For a safe park, the best defense is a good offense

Public Safety

For a safe park, the best defense is a good offense

by Malcolm Kenton • August 17, 2011 10:25 am

A small central DC playground park that has been plagued by drug dealing and other illicit activity for decades is about to undergo renovation. Once it's done, neighbors must take ownership and make the park into a safe and welcoming neighborhood asset once again.

Photo by the author.

A sharp tension came to light at a community meeting Monday night between the desire to make Florida Avenue Park (located at the southwest corner of Florida Avenue and First Street NW) a pleasant place to let children play, take part in a game of basketball or checkers, or enjoy a sunny afternoon—and wanting to make it unwelcoming as possible to vagrants, alcoholics and drug dealers.

The park, originally designed and built in 1977, is abutted on two sides by a public housing cooperative of similar vintage. Across First Street on its east side sits a liquor store, some of whose customers frequently consume its merchandise in the park. Because of neighborhood organizations' work with the Metropolitan Police Department, the past two months have seen a spike in arrests made in or near the park.

Solely based on its appearance, Florida Avenue Park gives off a completely different vibe from nearby Crispus Attucks Park. It is completely surrounded by a tall black wrought-iron fence, with a gate on the east end towards First Street and one on the northwest end towards Florida Avenue. The gates are locked nightly between 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM.

Inside is a basketball court (which is well used), two mostly plastic children's' play structures (not as well used), and a wide pathway lined with simple painted benches (often used by loiterers). While lines of mature oak trees on all three sides provide it with a shady canopy, the concrete, the fence and the overall uninspired utilitarian design make it not as welcoming a space as it should be.

Florida Ave. entrance on Monday night. Photo by the author.

The park was closed last week for renovations which aim to revive the space. Construction—funded by a $1.2 million grant from the DC Council—is slated to last through November 15. ANC 5C and the Hanover, Bloomingdale, and Bates Area Civic Associations were involved in the design process. The latter has even established a subsidiary, Friends of Florida Avenue Park, which will work with the DC Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to maintain and plan activities for the newly-refurbished space.

DPR staff who hosted Monday's meeting drove home the message that this kind of community activism will be key to making the park a success. But most of the concerns attendees aired dealt with how to keep certain kinds of people out, rather than how to bring more families with children, young people and seniors in.

Current plans call for the gate on the east end to remain permanently locked, to prevent liquor store patrons from easily accessing the park. But this caused some to worry about being trapped in that corner (where a play area for children ages 2-5 will go) by a threatening person with only one way out. As a solution, one attendee suggested a revolving gate that will allow people to exit, but not to enter—which does not square with the idea of eliminating aesthetic barriers to a welcoming public space.

Other attendees wanted to make sure the park would be well-lit, that metal armrests would be placed on the new benches to discourage sleeping, that surfaces wouldn't be painted but would also be graffiti-proof, and that the perimeter fence be double-fortified to prevent forced entry after hours.

Park interior, just prior to renovation. Photo by the author.

But when it came to actually making the park fun and useful for kids and adolescents and desirable for adults, DPR and the project's landscape architect had more ideas than the attendees. Though the tall fence will remain, lowering the walls and trimming tree limbs will create clearer lines of sight, giving the park a more open feel while allowing police on Florida Avenue to observe activity within.

The play equipment will be redesigned with no enclosed spaces or large ledges—eliminating hiding spaces but also making it more challenging, and thus rewarding, to climb. Space beside the basketball court will be reserved for a community bulletin board and game tables.

But ultimately, it will be up to the Friends of Florida Avenue Park to organize concerts, clean-up days, meet and greets, and other social activities that will allow the community to reclaim the park as its own—ultimately the most effective deterrent to undesirable activity.

22 comments

Tags: Bloomingdale, crime, DC, parks, Truxton Circle

Al fresco dining and parks vs. gangs in Columbia Heights (Mar 16, 2010)
Shaw getting new pocket park (May 21, 2009)
I Wish This Were... in Bloomingdale/Eckington/Truxton Circle (Dec 12, 2010)
Fence will cut off park from Dupont Metro, 42 bus stop (Aug 16, 2011)
Bryant Park's restoration (Feb 29, 2008)

Malcolm Kenton lives in the DC neighborhood of Bloomingdale. Hailing from Greensboro, NC and a graduate of Guilford College, he is Director of Outreach and Engagement for the National Association of Railroad Passengers, where he blogs about national transportation issues. The views on GGW are his own and not necessarily those of NARP.

