February 28, 2011, from http://dirt.asla.org/2011/02/25/planters-groves-a-
good-thing/

Arnold, C.A. (2007). Fair and healthy land use: environmental justice and planning.
Chicago: American Planning Association.

Baker, W.J. (2007). Playing with God: Religion and Modern Sport. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Baylson, T. (2009, November). Think Long-Term. Planning, 75(10), 24.

Belfield, C.R. & Levin, H.M. (2009, September). High School Dropouts and the
Economic Losses from Juvenile Crime in California. Retrieved December 11, 2010,
from http://cdrp.ucsb.edu/dropouts/pubs_reports.htm

Bell, C. M. & Hurd, A. R. (2006, October). Recreation across Ethnicity. Parks and
Recreation, 28-34.

Bongiorno, L. (2010, August 9). Dumpster Swimming Pools on Park Avenue. Retrieved
August 9, 2010, from http://green.yahoo.com/blog/greenpicks/288/dumpster-
swimming-pools-on-park-avenue.html

Booher, D. E. and Innes, J. (2002). Network power in collaborative planning. Journal of
Planning Education and Research, 21, 221-236.

251
Boyer, P. (1978). Urban Masses and Moral Order in America: 1820-1920. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., and Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation
of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration
Review, 66, 44-55.

Burton, T.L. & Glover, T.D. (1999). Back to the future: Leisure services and the
reemergence of the enabling authority of the state. In E.L. Jackson & T.L. Burton
(Eds.), Leisure studies: Prospects for twenty-first century. State College, PA:
Venture.

California Department of Education (2011). Tobacco-Use Prevention Education Program
Overview. Retrieved March 7, 2011, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/at/
tupeoverview.asp

Camarillo, A.M. (2004). Black and Brown in Compton: Demographic Change, Suburban
Decline, and Intergroup Relations in a South Central Los Angeles Community, 1950
to 2000. In N. Foner & G.M. Fredrickson (Eds.), Not Just Black and White: Historical
and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United
States (pp. 358-373). New York: Russell Sage.

Capra, F. (1996). The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems.
Chapter 1 – Deep Ecology - A New Paradigm, and Chapter 2 – From the Parts to the
Whole.

Carlson, J.G. (2004). Using transportation and utility corridors for trails. Retrieved
October 1, 2010, from http://www.americantrails.org/resources/land/
CarlsonNY04.html

Castano, R., Nunez, S., & Sanchez, M. (2010). Understanding the passion of soccer for
Mexican consumers. International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, 1(4),
344-357.

Chang, E. & Diaz-Veizades, J. (1999). Ethnic Peace in the American city: building
community in Los Angeles and beyond. New York: NYU Press.

Clark, F. (1973). Nineteenth Century Public Parks from 1830. Garden History, 1(3), 31-
41.

Cooper T. & Vincent, J.M. (2008, August). Joint Use School Partnerships in California:
Strategies to Enhance Schools and Communities. Berkeley: University of California
Center for Cities & Schools.

County of Los Angeles. (2007). Florence-Firestone and Walnut Park Communities Rich
in History. Florence-Firestone and Walnut Park Connection Community Resource
Guide 2007, 52-53.

Cranz, G. (1989). The Politics of Park Design: a History of Urban Parks in America.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

252

Crompton, J.L. (2001). Parks and Economic Development. Chicago: American Planning
Association.

Crompton, J.L. (1999). Financing and Acquiring Park and Recreation Resources.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Crompton, J.L. (1998). Partnering: The complimentary assets of businesses and park
and recreation agencies. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(4), 73-
94.

Crompton, J.L. (1998). Forces Underlying the Emergence of Privatization in Parks and
Recreation. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(2), 88-101.

Crompton, J.L. (1983). Recreation Vouchers: A Case Study in Administrative Innovation
and Citizen Participation. Public Administration Review, 43(6), 537-546.

