Image sources (from left to right): hopkinsmn.com (images 1-3), https://www.threeriversparks.org/ninemilecreekrt
ABOUT OUR PROJECT:
The city of Hopkins’ 19 parks and natural spaces are limitlessly valued by its citizens, visitors, and local businesses. Park and natural areas contribute numerous services to Hopkins citizens, including providing space for recreational activities, community gathering, and immersing oneself in nature. Beyond serving as pivotal community resources, Hopkins parks are critical in protecting the city’s natural resources by presenting educational and resource management opportunities (Hopkins Comprehensive Plan, 2020). As Hopkins’ demographics change, however, so too do the desires of Hopkin’s residents, especially in regards to the city’s park areas. Discussion surrounding public parks has transformed with the city of Hopkins as discussion shifts to promoting park accessibility, sustainability, and equity (Race Equity in Hopkins, 2020).
Seventeen percent of Hopkins’ population identify as people of color (US Census, 2010). These demographics are expected to diversify further with future public transportation and light rail development. Additionally, Hopkins residences, which are chiefly made up of single-family homes (City of Hopkins), are largely renter-occupied (US Census, 2010), giving rise to residents’ frequent turnover. Gathering feedback from these shifting and often under-served populations is critical to ensure that park development in future years includes the preferences of Hopkins’ dynamic and diverse communities (Hopkins Comprehensive Plan, 2020). This project aims to promote equitable, accessible public spaces and natural areas in the city of Hopkins. With guidance from the Hopkins’ city officials and partners, Group 8 of the University of Minnesota ESPM 4041W class aims to create an extensive, deliberate planning path for Hopkins’ parks that supports the goals outlined in the 2040 Hopkins Comprehensive plan.
Seventeen percent of Hopkins’ population identify as people of color (US Census, 2010). These demographics are expected to diversify further with future public transportation and light rail development. Additionally, Hopkins residences, which are chiefly made up of single-family homes (City of Hopkins), are largely renter-occupied (US Census, 2010), giving rise to residents’ frequent turnover. Gathering feedback from these shifting and often under-served populations is critical to ensure that park development in future years includes the preferences of Hopkins’ dynamic and diverse communities (Hopkins Comprehensive Plan, 2020). This project aims to promote equitable, accessible public spaces and natural areas in the city of Hopkins. With guidance from the Hopkins’ city officials and partners, Group 8 of the University of Minnesota ESPM 4041W class aims to create an extensive, deliberate planning path for Hopkins’ parks that supports the goals outlined in the 2040 Hopkins Comprehensive plan.
OUR GOALS
To develop equitable and efficient tools to assist the city of Hopkins in park planning to meet current and future residents’ needs.
|
Image: Screenshot of Hopkins Park Use Survey
|
METHODS
To holistically understand the Hopkins park system and community and accurately recommend areas of improvement to the city of Hopkins, we engaged a multipronged strategy:
- Review of Hopkins 2040 Comprehensive Plan
- Case study investigation of privately-owned public spaces
- Key informant interviews with diverse experts
- Community engagement through park board meetings
- Mapping barriers to Hopkins park access across demographics
RECOMMENDATIONS
Inclusively evaluate current park engagement through community-adapted tools.
The attached survey should be offered in multiple languages, specifically English, Somali, and Spanish, and distributed in person with the support of local community leaders and given in a face-to-face intimate setting if possible.
In-person survey distribution should be focused in highly diverse neighborhoods, including the area east of Highway 169 and north of Excelsior Boulevard and the area east of Blake Road S. and south of N. Cedar Lake Regional Trail. We recommend partnering with trusted community leaders to informally promote the survey by word-of-mouth and hiring people from these communities that are “ethnically and/or linguistically matched” with residents to distribute the survey.
The attached survey should be offered in multiple languages, specifically English, Somali, and Spanish, and distributed in person with the support of local community leaders and given in a face-to-face intimate setting if possible.
In-person survey distribution should be focused in highly diverse neighborhoods, including the area east of Highway 169 and north of Excelsior Boulevard and the area east of Blake Road S. and south of N. Cedar Lake Regional Trail. We recommend partnering with trusted community leaders to informally promote the survey by word-of-mouth and hiring people from these communities that are “ethnically and/or linguistically matched” with residents to distribute the survey.
Strategically implement trails and amenities to overcome barriers and increase accessibility.
Park inclusivity can be maximized through accessible trail design, park amenities updates that cater to people with disabilities, culturally appropriate amenities, amenities that cater to diverse age groups, and distribution of educational materials that help to overcome psychological barriers to park access. To cater to the relatively large number of residents of Southeast Asian heritage in Hopkins, we recommend considering the inclusion of sepak takraw (a traditional Southeast Asian sport) courts in Cottageville Park and Oakes Parks, where the surrounding communities are more than forty percent Asian. Older populations can be catered to through alternative sports and activities that are promoted by the inclusion of pickleball courts, equipment rentals for items such as bocce ball or horseshoes, or passive recreation such as walking groups, trash cleanup, or nature observation. For increased accessibility, park signs, maps, and other informational materials could also include other languages used in the area. This would greatly improve the knowledge-based accessibility of Hopkins’ park amenities and infrastructure across cultures. |
Figure: Hopkins' Parks Distribution Across Demographics (function of white-only identification)
|
Avoid the creation of privately-owned public space.
Nearly all Hopkins households are within a 0.5-mile radius of a park, and past surveys from 2013 have shown that many Hopkins citizens feel their needs are met by current park infrastructure. Because of this, we do not believe there is a substantial need to create more park space in the city of Hopkins.
Despite the indisputable benefits of increased park space, privately-owned public space has been found to be exclusionary and may have irreversible community consequences. Developers of privately-owned spaces have the capacity to establish infrastructure that is restrictive to particular populations. There is also potential for the ‘pricing-out’ of Hopkins’ diverse neighborhoods that outweighs the marginal benefits that would be seen with the incentivization and implementation of privately-owned public spaces.
Nearly all Hopkins households are within a 0.5-mile radius of a park, and past surveys from 2013 have shown that many Hopkins citizens feel their needs are met by current park infrastructure. Because of this, we do not believe there is a substantial need to create more park space in the city of Hopkins.
Despite the indisputable benefits of increased park space, privately-owned public space has been found to be exclusionary and may have irreversible community consequences. Developers of privately-owned spaces have the capacity to establish infrastructure that is restrictive to particular populations. There is also potential for the ‘pricing-out’ of Hopkins’ diverse neighborhoods that outweighs the marginal benefits that would be seen with the incentivization and implementation of privately-owned public spaces.
Utilize a combination of funding sources for park improvement projects.
Due to the lack of community resources, it is essential to creatively combine funding sources to allow for the creation of trails and the update of park amenities without increasing the taxes of Hopkins residents. Multiple private funding sources can be engaged, including grants, equipment rental, and corporate sponsorship. Grants provide the largest single source funding option. The adjacent table (Table 1) outlines seven grants that fit Hopkins’ funding needs for trails, outdoor recreation, and park programming. The funding source that would take the least effort would be equipment rentals, as this only entails purchasing equipment and hiring employees or having current employees in charge of rentals. Another potential funding source is mutually beneficial partnerships with corporations where the corporation sponsors a park or park program through funding and they are provided with marketing opportunities in exchange. |
Full Report:
Park Use Assessment and Imaginary Full Report | |
File Size: | 1346 kb |
File Type: | docx |