28

Attracting Locals Downtown: Everyday Leisure as a Place-Making Initiative

Volume 32, Number 2 pp. 28–42

Journal of Park and Recreation AdministrationSummer 2014

Amanda J. JohnsonTroy D. GloverWilliam P. Stewart

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Many urban centers across North America represent landscapes of neglect and narratives of tragedy. The effects of suburbanization and sprawl have led to the decay and abandonment of existing, older inner cities and have contributed to the demise of many city centers. The process of urban revitalization recognizes that multiple strategies can be employed to reverse the effects of urban decay and create downtown areas that are more appealing to current and prospective residents. The purpose of this study was to examine everyday forms of urban leisure and their relationship with place-making and urban revitalization initiatives. This examination of recreation and leisure in an urban context acknowledges that successful and vibrant downtown areas are major sites of everyday leisure. Here we argue that parks, green spaces, and recreation facilities play an important role in successful urban revitalization strategies. This study was conducted in Kitchener, Ontario, a fast growing mid-sized Canadian city. Using a photo-elicitation technique, 21 participants were asked to photograph meaningful landscapes in the downtown area. Findings indicate that everyday social interactions are supported by recreation and leisure spaces and opportunities and are central to place-making and successful urban revitalization strategies in downtown areas. The participants in this study suggested that incorporating vibrant and animated places and highlighting local character in a downtown context served to create landscapes consistent

emphasis on the economic value of leisure and recreation spaces has led to the widespread growth of impressive, yet often depersonalized, sporting complexes, resorts, shopping and entertainment centers, convention facilities, and amusement parks in urban centers in many urban areas. Instead, efforts aimed at place-making and reversing the effects of urban decay should incorporate the perspective of residents and provide places conducive to social interactions that are unique and important for everyday leisure.

KEYWORDS: urban form, urban vitality, built environment, public space, sociability, visual methods

29

AUTHORS: Amanda J. Johnson is with the Department of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, phone: (204) 474-8629, amanda.johnson@ad.umanitoba.ca. Troy D. Glover is with the Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies at the University of Waterloo. William P. Stewart is with the Department of Recreation, Sport, and Tourism at the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors wish to acknowledge the Social

of this research.

For many urban dwellers, a city’s heart lies in its downtown core. This perception is often coupled with romantic images of vibrant public squares, bustling main streets, and quaint storefronts juxtaposed with scenes of neighborliness, civic pride, and shared identity. Though some cities have successfully preserved downtown landscapes that complement these images, others are unfortunate victims of urban blight, neglect, and sprawl. The

excessive reliance on automobiles for local transportation, and increased segregation of neighborhoods based on class, income, race, and ethnicity (Gurstein, 1995) have taken their toll on downtown landscapes, reducing the prominence of local and small business retailing (Filion, Bunting, & Gertler, 2000) and enticing middle- and upper-income households to relocate to the suburbs (Friedman & Rosenbaum, 2007; Hudnut, 1999; Yeates, 1998). The effects of suburbanization are evident in rural as well as urban areas. Sprawl has led to the decay and abandonment of existing, older inner cities and has contributed to the demise of

has resulted in an increased presence of vacant land, abandoned properties, and urban blight (Schilling & Logan, 2008). Consequently, downtown residents often struggle with physical degradation, the loss of services, social malaise (Ley, 2000), and negative health impacts (Frumkin, 2002; Garden & Jalaludin, 2008).

A number of strategies have been employed to reverse urban abandonment, the decay of urban areas, and shrinking downtown populations. The process of urban revitalization recognizes that multiple strategies can be employed to reverse these trends, make these areas more appealing to current and prospective residents, and encourage a return to the city

endless initiatives aimed at rejuvenating downtown areas. While many diverse urban renewal strategies exist, renewal efforts often rely on attracting tourists to boost the local economy. Tourism focused renewal strategies rely on leisure-related events, services, and amenities, such as the construction of sport facilities, casinos, and convention centers or hosting large-scale events and festivals, and are used to draw outsiders and their money to downtown areas (Silk & Amis, 2005). Under these initiatives, local residents often remain only indirect