Davidoff, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners. (Reprinted in R.T. Legates and F. Stout (eds.), The City
Reader, 2003.)

Davies, V. (2008, August). A “Central Park” for Los Angeles? Urban Land, 67(8), 42-45.

Day, K. (2006). Active Living and Social Justice: Planning for Physical Activity in Low-
income, Black, and Latino Communities. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 72(1), 88-99.

De Vries, M. S. (2002). Can You Afford Honesty? A Comparative Analysis of Ethos and
Ethics in Local Government. Administration and Society, 34(3), 309-334.

Decker, C. (2009, August 2). L.A.'s gold medal event is still a winner 25 years later. Los
Angeles Times. Retrieved August 2, 2009, from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/
la-me-week2-2009aug02,0,5560051.story

Dolesh, R.J. (2009, August). School of Thought. Parks and Recreation, 15-18.

Eysenbach, M. (2008). Park System Functions and Services. In M. Lewis (Ed.), From
Recreation to Re-creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space System
Planning (pp. 15-38). Chicago: American Planning Association.

Foley, J., Perez, J., Silna, O., Massengale, T., & Stewart, J. (2007, May 8). Community-
School-Parks Plan. Los Angeles: People for Parks.

Forester, J. (1999). The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning
Processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

253
Frederickson, H. G. & Frederickson, D. G. (1995, January). Public Perceptions of Ethics
in Government. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
537, 163-172.

Friends of the High Line. (2009). High Line History. Retrieved on October 1, 2009, from
http://www.thehighline.org/about/high-line-history

García, R. & Flores, E.S. (2005). Anatomy of the Urban Parks Movement: Equal Justice,
Democracy, and Livability in Los Angeles. In R.D. Bullard (Ed.), The Quest for
Environmental Justice: Human Rights and the Politics of Pollution (pp. 145-167). San
Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

García, R. & White, A. (2006). Healthy Parks, Schools, and Communities: Mapping
Green Access and Equity for Los Angeles Region.

Garvin, A. (2010). Public Parks: The Key to Livable Communities. New York: W. W.
Norton.

Garvin, A. (2000). Parks, Recreation, and Open Space: A Twenty-First Century Agenda.
Chicago: American Planning Association.

Garvin, A. & Berens, G. (1997). Urban Parks and Open Space. Washington, DC: Urban
Land Institute.

Gates, H.W. (1917). Recreation and the Church. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.

Gearin, E. & Kahle, C. (2006). Teen and Adult Perceptions of Urban Green Space in Los
Angeles. Children, Youth and Environments, 16(1), 25-48.

Gies, E. (2006). The Health Benefits of Parks. San Francisco: Trust for Public Land.

Giuliano, A. (2005, January). McPlayground: The Costs and Benefits of the Privatization
of Play. Next American City. Retrieved October 26, 2010, from
http://americancity.org/magazine/article/mcplayground-guiliano/

Glancy, M. (2006). Program Delivery and the Many Modes of Recreation. In Human
Kinetics (Ed.), Introduction to Recreation and Leisure (pp. 253-270). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.

Gobster, P.H. (1998). Urban parks as green walls or green magnets? Interracial
relations in neighborhood boundary parks. Landscape and Urban Planning, 41, 43-
55.

Gold, S. (2010, October 31). Crime falls 40% in neighborhoods with Summer Night
Lights program. Los Angeles Times, p. A-43.

Gold, S. (2008, April 11). Seeking to send a sport soaring. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved
April 11, 2008, from http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-outthere11apr11,
0,3628680.story

254

Graf, D.L., Pratt, L.V., Hester, C.N., & Short, K.R. (2009). Playing Active Video Games
Increases Energy Expenditure in Children. Pediatrics, 124(2), 534-540.

Gray, B. (1996). Cross-sectoral partnerships: Collaborative alliances among business,
government, and communities. In C. Huxman (ed.), Creating Collaborative
Advantage (pp. 57-79). London, UK: Pitman.

