Making Space: An Exploration of Parklets in North America and Vancouver
Making Space: An Exploration of Parklets in North America and Vancouver Kathleen Corey University of Guelph, 2014 Advisor: Nathan Perkins University of Guelph In the last few decades many municipalities have temporarily closed streets to vehicular traffic to open them to people and foster community. More recently, New York and San Francisco introduced pop-up parks to street rights-of-way, initially as plazas reclaimed from excess road space. On a smaller scale, ‘parklets’ are a response to people’s desires to repurpose parking stalls for community spaces. In June 2013, VIVA Vancouver launched its stand-alone Parklet Pilot Program. The parklet application and design process was examined using an action research case study method for one of the first parklets to be built under the program by PWL Partnership. San Francisco and Vancouver parklets were mapped and compared. Findings reveal that parklets begin as business sponsored projects and over time evolve into community partnerships. Recommendations have been developed for emerging and established programs across North America.
Punching above their weight: the ecological and social benefits of pop‐up parks
Current global enthusiasm for urban greening and bringing nature back into cities is unprecedented. Evidence of the socioecological benefits of large, permanent greenspaces is mounting, but the collective potential for pop-up parks (PUPs) small, temporary greenspaces to augment urban ecosystem services is unknown. To showcase the potential of PUPs, we first highlight a case study demonstrating how PUPs may enhance biodiversity in a densely urbanized area; we then review evidence linking the design of small greenspaces with positive social outcomes, including benefits to human well-being. Finally, we emphasize how PUPs can function as socioecological laboratories to help inform urban design, and then propose a research agenda to better understand how PUPs may be optimally designed to provide benefits to humans and other species.
PLANNING: LESSONS FROM THE U.S.S.R.
Evaluation of the success of a plan requires the collection of statistics and indicators for monitoring purposes. In the health care field, outcomes are notoriously difficult to measure. 
 
To the extent that a successful program of prevention should result in providing less of a service, a conflict exists between planning and prevention: in the absence of outcome measures, success will be indistinguishable from failure, as in both cases, planned targets would not be met. To avoid this dilemma, an indicator-oriented planning system would be predicted to operationalize prevention in countable terms requiring increased inputs, or increased numbers of processes, regardless of the payoffs in health benefits. Screening, check-ups, and one-on-one contacts with health professionals would be emphasized at the expense of group-oriented activities or societal changes. Planning can thus have counter-productive policy implications. 
 
This theory is illustrated by reference to the current health care system in the U.S.S.R., including their anti-smoking and anti-alcoholism programmes.