The Promise of Parkland: Planning Detroit's Public Spaces, 1805-2018
Cooper-McCann, Patrick
2019
Abstract
This dissertation investigates how and why the provision of urban parkland has changed over time, with different levels of government and different organizations in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors taking on different responsibilities. Based on a case study of park provision in Detroit in six sequential periods spanning 1805 to 2018, I argue that governance influences more than just the “publicness” of any given park or plaza. It also matters for socioeconomic and racial equity at a metropolitan scale, influencing which kinds of spaces and facilities get funded, how many spaces and facilities are provided, where they are provided, for whom they are provided, and who sets these priorities. In the nineteenth century, park systems were developed according to an ideology of privatism. Before 1865, the city of Detroit built only a handful of squares and parks, either in or near the city center, in partnership with developers. After 1865, metropolitan-level commissions developed a separate system of scenic parks and boulevards on donated farmland. This public-private approach to provision produced iconic parks like Belle Isle, but it left working class neighborhoods without open space. Progressive Era social reformers partially addressed this deficiency by launching a recreation commission to open play facilities in working class neighborhoods. A city plan commission began buying land for parks and playfields in new subdivisions, and county, regional, state, and federal agencies opened scenic parks at their respective scales. Yet enduring racial disparities emerged. Few parks were added in the inner city, where most African Americans resided, and the recreation commission relied on private agencies to supplement its few racially integrated services. Not only were African Americans served by fewer, separate, and unequal facilities, the enduring lack of open space was later used to justify discriminatory plans for urban renewal. In the late 1960s, urban rioting and organizing led to the reordering of park governance. Public agencies at all scales invested funds in urban recreation for the first time and new forms of public-private partnership emerged. As Detroit became a majority black city, politicians embraced these options selectively, soliciting revenue sharing but retaining local control of public space and keeping a focus on recreation. However, the municipal recreation system steadily declined as the local government lost revenue. Since 2000, some parks have flourished again under new management. The state of Michigan began operating riverfront facilities, including Belle Isle. Nonprofit real estate development organizations have used public and private funds to renovate parks and greenways located on the riverfront and downtown in order to spur real estate investment. But neighborhood recreational facilities remain neglected because deep-pocketed partners have not prioritized the social agenda they represent. The selective revitalization of parkland contributes to the disparity between the quality of life in much of the majority black city and that in its gentrifying core and wealthier, whiter suburbs. In addition to shedding new light on Detroit’s history, these findings suggest that with respect to park equity, what matters is not private or public control of public space per se but instead whether the goals and capacities of park providers align with the needs of city residents. Public and private partners alike will exacerbate inequity rather than correct it if they invest only in parks with the potential to spur economic development.Subjects
parks and recreation public space Detroit racial equity urban history planning history
Types
Thesis
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.