Harbin, E.O. (1948). The Church and Recreation. Journal of Educational Psychology,
21(5), 279-284.

Harnik, P. (2010). Urban Green: Innovative Parks for Resurgent Cities. Washington:
Island Press.

Harnik, P. (2008). Creating and Maintaining Parks: Funding and Other Means. In M.
Lewis (Ed.), From Recreation to Re-creation: New Directions in Parks and Open
Space System Planning (pp. 75-88). Chicago: American Planning Association.

Harnik, P. & Merolli, A. (2009, October). Walking on Water. Urban Land, 68(10), 96-99.

Heckscher, M.H. (2008). Creating Central Park. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hise, G. & Deverell, W. (2000). Eden by Design: the 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan
for the Los Angeles Region. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ho, C., Sasidharan, V., Elmendorf, W., Willits, F.K., Graefe, A., & Godbey, G. (2005).
Gender and Ethnic Variations in Urban Park Preferences, Visitation, and Perceived
Benefits. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(3), 281-306.

Houstoun, L. (2009, October). Unexpected Parks in Public Places. Urban Land, 68(10),
100-103.

Hutchison, R. (1987). Women and the elderly in Chicago’s public parks. Leisure
Sciences, 16, 229-247.

International Institute for Environment and Development. (2005, March). Stakeholder
power analysis. Retrieved March 5, 2011, from http://www.policy-
powertools.org/Tools/Understanding/docs/stakeholder_power_tool_english.pdf

Irazábal, C. & Punja, A. (2008). Cultivating Just Planning and Legal Institutions: A
Critical Assessment of the South Central Farm in Los Angeles. Revised-and-
resubmitted to the Journal of Urban Affairs.

Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage
Books.

Jang, H. (2006). Contracting Out Parks and Recreation Services: Correcting for
Selection Bias Using a Heckman Selection Model. International Journal of Public
Administration, 29, 799-818.

255
Joassart-Marcelli, P. (2010). Leveling the Playing Field? Urban Disparities in Funding for
Local Parks and Recreation. Environment and Planning, 42(5), 1174-1192.

Joassart-Marcelli, P., Wolch, & J., Salim, Z. (2010). A Place to Play? The Nonprofit
Sector and the Provision of Urban parks and Recreation Opportunities for Children.
Forthcoming.

Joassart-Marcelli, P. & Musso, J. (2005). Municipal Service Provision Choices within a
Metropolitan Area. Urban Affairs Review, 40(4), 492-519.

Kahn, E. et al (2002). The Effectiveness of Interventions to Increase Physical Activity.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(4), 73-107.

Kaminer, A. (2011, January 14). The Grass is Fake, but Splendor Real. New York
Times. Retrieved January 16, 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/
nyregion/16critic.html?

Khadduri, J., Schwartz, H., & Turnham, J. (2007). Reconnecting Schools and
Neighborhoods: An introduction to school-centered community revitalization.
Columbia, MD: Enterprise.

Ladd, T. & Mathisen, J.A. (1999). Muscular Christianity: Evangelical Protestants and the
Development of American Sport. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Lewis, M. (2008). From Recreation to Re-creation: New Directions in Parks and Open
Space System Planning. Chicago: American Planning Association.

Lerner, J. (2010, December 28). Turning Failed Commercial Properties Into Parks.
Miller-McCune. Retrieved December 28, 2010, from http://www.miller-
mccune.com/business-economics/turning-failed-commercial-properties

Lin, J. & Mele, C. (2005). The Urban Sociology Reader. New York: Routledge.

Little, R.G., Dyble, L.N., & Gishri, T. (2007, December). Options and Opportunities: New
Management Paradigms for Balboa Park. The Keston Institute for Public Finance
and Infrastructure Policy, University of Southern California.