Comments
Add a comment »

But when it came to actually making the park fun and useful for kids and adolescents and desirable for adults, DPR and the project's landscape architect had more ideas than the attendees.

This was the last of a series of meetings regarding the park. The overall use, activities, what could be included, what could not were covered in a good amount of detail in the past. This was also the first presentation by the construction team, so they of course they had to justify their designs.

As ground has already been broken, it's obvious that major changes in use cannot be made and that's why you saw a focus on what is essentially finishing details.

by Mike on Aug 17, 2011 10:35 am • link • report

neighbors must take ownership

HAHAHAHA!

I know it sounds all nice and civic-y to talk about people "getting involved" and "taking ownership," but cleaning up the part is the role of DPW, and getting the drinkers and drug dealers out is the job of the police. Those are the only two groups that are more powerful than the troublemakers.

If the city lacks the resources to maintain the park and keep trouble out, then the solution is to get rid of the park. Simple as that.

Saying that nothing can change until "the community" "takes ownership" is just blaming the victims.

by JustMe on Aug 17, 2011 10:46 am • link • report

This has long been a 24/7 spot to scoop up a bag, drink a beer, and watch young women walk by. Maybe play some basketball, too. You can clean up the park but the attitudes of folks is another thing. With all the liquor stores all around people will still drink their beers here no matter. Good to see the kids will have a new place to play.

by Got Dat Train Wreak & Scarlett O'Hara on Aug 17, 2011 10:52 am • link • report

I think there's a missing pronoun in here or something, because I'm getting confused as to which park you're talking about at times. Crispus Attucks or the N. Cap park. Am I the only one getting confused here?

by Steve D on Aug 17, 2011 11:03 am • link • report

I always thought that this park felt shady because of the HUGE fence and concrete retaining wall around it that separated it from the street.

If you keep the park as a walled fortress, it will never feel safe; liquor store or not. There are liquor stores (and bums) all over the city. Installing gates and fencing isn't going to change anything.

And, for what it's worth, the adjacent buildings aren't awful-looking for a 1970s-vintage public housing complex. My impression has also always been that this particular community is fairly safe and stable (although somebody who lives nearby might be able to make a more informed comment).

by andrew on Aug 17, 2011 11:12 am • link • report

Might be worth taking a gander at the new park on 10th St NW between L and M... a tiny & pretty park except for its being surrounded by a massive fence. CM Evans asserts the fence was necessary for safety, but I'm rather dubious considering how it's well-lit, visible from street & windows, and the neighborhood itself has changed dramatically... if anything, I'd say the fence *reduces* visibility from the street. Within two weeks of opening I'd already had to help someone who gotten locked inside ascend up & out... she was napping and awoke after the gate had been locked.

by Bossi on Aug 17, 2011 11:24 am • link • report

Automatic sprinklers timed to go off every hour on the hour for five minutes. Also, "zero-tolerance" walk-throughs for police, and increased penalities for violations on playgrounds and school grounds.

The only reason there's a problem is that MPD (and the politicians who oversee MPD) don't see this as a problem.

There's no law against loitering, but there's a law against public drinking, and public drunkenness. Use the selective enforcement on the books. Anyone can use the park. If you're caught with any booze in the park, you go to jail for a couple of days. Problem solved.

by oboe on Aug 17, 2011 12:09 pm • link • report

Per some generic, random website:

There are two statutory provisions in Washington, D.C. dealing with public intoxication. Under § 24-604 of the D.C. Code, any person who is intoxicated in public may be taken either to his/her home or to a public/private health facility or detoxification center. Under § 25-1000, it is illegal for anyone to drink an alcoholic beverage or possess an open container in any public street, park, or parking lot. The penalty for the latter offense is imprisonment for up to 90 days and/or a fine of up to $500.

