The Downtown DC transformation has officially begun as the first children's playground is being built!! (Washington: parks, about)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you're an urban planner, how do you come to the conclusion that the National Mall is not "urban." By that definition, are Central Park in Manhattan or Prospect Park in Brooklyn not "urban," either?
I thought urban planners looked for ways to incorporate and preserve green space in cities. Playgrounds seem like a good idea, too, even if they reduce the potential number of residents that can be packed into downtown condos.
The playground in question would do nothing to reduce the number of condos or residents. It would be built on otherwise in programmed NPS land that would never go to developers.
If you're an urban planner, how do you come to the conclusion that the National Mall is not "urban." By that definition, are Central Park in Manhattan or Prospect Park in Brooklyn not "urban," either?
I thought urban planners looked for ways to incorporate and preserve green space in cities. Playgrounds seem like a good idea, too, even if they reduce the potential number of residents that can be packed into downtown condos.
Well, the land is currently national park land so it could never be built on. They are incorporating a playground into the square.
Also, you are confusing what we are talking about here. Playgrounds are supposed to be neighborhood serving. There aren't any people living near the national mall. The neighborhoods downtown in Mt. Vernon, Penn Quarter etc. are exploding with population. Those residents need a place for their children to play that is close to where they live. Parents don't want to take their children on a 20 minute walk to find a playground on the national mall. They want to take their children around the corner or if their children are old enough, stay home all together and watch their children from their window if possible. Having a playground on the national mall is not residential serving, it's tourist serving. There is a huge difference. Go to any community and check to see how playgrounds are incorporated into the neighborhood. Now go to Gallery Place/Chinatown and find a playground. The area where they plan on building the playground is just a few blocks from Gallery Place.
As for playgrounds and parks, we are talking about two different things. Central Park is surrounded by Manhattan and it's a natural park. I'm talking about a park that would be classified as a pocket park that incorporates a playground in an urban setting.
Since you brought up NYC, here is an article that talks about the best playgrounds in NYC so you can see what I meant.
DC is so behind most cities in downtown development when it comes to residential amenities we are playing catch up. Most cities have tons of playgrounds downtown because they have always had people living downtown. That is not the case for DC.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 05-04-2012 at 01:04 PM..
I thought urban planners looked for ways to incorporate and preserve green space in cities. Playgrounds seem like a good idea, too, even if they reduce the potential number of residents that can be packed into downtown condos.
AFAICT all the proponents of downtown density are happy about the new playground, as is MdAllstar, who was just quibbling with someone on semantics (BTW I consider the National Mall an urban space).
Public green/outdoor space is a natural compliment to residential density, and is an alternative to the private green space that is easier to obtain in less dense areas. (not to say that low dense areas, esp the ones in more affluent jurisdictions, don't have plenty of parks - though they often are not as close to as many residents, and I think often play a different role)
First children's playground downtown?
Are you sure about that?
I recall there being a playground downtown in front of one of the museums.
1970s. 1980s.
I used to go there with my family.
Instead of a jungle gym there were several dinosaurs for children to climb and play on.
Lots of kids would play there.
There is (or was?) ONE dinosaur to climb on, on the Mall side of the Natural History Museum. It is/ was named "Uncle Beasley" after the childrens book "The Enormous Egg" by Beverly Cleary.
There is also the Smithsonian carousel and, in winter, the ice rink there (I saw them just today, in fact).
Location: YOU are NOT a Washingtonian. YOU are a GENTRIFIER from the CVS, Whole Foods, Starbucks & Condos era.
367 posts, read 643,017 times
Reputation: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowlane3
There is (or was?) ONE dinosaur to climb on, on the Mall side of the Natural History Museum. It is/ was named "Uncle Beasley" after the childrens book "The Enormous Egg" by Beverly Cleary.
There is also the Smithsonian carousel and, in winter, the ice rink there (I saw them just today, in fact).
Interesting you mentioned this. I managed to find this picture online.
The dinosaur in the picture looks familiar but the dinosaur I remember climbing on was longer, lower and much closer to the ground.
Keep in mind this was over 30 years ago.
This is based strictly on my memory and nothing else.
DC has a crane on every corner with new ones popping up every other day. So what is missing downtown for families moving into downtown DC? A children's playground and jungle gym. Well that's about to change!
Why can't they just build something on top of it? Parks don't generate money.
Is that sarcasm? If not, that's really silly. Parks increase the value of properties all around them, thus generating money for both the tax base and private sector. Just think how expensive it is to live against Central Park.
Why can't they just build something on top of it? Parks don't generate money.
Parks do generate money. A playground in downtown DC would increase the value of residential property by helping families stay, increase the value of commercial property by making local daycares more attractive, increase the number of tourists that actually stay in the city as opposed to staying in places like Crystal City, increase the length of time tourists are staying because there will be a physical outlet for the children that are going to the museums, and increase restaurant revenue as parents will be more likely to stay around until mealtime. Moreover, all of the land in question is owned by National Park Service and could never contain significant commercial development.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