Llanos, C. (2010, December 12). Commercial break for LAUSD? Daily News. Retrieved
December 12, 2010, from http://www.dailynews.com/fdcp?1292220844107

Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation. (2010, October). Draft
Florence-Firestone Community Parks and Recreation Plan. Retrieved January 20,
2011 from http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/general/FF_Community%20
Parks%20and%20Recreation%20Plan.pdf

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2010, July). Life Expectancy in Los
Angeles County: How long do we live and why? Retrieved July 30, 2010, from
http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/epi/docs/Life%20Expectancy%20Final_web.pdf

256
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. (2007, October). Preventing
Childhood Obesity: the Need to Create Healthy Places. Retrieved October 11, 2008,
from http://lapublichealth.org/wwwfiles/ph/hae/epi/chr2-childhood_obesity.pdf

Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. (2010, December). Florence-
Firestone Community Plan Background Report. Retrieved January 1, 2011, from
http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/general/FFCP_Background_Report_12.28_.1
0_.pdf

Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning. (2009, July). Florence-Firestone
Vision Plan. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/
general/ FFCP_Background_Report_12.28_.10_.pdf

Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust. (2009). 2008 Report: Transforming
Neighborhoods, Changing Lives.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1995). Urban Form and Social Context: Cultural Differentiation in
the Uses of Urban Parks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 89-102.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. & Stieglitz, O. (2002). Children in Los Angeles parks: a study of
equity, quality and children’s satisfaction with neighborhood parks. Town Planning
Review, 73(4), 467-488.

Low, S., Taplin, D., & Scheld, S. (2005). Rethinking Urban Parks: Public Space and
Cultural Diversity. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Merker, B. (2010). Taking place: Rebar’s absurd tactics in generous urbanism. In J. Hou
(Ed.), Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of
Contemporary Cities (pp. 45-58). New York: Routledge.

Mertes, J.D. & Hall, J.R. (1996). Park, Recreation, Open Space and Greenway
Guidelines. Washington, DC: National Recreation and Park Association.

Meyer, S.G. (2000). As Long As They Don’t Move Next Door: Segregation and Racial
Conflict in American Neighborhoods. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Morris, M. (Ed.). (2006). Integrating planning and public health: tools and strategies to
create healthy places. Chicago: American Planning Association.

Nelson, A., Nicholas, J., & Juergensmeyer, J. (2009). Impact Fees: Principles and
Practice of Proportionate-Share Development Fees. Chicago: APA Planners Press.

Neuman, M. (1998). Does Planning Need the Plan? Journal of the American Planning
Association, 64(2), 208-220.

Neville, J. (2010). CicLAvia: Open Streets for a Day in America’s Car Capital.
Progressive Planning, 185, 29-31.

257
New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. (2010). Playstreets Program.
Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_things_to_do/
programs/playstreets.html

Nicolaides, B. (2002). My Blue Heaven: Life and Politics in the Working-Class Suburbs
of Los Angeles: 1920-1965. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Olson, E. (2010, December 27). Companies Promote Health and Brands, Making
Playgrounds. New York Times. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/business/media/28adco.html

Olson, R. L. (1995). Sustainability as a social vision. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 15-
35.

Peralta, S. (2008). Crips and Bloods: Made in America. Verso Entertainment.

Perry, P. & Makopondo, R. (2005). Working with Nonprofits 101 and Beyond. California
Parks and Recreation, 61(1), 30.

Pescador, J.J. (2007). Los Heroes del Domingo: Soccer, Borders, and Social Spaces in
Mexican Communities. In J. Iber & S.O. Regalado (Eds.), Mexican Americans and
Sports: A Reader on Athletics and Barrio Life (pp. 73-88). College Station, TX: Texas
A&M University Press.

Pincetl, S. (2003). Nonprofits and Park Provision in Los Angeles: An Exploration of the
Rise of Governance Approaches to the Provision of Local Services. Social Science
Quarterly, 84(4), 979-1001.

Pincetl, S. & Gearin, E. (2005). The Reinvention of Public Green Space. Urban
Geography, 26(6), 365-384.