Ok, so you put a sign up saying public drinking is prohibited. A week later, you get one plainclothes officer to observe the drunk dudes in the park who are degrading our limited and valuable public space, they wait until they see the guys drinking, then you call in a van and a couple of officers, round up the drunks, and take them to a detox center for 72 hours. Wash, rinse, repeat...

Not to get too Rick Perry about it, but, again "Problem solved."

by oboe on Aug 17, 2011 12:17 pm • link • report

"If you're caught with any booze in the park, you go to jail for a couple of days. Problem solved."

Interesting to see if that were ever enforced in other parks - Rock Creek and MX/MH Park. The "hide the wine in the bag" technique is in full-force during summer picnic times. I wonder if the hot cocoa has rumpleminze in the winter?

by greent on Aug 17, 2011 12:21 pm • link • report

I don't know enough about this project to be able to comment with an annoying level of authoritativeness, but I'm guessing that the process was somewhat flawed, and by not building in a management and operations program into the development process, at least as long as the area is what we might call an emerging neighborhood with public safety issues, there are going to be problems.

Partly this is design, partly it's an issue of management, partly it's an issue of maintenance, partly it's an issue of programming and operations.

Until DC has a real parks and recreation master plan, most of these issues end up being ignored and faulty results are SOP.

Until DC develops a better parks planning framework, it's up to activists like yourself to up the game and bring new resources and approaches into the process.

It's not clear if that happened with the process you describe.

Here are some resources:

- http://www.pps.org/articles/six-parks-we-can-all-learn-from/

which concludes with this--

PPS has identified nine strategies that help parks achieve their full potential as active public spaces that enhance neighborhoods and catalyze economic development. The parks profiled in this article provide excellent examples of these strategies in practice.

Use transit as a catalyst for attracting visitors
Make management of the park a central concern
Develop strategies to attract people during different seasons
Acquire diverse funding sources
Design the park layout for flexibility
Consider both the “inner park” and “outer park”
Provide amenities for the different groups of people using the park
Create attractions and destinations throughout the park
Create an identity and image for the park

- http://www.pps.org/articles/squaresprinciples/
- Center for City Park Excellence (TPL)
- plans for the Buckhead Collection (Atlanta), Tampa, Miami
- http://www.glatting.com/PDF/SCAPA2008.pdf
- http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/travel/07weekend.html

and more. But you should be finding them, not me.

by Richard Layman on Aug 17, 2011 12:40 pm • link • report

If the city lacks the resources to maintain the park and keep trouble out, then the solution is to get rid of the park. Simple as that.

Saying that nothing can change until "the community" "takes ownership" is just blaming the victims.

by JustMe on Aug 17, 2011 10:46 am

Wrong on so many levels. Including saying it is DPW that maintains the park.

Last sentence to the blog post is correct:
"But ultimately, it will be up to the Friends of Florida Avenue Park to organize concerts, clean-up days, meet and greets, and other social activities that will allow the community to reclaim the park as its own—ultimately the most effective deterrent to undesirable activity."

Too bad DPR is so dysfunctional. Should NOT be this way.

One day (dream) our city will have functional agencies.

by Jazzy on Aug 17, 2011 12:42 pm • link • report

emerging neighborhood with public safety issues

This is the salient point here. Until quite recently, the "programming" of this park was to provide a place for long-term chronic alcoholics to drink themselves to death, and to relieve themselves in public. As the neighborhood changes, that purpose comes into conflict with the programming preferred by folks who want to use it for more traditionally "socially acceptable" uses.

I don't think it's a matter of lacking a formal "plan" for this park. They've already got an informal plan that's worked great for several decades. Problem is that public spaces are a scarce resource that grows scarcer as the city continues to trend middle-class.

It's no different from the evolution of any other DC park. I remember 5-6 years ago overhearing several older alcoholics lamenting the loss of Lincoln Park as a place to go sit and just get wasted. "Now it's nothing but kids." First the dog-walkers came, then the parents. The first group made things a little less comfortable, but the second had no compunctions whatsoever about calling the police about any sort of behavior that wasn't completely on the straight and narrow.

