SR 05:165 - Laserfiche WebLink

lives of citizens. Most park acreage is dedicated to naturalized open space, conducive to spontaneous activities and not overly programmed or developed. Over the past centuries, the meaning of grand parks has changed as knowledge of personal health and social needs has evolved. A range of park types has emerged, meeting the needs of an evolving culture. According to Galen Cranz, author, U. C. Berkeley professor and member of the Bernal Design Competition jury, four distinct generations of parks can be identified: the pleasure ground, the reform park, the recreation facility and the open space system. The pleasure ground (1850-1890) is characterized by Cranz as a large park located at the edge of a city, pastoral in form with any architecture subordinate to the overall open space effect. These grounds were not wilderness, but more of a hybrid of nature and culture that simulated an ideal countryside, an aesthetic dominated by nature rather than artifice. A wide variety of park uses were accommodated, but an over-arching purpose was contemplation and respite - an escape from the disease-plagued industrial city life. Civic leaders felt that retreating to the countryside improved physical and mental health. Doctors felt that the air around trees actually eliminated disease, a myth from medieval times. The general impression of the pleasure ground was one of forest and meadow. As pleasure grounds became the play grounds for the wealthy, city planners began to identify smaller park parcels more equally arranged throughout the neighborhoods so that all classes and cultures could benefit from park use. This reform park movement dominated park and open space design from 1890 to 1930. The size of neighborhood parks varied from one block (300 feet square on average) to perhaps as large as 10 acres, and included programs to integrate the many immigrants moving to the United States. Park design was formal, symmetrical and divided into subareas, designed to meet unique social needs based on gender and age differences. Field houses were built to host indoor sporting events as well as to teach English and assist in socialization. From 1930 to 1965, park design became dominated by organized sports. Recreation was for fun, not for social reform. Recreation facilities such as stadia were added to grand parks. Recreation departments focused their attention and budgets on the recreation facility designed for spectator sports that could accommodate large crowds. These facilities included stadia, swimming pools, parking lots, hard court games, lighting, chain link fences and bleachers. National standards for various categories of parks were identified, based on size and program. Five acres of park space for every 1,000 population was considered the ideal standard. The definition of park use was limited primarily to active sports such as playgrounds, picnic grounds, baseball, football and soccer fields. Design reference books were published that defined sports field dimensions as well as standards for fences, backstops, goal posts and field lighting. Most aspects of competitive sports facility design were codified. Open space systems (1965 to the present) now dominate how designers think about parks and public space. Open space is generally defined as publicly, or privately owned landscape that has the look and feel of common ground. Private development produces open spaces that are privately owned but publicly accessible. There is less emphasis on competitive sports and more focus on connecting residual landscapes into one system I1