Police Athletic League NYC. (2010). Summer Play Streets. Retrieved on October 1,
2010, from http://www.palnyc.org/800-PAL-4KIDS/Program.aspx?id=30

Popper, N. (2010, December 15). Cities embrace temporary fixes for stalled construction
projects. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 15, 2010, from
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-stalled-construction-20101216,0,3564489

Portier, C.J. & Wolfe, M.S. (1998, August). Assessment of Health Effects from Exposure
to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields. National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health.

Public Health Law & Policy. (2006). General Plans and Zoning: A Toolkit on Land Use
and Health. Accessed at: http://www.healthyplanning.org/toolkit_gpz.html

Reiss, S.A. (1991). City Games: The Evolution of American Urban Society and the Rise
of Sports. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Robertson, P. J. (2007). Ecological governance: Organizing principles for an emerging
era. Unpublished manuscript.

258

Rojas, J. (2010). Latino urbanism in Los Angeles: a model for urban improvisation and
reinvention. In J. Hou (Ed.), Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the
Remaking of Contemporary Cities (pp. 36-44). New York: Routledge.

Rosenzweig R. & Blackmar, E. (1992). The Park and the People: A History of Central
Park. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Rubin, J. (2010, October 11). An estimated 100,000 turn out for L.A.'s inaugural
CicLAvia event. Los Angeles Times.

Rybczynski, W. (2010). Makeshift Metropolis: Ideas about Cities. New York: Scribner.

Saint Paul Public Schools. (2004). Creating a School for the Future: John A. Johnson
Achievement Plus Elementary School: A Case Study.

Sallis, J. F., Hovell, M. F., Hofstetter, C. R., Elder, J. P., Hackley, M., Caspersen, C. J.,
et al. (1990). Distance between homes and exercise related facilities related to
frequency of exercise among San Diego residents. Public Health Reports, 105, 179-
185.

Sanford, M. (2002). Walking to the Park: Recommendations for the formation of an
Urban Land Trust to serve the City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Environmental
Defense.

Sides, J. (2006). L.A. City Limits: African American Los Angeles from the Great
Depression to the Present. Los Angeles: UC Press.

Skidmore, R.A. (1942, March). The Protestant Church and Recreation - An Example of
Social Change. Social Forces, 20(3), 364-370.

Sloane, D.C. (2006). From Congestion to Sprawl: Planning and Health in Historical
Context. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 10-18.

Sloane, D.C., Nascimento, L., Flynn, G., Lewis, L., Jones Guinyard, J., Galloway-Gilliam,
L., Diamant, A., & Yancey, A. (2006). Assessing Resource Environments to Target
Prevention Interventions in Community Chronic Disease Control. Journal of Health
Care for the Poor and Underserved, 17, 146-159.

Spengler, J.O., Young, S.J., & Linton, L.S. (2007). Schools as a Community Resource
for Physical Activity: Legal Considerations for Decision Makers. American Journal of
Health Promotion, 21, 390-396.

Spivak, J. (2010, November/December). Repurposing Distressed Commercial Assets.
Urban Land, 59-61.

Springgate, L. (2008). Defining Parks and Parks Systems. In M. Lewis (Ed.), From
Recreation to Re-creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space System
Planning (pp. 1-14). Chicago: American Planning Association.

259
Stromberg, M. (2009, October). From Wal-Mart to Rec Center. Planning, 75(9), 6.

Stromberg, M. (2009, October). State Parks Seek Partners. Planning, 75(9), 6.

Supervisor Gloria Molina: County facing dark economic outlook. (2010, December 7).
Daily News. Retrieved December 7, 2010, from http://www.dailynews.com/fdcp?
1291822677431

Taylor, H.A. (1995). Urban Public Parks, 1840-1900: Design and Meaning. Garden
History, 23(2), 201-221.

Thomson, R. (2002, November 30). Hymns and Gyms: Churches use recreation to draw
new members and provide fellowship. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, p. E-1.