Really, the question is whether the "enforcement arm" of the city is going to help expedite the changes. They can if there's sufficient political will.

by oboe on Aug 17, 2011 12:55 pm • link • report

Oboe is right that some of these issues "take care of themselves" as the demographics of neighborhoods change. It is impolitic to say, but public drinking and park spaces, especially parklets, can be a real problem. It is for the gateway park at 4th and Blair Road NW in Takoma. The parklet is controlled by drunks. I pick up recylables on the way back from the Metro on my way home, and the trash cans here are full of alcoholic beverage containers.

It's true that we need better programs to deal with that, which shouldn't have to be a DPR issue. (It's also a problem for libraries.)

You mention Lincoln Park, and that is a function of the "eastward" expansion of Capitol Hill.

When I used to work in Brookland, I would walk to work, and on the back of the old Taft Junior High School, there is an expansive recreation center. Speaking of picking up recyclables, it was always a s***hole.

Now I live a couple blocks from the Takoma Recreation Center parklands on the back of Coolidge High School. Yes, I still pick up litter and recyclables, but there is no comparison in terms of the overall quality and "maintenance" of the park. But it's not so much that the park is better maintained, just that it is much less dirtied by its patrons, making it easier for people like me and DPR personnel to keep it under control.

by Richard Layman on Aug 17, 2011 1:01 pm • link • report

@Jazzy:

"But ultimately, it will be up to the Friends of Florida Avenue Park to organize concerts, clean-up days, meet and greets, and other social activities that will allow the community to reclaim the park as its own—ultimately the most effective deterrent to undesirable activity."

From my informal conversations with folks who live in Columbia Heights, the problem isn't one where "neighbors" simply need to "reclaim the park". The problem is that the park already *is* a valuable community resource. It's a highly valuable resource for dysfunctional substance abusers. They're very motivated, and have lots of time on their hands.

Rather than thinking about the problem as one of disuse versus use, or "the community reclaiming the park", I think this should be looked at as two competing communities laying claim to a scarce resource. It's no different than balancing dog-owners versus parents in Lincoln Park.

Parents holding a clean-up day won't impact the way dog-owners use the park. Getting the authorities involved as active partners in enforcing leash laws would.

Disclaimer: not picking on dog-owners, merely an arbitrary comparison.

by oboe on Aug 17, 2011 1:06 pm • link • report

"First the dog-walkers came, then the parents."

Yep, yep. Malcolm X was reclaimed this way, when the FOMH formed in the 1990. This group really helped turn the park around, clean up, run away the dealers and get the fountains turned back on!

Yes, the police must police, but the people must help them. We identify issues, they tackle them.

by greent on Aug 17, 2011 1:11 pm • link • report

"Parents holding a clean-up day won't impact the way dog-owners use the park. Getting the authorities involved as active partners in enforcing leash laws would."

Or, fencing off an area for the dog owners would.

*Not picking on parents or even advocating for the dog areas at this park - just highlighting another option that could change the usage of the park.

by greent on Aug 17, 2011 1:15 pm • link • report

The best improvement that could be made to this park is to remove the fencing. Period.

by elle on Aug 17, 2011 1:40 pm • link • report

@greent,

I have a kid and a dog (and a deadline), so you won't goad me into taking a position one way or the other!

by oboe on Aug 17, 2011 2:12 pm • link • report

:) A kid, a doga and a goat.... that's how I read that. More coffee please.

by greent on Aug 17, 2011 4:12 pm • link • report

Actually, fencing off the dog owners would mitigate their effectiveness in driving off the drunks. When the drunks are physically separated from the dogs, they feel no need to leave the area.

Weigh your options, or do what MOTH does: wait for the dog owners to drive out the drunks, then drive out the dog owners.

by ahk on Aug 17, 2011 5:21 pm • link • report

Yes ahk, that is what happens, much like early gentrifiers used teh gheys to move into Dupont and Shaw and now U St's homogenized america safe for former suburbanites to live in. (I keed, I keed, I have no keeds).

by greent on Aug 17, 2011 5:37 pm • link • report

hi.I doing a comparative study about safety in park in u.s.a england france and canada.can you send me information about crime prevention strategies in your area and your park pleas.
tanks

by masoud on Aug 18, 2011 1:24 am • link • report