Florida’s (2002) seminal work on the rise of the creative class provides evidence that people are attracted to cities because of the available amenities, natural and built, that allow community memberssupport everyday living. Despite this recognition, much of the initial work on urban and leisure spaces has focused on highly visible and spectacular places (Lloyd & Auld, 2003; Mansvelt, 2005). The characteristics of these places, including theme parks, casinos, hotel

30

recognized, however, urban environments play host to tourists as well as local residents. Ultimately, the visible presence of local residents engaged in everyday social

activities creates a vibrant, authentic, and successful urban core, leaving no doubt that downtowns remain major sites of everyday leisure. Rather than focusing exclusively on large-scale events, facilities, and attractions, there is growing interest to examine and understand the everyday experiences of local residents and connect them with downtown revitalization strategies. Parks, green spaces, leisure opportunities, and recreation facilities play an important role in successful revitalization strategies. While the planning literature has addressed the availability of urban amenities and spaces in relation to revitalization initiatives (Chapin, 2004; Ford, 2003; Grodach & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2007), leisure scholars and practitioners have yet to fully assert their own relevance to urban revitalization (Johnson & Glover, 2008). The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine everyday forms of urban leisure and their relationship with place-making initiatives.

Literature ReviewFlorida (2002) provided evidence to suggest opportunities for everyday leisure

people are more likely to move to communities with vibrant music, art, and technology scenes, local coffee shops, outdoor activities, and opportunities for social interaction rather than cities with spectacular leisure attractions, such as sports stadiums, malls, and tourism

hold in revitalization initiatives and leisure circles. Urban revitalization initiatives that foster social interaction are a common

recommendation of place-making research. Place-making is a community based approach to planning and managing public spaces. The focus of place-making is on creating spaces that promote livability, health, and well-being. Developing place is about fostering social and cultural meanings and emotional attachments to a setting. Place-making, therefore,

and reproduced through interpersonal interaction, formalized in social behavior, and

(p. 93). Place-making and urban revitalization initiatives require sensitivity to experiences within physical settings, as well as the interpretation and understanding of human interactions within these environments.

A growing area of scholarship is now aimed at understanding local forces that shape place to improve a community’s ability to make sustainable choices in land use development (Brandenburg & Carroll, 1995; Bridger, 1996; Glover, Stewart, & Gladdys, 2008; Kruger & Shannon, 2000; Williams & Stewart, 1998). Williams and Stewart (1998),

have the potential to make places that align with residents’ values, beliefs, and feelings about their towns and neighborhoods.

Understanding everyday community life means understanding the built environment in which a network of people may be situated. In the case of urban revitalization, the accumulation of experiences with a city’s landscape may provide a foundation to imagine vacant lots and other blighted areas as being desirable places (Lashua, 2013). Stewart

effort to create a place becomes an elaboration of the beliefs and values of some collection

also Stedman, 2003). Place, values, and stories converge to provide useful insights into

31

the development of community-based growth strategies that emphasize local, everyday attributes of the urban environment, as opposed to spectacular leisure resources. To be sure, discussions about urban growth have the potential to embody multiple landscapes,

the way communities and individuals perceive and experience different places, therefore, results in a more complete and contextual representation of urban areas. Recognition that social behavior is related to place is important in understanding how individuals and

Physical characteristics and uses of the built environment also contribute to place-making. Research has demonstrated that characteristics of the built environment support social interaction in urban areas. Such characteristics include sitting space and street furniture (Mehta, 2007; Whyte, 1980), green space and landscaping (Frumkin, 2003; Maas, van Dillen, Verheij, Groenwegen, 2009), and a variety of commercial and public activities (Grodach & Loukaitou-Sideris, 2007; Jacobs, 1961; Loukaitou-Sideris & Banerjee, 1993). Montgomery (1998), however, noted that while physical elements, such as architectural form, scale, landmarks, vistas, meeting places, and open space contribute to urban quality,

play supportive roles in contributing to place-making and form an important basis to areas that are socially stimulating and rich in human experiences (Lloyd & Auld, 2003). To support place-making, people must be encouraged to interact in a social environment. Limited research and evidence exists on downtown areas as sites for everyday activities and social interaction. However, parks and recreation opportunities and resources may be one way to support place-making. This article contributes to this emerging area of research by examining everyday forms of urban leisure and their relationship with place-making.