Trust for Public Land. (2010). Getting Fit in L.A. Lands & People, 22(2), 73.

Trust for Public Land. (2010). Cahuenga Peak Protected. Retrieved on November 21,
2010, from http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=23495&folder_id=266

Trust for Public Land. (2009). NYC Playgrounds Program. Retrieved on October 1, 2009,
from http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=22208&folder_id=631

Trust for Public Land. (2004, November). No place to play: a comparative analysis of
park access in seven major cities. Retrieved October 4, 2008, from
http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=14565&folder_id=266

Trust for Public Land. (2008, October). Parks for People - Los Angeles, Fitness Zone
Project. Retrieved October 4, 2008, from
http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id= 15115&folder_id=2627

Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the
next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62, 527-540.

Watson, S. (2006). Children’s Publics. In Watson, S. City Publics. London: Routledge.

Weis, E. (2005, January). From Camping to Choate: Getting Kids Out of the Inner City.
Next American City. Retrieved October 26, 2010, from http://americancity.org/
magazine/article/from-camping-to-choate/

Wenger, S. (2009, February 9). Dance Revolution in South Los Angeles. Intersections:
The South Los Angeles Reporting Project.

Wiland, H. & Bell, D. (2006). Edens Lost and Found: How Ordinary Citizens are
Restoring Our Great American Cities. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green
Publishing Company.

Wolch, J., Wilson, J. P., & Fehrenback, J. (2005). Parks and Park Funding in Los
Angeles: An Equity-Mapping Analysis. Urban Geography, 26(1), 4-35.

260
Wood, D. & Gray, B. (1991) Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139-162.

Wridt, P.J. (2004). An Historical Analysis of Young People’s Use of Public Space, Parks
and Playgrounds in New York City. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(1), 86-
106.

Yañez, E. & Muzzy, W. (2005, October). Heathy Parks, Healthy Communities:
Addressing Health Disparities and Park Inequities through Public Financing of Parks,
Playgrounds, and Other Physical Activity Settings. San Francisco: Trust for Public
Land.

Yep, K.S. (2009). Outside the Paint: When Basketball Ruled at the Chinese Playground.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

YMCA. (2010, December). Organizational Profile. Retrieved December 19, 2010, from
http://www.ymca.net/organizational-profile/

Young, T. (2004). Building San Francisco’s Parks: 1850-1930. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Zhang, T. & Gobster, P.H. (1998). Leisure Preferences and Open Space Needs in an
Urban Chinese American Community. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research, 15(4), 338-355.

261

Appendix A:
Stakeholder Interview List

1. Susan Ahern – Lillian Street Elementary School
2. Mary Anderson – Los Angeles County Libraries
3. Lt. John Babbitt – Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
4. Alina Bokde – Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust
5. Giles Coons – Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
6. Glen Dake – Los Angeles Community Garden Council
7. Gregg Esser – Los Angeles County Arts Commission
8. Laurent Hernandez – Parmelee Elementary School
9. Carolyn Kobayashi – Los Angeles County Libraries
10. Ana Lasso – Los Angeles Unified School District
11. Gloria Medina – Florence-Firestone Chamber of Commerce
12. Angel Nicolas – Los Angeles County Libraries
13. Charlotte Perkins – Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation
14. Anna Rodriguez – Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation
15. Nohemi Rodriguez – Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation
16. Dino Smiley – Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation
17. Lauren Talbott – Los Angeles County Libraries
18. Fr. Jesus Vela – St. Lawrence Catholic Church
19. Nicole Vick – Los Angeles County Department of Public Health
20. Abu Yusuf – Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
21. Armando Zarate – St. Malachy Church

262

Appendix B:
Community Questionnaire (English and Spanish)

263

Appendix B (Continued)

264

Appendix B (Continued)

265

Appendix B (Continued)

266

Appendix C:
Community Questionnaire Results

Do you live in Florence-Firestone?
Yes, 86%
No, 14%

6%
14%
16%
20%
21%
23%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
5-14 15-19 20-30 31-50 51-65 66 and
older
What is your age?

How often do you use the parks?
At least once a
week, 26%
At least once a
month, 5%
A couple of
times a year,
3%
Never, 3%
Daily, 63%

267

Appendix C (Continued)

44%
8%
25%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Roosevelt Park Ted Watkins
Park
Washington
Park
Bethune Park
Which parks do you use?

18%
16%
11%
15%
8%
8%
9%
15%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Youth Sports Adult Sports Educational
Classes
Seniors
Activities
Music and
Dance
Activities
Art and
Culture
Activities
Social Clubs Passive
Leisure
What activities do you participate in?

What activities do you feel are needed in Florence-Firestone?
13%
5%
10%
8%
11%
8%
10%
11%
11%
14%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Senior Citizen
Activities
Arts and
Cultural
Activities
After School
and Extended
Day Care
Adult Sports Youth Sports Tutoring or
Homework
Assistance
Information
about County
Services
Educational
Classes for
Children and
Adults
Tiny Tots Walking
Paths/Bicycle

268

Appendix C (Continued)

Do you participate in programs offered
in other communities?
Yes
46%
No
54%

61%
8%
8%
14%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
City of Los
Angeles
City of
Compton
City of
Lynwood
City of
Huntington
Park
City of
South Gate
If yes, which communities?

19%
22%
12%
13%
15%
11%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Adult Sports Youth Sports Senior
Activities
Educational
Classes
Art and
Culture
Activities
Music and
Dance
Activities
Other Non
Profits (YMCA,
Boys & Girls
Clubs, AYSO)
Which programs do you participate in in other communities?

269

Appendix C (Continued)

Age 5-14: What activities do you feel are needed in Florence-Firestone?
1 1
3
6
5
6
3
5
7
5
0
2
4
6
8
Senior Citizen
Activities
Arts and
Cultural
Activities
After School
and Extended
Day Care
Adult Sports Youth Sports Tutoring or
Homework
Assistance
Information
about County
Services
Educational
Classes for
Children and
Adults
Tiny Tots Walking
Paths/Bicycle

Age 15-19: What activities do you feel are needed in Florence-Firestone?
9
3
8
3
9 9
8
12
9
14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Senior Citizen
Activities
Arts and
Cultural
Activities
After School
and Extended
Day Care
Adult Sports Youth Sports Tutoring or
Homework
Assistance
Information
about County
Services
Educational
Classes for
Children and
Adults
Tiny Tots Walking
Paths/Bicycle

Age 20-30: What activities do you feel are needed in Florence-Firestone?
17
8
12
8
16
13
18
16
12
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Senior Citizen
Activities
Arts and
Cultural
Activities
After School
and Extended
Day Care
Adult Sports Youth Sports Tutoring or
Homework
Assistance
Information
about County
Services
Educational
Classes for
Children and
Adults
Tiny Tots Walking
Paths/Bicycle

270

Appendix C (Continued)

Age 31-50: What activities do you feel are needed in Florence-Firestone?
19
17
24
17
12
25
14
23
10
27
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
Senior Citizen
Activities
Arts and
Cultural
Activities
After School
and Extended
Day Care
Adult Sports Youth Sports Tutoring or
Homework
Assistance
Information
about County
Services
Educational
Classes for
Children and
Adults
Tiny Tots Walking
Paths/Bicycle

Age 51-65: What activities do you feel are needed in Florence-Firestone?
25
4
15
17
11
4
17 17
19
26
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
Senior Citizen
Activities
Arts and
Cultural
Activities
After School
and Extended
Day Care
Adult Sports Youth Sports Tutoring or
Homework
Assistance
Information
about County
Services
Educational
Classes for
Children and
Adults
Tiny Tots Walking
Paths/Bicycle