MethodThe neglect of everyday leisure as a foundation for urban revitalization initiatives may

be attributed to the limited tools available to practitioners to engage citizens in a dialogue about local place meanings and experiences. Understanding reasons residents value their community is at the crux of successful redevelopment strategies (Glover et al., 2008). However, planning processes often remain expert driven and involvement in decision-making processes is not easily accessible to citizens. Fortunately, participatory techniques are available and useful to engage citizens in the visioning of their downtown landscape. Drawing on the community-based model of planning developed by Glover et al. (2008), we used a participatory, photo-elicitation method to understand local landscape values.

The traditional land-use decision making process is a top-down, expert-driven approach. The community-based model of planning, however, recognizes that community

of their own lived experiences with capabilities and entitlements to forward their

methods of community engagement (e.g., public hearings, citizen advisory boards, town hall meetings) are largely ineffective at capturing public sentiment (Glover et al., 2008; Taylor, 2003). Building on the community-based model of planning, the rationale for

images forces research participants to explore the urban landscape and the features that are

of and remembering experiences, past and present. Third, the images are a means through which participants narrate their values and experiences (Glover et al., 2008).

This study was conducted in Kitchener, Ontario, a fast growing mid-sized Canadian city. The city’s rapid population growth and ongoing urban revitalization efforts made it an

32

exceptional site for research on urban development. At the time of this research, Kitchener was undergoing an ambitious planning process to inform the redevelopment of its downtown core. This research project represents one of the initiatives the city used to solicit feedback from local residents. With formal support from the city, one of the researchers attended city meetings where community members were represented to share information about the study and recruit participants. From these meetings, the researchers recruited a purposive sample of 21 individuals who were, in varying ways, concerned about the revitalization and future development of Downtown Kitchener. The sample varied across a range of sociodemographic characteristics and of the 21 participants, six were female and the mean age was 37. Nineteen participants lived in Kitchener; one participant had recently moved away from Kitchener, while the other worked full-time in the downtown area. More than half of the participants (n=17) considered themselves to be actively involved in their local community. Finally, 17 participants were employed full-time, two were unemployed at the time of the interview, and two were full-time students.

Participants were provided with a camera and asked to photograph desirable and undesirable landscapes in the Downtown Kitchener area. By asking participants to portray (in photos) both desirable and undesirable landscapes we were better able to understand conceptions of ideal downtown developments and revitalization strategies. After the photographs were collected, audio-recorded interviews were conducted during which the photographs were used to help us understand the meaning of urban spaces and changes in those meanings as urban revitalization occurs. The lead researcher conducted face-to-face, in-depth interviews to complement the photo-elicitation process and generate qualitative data. We assume that meanings, understandings, and interpretations cannot be standardized (Denzin, 2001) and, instead, are socially constructed. As such, the inherently subjective and socially constructed nature of the phenomena (i.e., leisure, place-making, and urban vitality) is better captured through in-depth interviews and interpretive analysis.

interview technique allowed the researchers to not only better understand place making in an urban environment but also adapt each interview based on the individual participant.

The length of each interview ranged from 30 minutes to almost three hours and primarily depended on the number of images each participant presented for discussion. For example, while one participant presented 10 photographs for discussion, another participant presented more than 100 photographs. Interview questions, therefore, were adapted for each individual participant. To begin the interview, research participants were asked general questions about each photograph, followed by a discussion about the features they documented in their pictures and subsequent inquiries about the impacts of

was taken and (2) what the participant liked or disliked about the landscape represented in the photograph.

Because interpretive research focuses on both the process and content of research, collecting and analyzing data occurred simultaneously (Crotty, 2003; Schwandt, 2007). Thus, the process was iterative, insofar as each interview informed subsequent interviews, including questions and categories. Analysis was conducted by deconstructing the transcribed texts of the conversations with the participants into common themes through an

places, (4) support local business, (5) urban abandonment, (6) leisure spaces, (7) private spaces, (8) safety and security, and (9) people presence. We then merged the themes under

character. Table 1 illustrates the way in which the original themes informed the broader themes.

33

FindingsResults indicated that participants desired downtown development and revitalization

strategies that (1) incorporated vibrant and animated places and (2) highlighted local character. These major themes were emphasized by research participants as important

interaction among local residents and to which people are drawn.

Vibrant and Animated Places

they contributed to place making and conveyed a sense of urban vitality. In particular,

and public (e.g., parks and playgrounds; civic squares) spaces that showcased local residents interacting with one another. Many participants considered the importance of public places that allowed people to interact with one another and suggested that successful places were associated positive meanings, feelings, and experiences, in addition to meaningful social interactions with people.

Most participants believed spaces that held the potential to be vibrant places were

playground area that people rarely visited or used. By exhibiting images such as these, participants recognized the importance of the social characteristics associated with a space. Unused spaces were deemed lifeless and needed to be animated with people to attract even more people to the space. Participants suggested that, although some small parks and areas of the downtown are well maintained, these places required use and visible cues to assure visitors and residents of positive social interactions. While proximity or location of these

Vibrant and Animated Places Local Character Social interaction Unique places Urban abandonment Unique interactions Leisure spaces Support local business Private spaces People presence Safety and security

Table 1

Emerging Themes

Figure 1. Empty playgrounds are a problem in the creation of vibrant places.

34

Despite a general lack of recognition of successful urban places within downtown

participants as a successful and lively urban public space. The City Hall space is designed as a civic square with a coffee shop, outdoor chess tables, seating areas, public rest rooms, and a large water fountain that converts to an ice skating rink during winter months.

think City Hall is a fantastic asset... you know that water feature is great and in the winter

the rest of the downtown area should be modelled after City Hall and include similar social amenities. Sara, for example, explained how she loved the atmosphere created by

2). Features such as chess tables, benches, a café, and food carts were highlighted for their roles in encouraging social interaction and facilitating leisure activities. Natasha pointed to

that incorporated a mix of casual, everyday activities.

Figure 2. City Hall is an example of a vibrant place.

Commercial spaces were also recognized as places for people to interact and socialize in the downtown area. These spaces were often reframed by participants as public and accessible spaces. For example, street level restaurants with patio seating, comfortable and inviting street furniture dispersed throughout the downtown core, green spaces, and areas for informal gatherings were common recommendations for improving the feel of

you actually see a wide open area, music, people out there enjoying themselves, having

commented on an area of downtown that maintained the physical characteristics of other successful places, but was not inviting because people were not using the space. Natasha

sitting outside, but it is also conducive to a mix of people. The only thing that I thought

35

should also include an area where people are comfortable, visible, and interacting in their environment.

Figure 3. Social spaces allow pedestrians to see people enjoying themselves.

Participants indicated that vacant store fronts and large open areas with no discernible features discouraged positive social interaction. In addressing the downtown’s poor image,

been abandoned. Speaking about the ease of walking to the local farmers’ market located in the downtown area, Peter implied that neglected landscapes make the entire downtown area appear less pedestrian friendly and less welcoming to residents and tourists alike. As Shirley suggested, vacant lots and buildings reduce the number of useful places and makes living, working, and playing in downtown less pleasant.

While public parks and civic areas were viewed as valuable urban amenities, participants insisted they must be visible and accessible to passersby. As Duncan suggested,

In general, participants believed a landscape that provided vibrant and lively places would attract them to the downtown and encourage them to remain. Ultimately, for participants, the visual presence of people engaged in everyday social activities creates a vibrant and successful downtown. In this way, residents may not utilize all downtown amenities, but knowing that such amenities were used in meaningful ways was considered important.

36

Local Character

making. Here participants stressed the importance of places unique to the Kitchener

Leisure spaces were believed to facilitate unique interactions and create local character within the urban environment. Participants believed the downtown should include commercial spaces mixed with leisure opportunities and spaces. Some participants suggested the urban center should be a place where local retailers offer their products and services to residents of the downtown area. Unlike big box stores and chain retailers prevalent in the suburban areas of the city, the participants suggested independently owned stores and shops were important for a leisure experience in the downtown area. These local stores and shops create a unique place to visit and amount to a destination. Sara lamented the loss of these businesses in downtown and viewed them as a draw for local residents

Figures 4 and 5. Neglected landscapes are a problem in creating a vibrant urban landscape.

37

because of their one-of-a-kind status. Recognizing the loss of local retail opportunities in

shopping there when I was a little girl. It had a fabulous restaurant in the basement, and you felt like you were all grown up when your mother took you to Goudy’s and had lunch in the

Participants acknowledged attempts to create landscapes to encourage these unique interactions. However, most felt little was being done to address this need. Shelly, for

positive thing that they are doing for the downtown core, but if they want to build the downtown and make it a place that people want to come to live and visit then they need

different than other downtown areas, but also different than other areas of the city. Similarly, Peter talked about how the downtown area must be designed to encourage interactions

Figure 6. Seeing the

unique interaction.

While social interactions were recognized as incentives for people to go downtown to visit and to reside, they were also believed to be necessary to create local character. As

for them to do and see. I mean they can get out of their condominiums, they can go over there, there’s park benches there, take a book along for two hours and sit there and read the

recognized the importance of unique spaces where people can interact in both their work

almost life-size chess board is a fantastic draw and the whole chess club and you watch

and what’s funny about it too, is you have some very exact opposites sitting at the same

38

character of the downtown area was appreciated by the participants, most recognized the need for opportunities and environmental features that facilitate and support unique social interactions in the downtown area. These features include amenities related to leisure

In general, participants acknowledged that an emphasis must be placed on unique places and local character to draw visitors and residents to the downtown area. In addition, publicly accessed amenities such as coffee shops, gathering spaces, parks, and playgrounds create opportunities for social interaction and contribute to public place-making. Local character and social interactions were recognized as factors that make a downtown area special, different, and attractive to local residents.

Discussion and ImplicationsThe participants in this study suggested that incorporating vibrant and animated

places and highlighting local character in a downtown context served to create landscapes consistent with place-making efforts. Findings indicated everyday leisure activities, such as sitting, strolling, and socializing, are central to maintaining vibrant places in a downtown context. In this way, formalized efforts toward place-making incorporate the perspective of residents and provide places conducive to social interactions that are unique and important for everyday leisure.

themselves are critical factors in attracting people to downtown areas. These amenities are often leisure related and include an emphasis on street life with the availability of coffee

plazas with water features, outdoor eating areas, places with vistas to see and be seen, and inviting urban parks and open spaces are examples of sites where residents may have positive leisure experiences and social interactions over time, allowing them to create and accumulate places meanings. These aspects of place-making are important to recreation professionals who are involved in decisions related to where and how urban amenities are located and utilized.

Findings of this study are consistent with the growing literature on localizing everyday experiences. Social interactions contribute to how an individual constructs place meanings. Accordingly, everyday social interactions are crucial to successful urban place-making strategies in downtown areas. The overall success of a downtown depends on these social interactions. Many of these social interactions occur in a leisure setting (e.g., parks, coffee shops, civic centers) and during leisure time. Findings indicate that in addition to design or location, public spaces are become meaningful based on use (Johnson & Glover, 2013). Participants in this research agreed that places need to be animated to support everyday living and everyday activities. Bairner (2011), for example, discussed the importance of leisurely walking by highlighting the role of the

one participant in this research, the street and social interactions supported by the street are meaningful components of place-making.

As Lloyd and Auld (2003) suggested, increased emphasis on the economic value of leisure space has resulted in a growth in urban sports stadiums, resorts, shopping and entertainment centers, hotels, and amusement centers. These mega-developments often are built with little or no consideration to increase the capacity to foster everyday social interaction among residents. Yet, noticeably absent from participant photos in this study

2005, p. 7) such as theme parks, sporting complexes, or major tourist attractions. Instead,

parks, and visible outdoor areas of the downtown landscape. Of particular importance

39

tastes of those individuals who occupy the space. In this case, while participants openly acknowledged and appreciated the absence of chain establishments, there was general recognition that mixed land use is required for a vibrant and successful downtown.

Accordingly, unique social interactions enhance place-making opportunities that contribute to a vibrant downtown area. These interactions may be between people

places, participants considered the presence of generic commercial franchises found in many cities and most suburban areas to detract from a desirable sense of place. The social experiences provided by unique places, by contrast, were believed to create vibrant places

presence of people on the street, but also the nature of the interaction. In both cases, the place supported a unique set of the interactions that could not be experienced across other, more generic or commercial, landscapes.

Participants also desire meaningful and unique social interactions in downtown spaces. In this way, everyday leisure and recreation opportunities play a fundamental role to create a sense of place and place-making (Relph, 1976).When landscapes are not used by the people who live, work, and play within them, sense of place diminishes due to the lack of opportunities for residents to develop memories in the them and attribute meaning

associated with a physical location (Relph, 1976). Feelings of placelessness, therefore, result in reduced sustainability and vitality. Findings of this research suggest that social interaction through provision of public leisure spaces invites social interaction that, in turn, leads residents to create their sense of place. Successful urban revitalization initiatives, must consider place-making opportunities to ensure a vibrant city life with unique social interactions. Whitson (2004) suggested that while some cities host mega-events (such as Olympic Games, World Expositions, and other international events) to increase economic

instead suggested everyday places, such as parks and civic squares contribute to feelings of liveliness and vitality in urban areas.

untainted memory of the past. In other words, participants in this study pointed to the importance of positive and/or safe interactions in the urban environment. Participants, for example, discussed their aspirations for positive relationships with places and the people who interact within the place. Such interactions could be described as sanitized leisure experiences. While participants did point to some negative aspects of the downtown

what was undesirable. While urban landscapes are often conceptualized as authentic or uncompromised (Zukin, 2008), participants acknowledged the need to feel secure and safe in the downtown area. These ideas of safety and security were often juxtaposed against the types of people and places with whom interaction is not desirable. In other words, sanitized leisure places and experiences were important indicators of a vibrant downtown. Although this study did not consider questions related to public legitimation of Downtown

socially-conscious community.Our methods were grounded in understanding the meaning of local character in the

a top-down, expert-driven approach. A community-based model of land-use planning, however, focuses on the knowledge of experts while incorporating the voices of the people and the community affected by the landscape change (Glover et al., 2008). The methods

40

diverse uses and values of park space and preserving and enhancing the unique qualities

therefore, is a positive step away from expert-based planning decisions surrounding urban revitalization initiatives and land-use planning decisions.

Conclusion Following concerns about landscape change and the future viability of urban areas,

development of a lively downtown. Our participants argued vibrant, livable downtown areas

to the widespread growth of impressive, yet often depersonalized, sporting complexes, resorts, shopping and entertainment centers, convention facilities, and amusement parks in urban centers in many urban areas (Lloyd & Auld, 2003). Such amenities, however, are largely aimed at attracting tourists, rather than enhancing community life for local residents. When local residents are asked to articulate the types of urban environments

and social interactions. While contemporary urban life has seemingly been overtaken

control), local residents and other visitors to downtown desire unique social places that provide experiences and ways to create and share place meanings Leisure researchers and practitioners are encouraged to approach place-making from a perspective that highlights everyday leisure experiences of local residents.

Results of this research suggest place-making is based on the provision, location, and type of unique spaces in a downtown landscape where people participate in everyday leisure. These spaces deserve further attention by the leisure research community and recreation professionals. Crompton (2000) described positioning as the public’s perception of leisure or recreation amenities and services relative to other social services funded or subsidized by tax dollars. To ensure support for recreation, it is often the role of recreation

2000, p. 67–68). Results of this research suggest leisure scholars and practitioners should also consider the important role of recreation resources as contributors of place-making and other urban revitalization initiatives. Accordingly, leisure scholars and practitioners must recognize the importance of the built environment in relation to leisure amenities and everyday urban living.

ReferencesBairner, A. (2001). Urban walking and the pedagogies of the street. Sport, Education, and

Society, 16(3), 371–384.

urban sprawl is undermining America’s environment, economy and social fabric. New York: Natural Resources Defense Council.

Brandenburg, A., & Carroll, M. (1995). Your place or mine?: The effect of place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society and Natural Resources, 8, 381–398.

Bridger, J. C. (1996). Community imagery and the built environment. The Sociological Quarterly, 37(3), 353–374.

Chapin, T. S. (2004). Sport facilities are urban redevelopment catalysts. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(2), 193–209.

41

in natural resource politics: Propositions for a social science agenda. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 87–104.

Crompton, J. L. (2000). Repositioning leisure services. Managing Leisure, 5(2), 65–75.Crotty, M. (2003).

research process. London: Sage.Denzin, N. K. (2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Filion, P., Bunting, T., & Gertler, L. (2000). Cities and transition: Changing patterns of

urban growth and form in Canada. In T. Bunting & P. Filion (Eds.), Canadian cities (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–25). Toronto, ON: Canadian

Oxford Press.Florida, R. (2002).

community, and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Florida, R. (2003). Cities and the creative class. City & Community, 2, 3–19.Ford, L. (2003). Baltimore,

MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Friedman, S., & Rosenbaum, E. (2007). Does suburban residence mean better neighborhood

ethnicity. Social Science Research, 36(1), 1–27. Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban sprawl and public health. , 201–217.Frumkin, H. (2003). Healthy places: Exploring the evidence. American Journal of Public

(9), 1451–1456.Garden, F. L., & Jalaludin, B. B. (2008). Impact of urban sprawl on overweight, obesity,

and physical activity in Sydney, Australia. , 19–30. Glover, T. D., Stewart, W. P., & Gladdys, K. (2008). Social ethics of landscape change:

Toward a community-based model of land-use planning. Qualitative Inquiry, 40(3), 360–384.

Greider, T., & Garkovich, L. (1994). Landscapes: The social construction of nature and the environment. Rural Sociology, , 1–24.

Grodach, C., & Loukaitou-Siders, A. (2007). Cultural development strategies and urban revitalization: A survey of US cities. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 13(4), 349–370.

Gurstein, P. (1995). The role of urban design in the creation of sustainable communities. In C. Charette (Ed.), Issues in Canadian Urban Design (pp. 45–61). Winnipeg, MB: Institute of Urban Studies.

Hudnut, W.H. (1999). Smart growth in a three-tiered city. Urban Land, 58(8), 20–23.Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House.Johnson, A. J. & Glover, T. D. (2008, October). Leisure and the metropolis: Advancing an

urban agenda in leisure studies. In A. Thibeault (Ed.), 2008 World Leisure Conference, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

Johnson, A. J., & Glover, T. D. (2013). Understanding urban public space in a leisure context. Leisure Sciences, 35(2), 190–197.

Kruger, L. E., & Shannon, M. A. (2000). Getting to know ourselves and our places through participation in civic science assessment. Society & Natural Resources, 13, 461–478.

Ley, D. (2000). The Inner City. In T. Bunting & P. Filion (Eds.), Canadian cities in (2nd ed., pp. 274–302). Toronto: Canadian

Oxford Press. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. & Banerjee, T. (1993). The negotiated plaza: Design and development

of corporate open space in downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 13, 1–12.

Lloyd, K. M., & Auld, C. J. (2003). Leisure, public space and quality of life in the urban environment. Urban Policy and Research, 21(4), 339–356.

Mansvelt, J. (2005). Geographies of consumption. London: Sage Publications.

42

Maas, J., van Dillen, S. M. E., Verheij, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. and Place, 15(2), 586–595.

Mehta, V. (2007). Lively streets: Determining environmental characteristics to support social behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, 165–187.

Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city: Urbanity, vitality and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 3, 93–116.

Mowl, G., & Towner, J. (1995). Women, gender, leisure, and place: Towards a more Leisure Studies, 14, 102–116.

Rieniets, T. (2009). Shrinking cities: Causes of effects of urban population losses in the twentieth century. Nature and Culture, 4(3), 231–254.

Ritzer, G. (2004). . Los Angeles, CA: Pine Forge Press.Ritzer, G. (2005).

world (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Schilling, J., & Logan, J.. (2008). Greening the Rust Belt: A green infrastructure model for

right sizing America’s shrinking cities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 451–466.

Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Silk, M. L., & Amis, J. (2005). Sport tourism, cityscapes and cultural politics. Sport in Society, 8(2), 280–381.

Stedman, R. C. (2003). Is it really just a social construction?: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 671–685.

Stewart, W., Barkley, J., Kerins, A., Gladdys, K., & Glover, T. (2007). Park development on the urban-agricultural fringe. (4), 117–138.

Stokowski, P. A. (2002). Languages of place and discourses of power: Constructing new senses of place. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(4), 368–393.

Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces, Inc.

a home in ecosystem management. , (5), 18–23.Yeates, M. (1998). The North American city (5th ed.). Toronto, ON: Longman.Zukin, S. (2008). Consuming authenticity: From outposts of difference to means of

exclusion. Cultural Studies, 22(5), 725–748.

Copyright of Journal of Park & Recreation Administration is the property of SagamoreJournals and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.