Age 66 and older: What activities do you feel are needed in Florence-Firestone?
23
8
16
19
14
9
12
10
16
42
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
Senior Citizen
Activities
Arts and
Cultural
Activities
After School
and Extended
Day Care
Adult Sports Youth Sports Tutoring or
Homework
Assistance
Information
about County
Services
Educational
Classes for
Children and
Adults
Tiny Tots Walking
Paths/Bicycle

271

Appendix C (Continued)

Youth Survey Results

Do you participate in organized recreational activities or
sports?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Never Sometimes Often

Do you feel that enough youth sports programs are offered
in your neighborhood?
0
5
10
15
20
25
Yes No

How important are computer labs in parks to you?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Not Important Somew hat Important Very Important

272

Appendix D:
Sports Group Survey

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Traditionally, park agencies address the shortage of urban parks by trying to increase the number and acreage of parks in underserved areas. Such an approach focuses exclusively on physical solutions, i.e. the development of new parks, requires substantial financial and land resources, and presumes that the parks department is the only supplier of recreational opportunities. Given the lack of public funding and land for new urban parks, this traditional approach is no longer typically feasible.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Urban conservation in the Middle Eastern historic cities: globalization and lack of identity

PDF

Community development agreements: addressing inequality through urban development projects

PDF

The impact of social capital: a case study on the role of social capital in the restoration and recovery of communities after disasters

PDF

The production of public spaces: design dialectics and pedagogy

PDF

The crisis of potable water in Mexico City: institutional factors and water property rights as conditions for creating adequate metropolitan water governance

PDF

Governance and urban design: Omaha by design

PDF

The role of CALGreen codes and sustainable rating systems in practicing sustainability

PDF

Spaces of market-culturalism: the case of Chungking Mansions, Hong Kong

PDF

The interplay between green space and transit: a case study of revitalization within Atlanta’s Adair Park and its potential to improve future policy outcomes

PDF

Social construction of the experience economy: the spatial ecology of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles

PDF

A stakeholder approach to reimagining private departments of public safety: the implementation of a community advisory board recommendation report

PDF

How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea

PDF

Social capital and community philanthropy: the impact of social trust and social networks on individual charitable behavior and community foundation development

PDF

Location of warehouses and environmental justice: Three essays

PDF

The Wenchuan earthquake recovery: civil society, institutions, and planning

PDF

Utilizing analytics to evaluate the San Diego Housing Commission's approach to maximizing housing efficiency: Moving to Work, Path to Success, and the Achievement Academy

PDF

Health impact assessment, the concept, science, and application in China

PDF

A framework for evaluating urban policy and its impact on social determinants of health (SDoH)

PDF

The economic and political impacts of U.S. federal carbon emissions trading policy across households, sectors and states

PDF

The institutional context of Korean philanthropy and the role of government and (quasi-) community foundations

Asset Metadata

Creator Lau, Clement (author)

Core Title Alternative ways, locations, and partners to meet the recreational needs of underserved communities: the case of Florence-Firestone

School School of Policy, Planning, and Development

Degree Doctor of Policy, Planning & Development

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Degree Conferral Date 2011-05

Publication Date 03/29/2011

Defense Date 03/18/2011

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Florence-Firestone,joint use,Los Angeles County,multiple-use facilities,OAI-PMH Harvest,park planning,partnerships,Public Health,recreational services,underserved communities,unincorporated areas,urban parks

Place Name California (states), Florence-Firestone (city or populated place), Los Angeles (city or populated place), Los Angeles (counties), USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Banerjee, Tridib (committee member), Burman, Tsilah (committee member), Pastor, Manuel (committee member), Persico, Mark (committee member)

Creator Email clau@usctrojans.com,clement.lau@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3707

Unique identifier UC1476115

Identifier etd-Lau-4431 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-450367 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3707 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Lau-4431.pdf

Dmrecord 450367

Document Type Project

Rights Lau, Clement

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu