History
Nichols Park Wildflower Meadow - an Urban Habitat Construction Project
In a world where ecosystems are constantly being degraded, it is crucial that we restore damaged natural areas, or even invest in constructing entirely new ones. Ecological restoration can be defined as the “process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (SER 2019). It has been proven to “improve the biological diversity on degraded landscapes, increase the populations and distribution of rare and threatened species, increase the availability of environmental goods and services, and contribute to the improvement of human well being” (Gann et al. 2006). An ecosystem is often restored to a historic point in time before it was affected by humans. However, especially in urban areas, it is basically impossible to restore back to the original historic state of an ecosystem. This is why, over the past few decades, there have been a number of new urban habitat construction projects, where entire ecosystems are created from scratch. These projects can be classified under restoration, as they provide similar benefits to the environment, but they originate in very different ways. Instead of being derived from historic ecosystems, the ecosystems that are created here can be classified as “novel ecosystems”. A novel ecosystem refers to “system of abiotic, biotic, and social components (and their interactions) that, by virtue of human influence, differs from those that prevailed historically” (Hobbs et al. 2013). Many ecosystems will be greatly affected by climate change in the future, and it is therefore important to examine how restoration practices will have to adapt to this as well. Often it will become impossible to restore back to a specific point in time, and habitat construction projects will be a good way to provide benefits to a number of different species in the future. The Nichols Park Wildflower Meadow is a great example for an urban habitat construction project that contains a novel ecosystem. It is only a very small part of Nichols Park, which is situated in Hyde Park, Chicago. The plants that were chosen for this site can be found in a natural prairie environment. The site provides a habitat for a number of plants native to the Midwest and the introduction of any non native species is avoided. The project’s main goal consists of creating a natural habitat for native
species, but also providing a resting spot for insect and birds. Although a series of obstacles had to be overcome during the development of the project, it provides a number of benefits to its surrounding environment today. But does this site, as an urban construction project, provide the same advantages as a classic restoration project would? In other words, can we classify this site as an overall success?
First of all, it is important to determine how we can measure the success of a restoration site. There are a series of different elements that factor into this. For example, “although ecologists often focus on ecological factors such as species diversity, vegetation structure, and ecosystem processes to evaluate the success of their efforts, it is being increasingly acknowledged that program success also depends upon addressing social factors such as how a restoration looks and how it can be used by the public” (Gobster et al. 2016). This means that not only is the success of a restoration site measured by its contribution to biodiversity and the benefits it provides to its natural environment, but there is also a social aspect. The success of a restoration site greatly depends on how much public support it gets. For instance, “support can be especially critical in urban settings where stakeholders recreate in or reside near natural areas but may lack familiarity with practices for managing ecological processes” (Gobster et al. 2016). One of the main principles of a successful restoration project as listed in the SER guidelines is engaging the stakeholders in the project. Ecological restoration projects should “recognize and acknowledge the interests and contributions of diverse stakeholders, particularly local stakeholders, and actively seek their direct involvement to provide mutual benefits to both nature and society” (SER 2019). As community members often play a crucial role in the development of urban restoration projects, another important measure of success is how well the community and the government department in charge of the site work together. Finally, in the era of climate change, it is important for restoration projects to stay flexible and open to changes. “Ecological responses to climate change may include altered species ranges,
disassembly of contemporary multispecies communities, and biome shifts driven by elevated
mortality” (Falk et al. 2016). For the project to be a complete success, the restoration process at this site should be easily adaptable to these changes.
The history of the development at the Nichols Wildflower Meadow is critical in determining the success of this project. Before there was Nichols Park, the area was a mix of commercial and residential land. The park was created as a part of the Urban Renewal project and now contains a number of elements such as playgrounds and community gardens. The wildflower meadow itself was a mainly community-driven project. Even today, the project depends on volunteers to perform regular maintenance and organise occasional community workdays. While the Hyde Park Garden Fair Committee authorised the financial support for it, the entire planning process was overseen by community members. Since the beginning of the project, the Chicago Park District has periodically been involved in the site. However, several of the project’s stewards and community members are of the opinion that, at certain times, the Chicago Park District proved to be holding the project back more than it was supporting it. Before community members took control of the project in 2003, several gardening companies were hired by the Chicago Park District to create and maintain the land but were unsuccessful. According to the community leaders of the project at that time, this was because they had insufficient knowledge on native and non-native plant species and how to manage them. However, in more recent years, the Chicago Park district has become involved in the project again and the relationship with the community has greatly improved. But, even today, the two parties seem to not be communicating openly with each other. For example, the current volunteers on the project are concerned about not enough burns being conducted on the site, but, after contacting the Park District, I found out that there are a number of valid reasons for this. I, therefore, believe that the project can only be classified as a complete success if the community and the Park District are completely on the same page about what is happening at the site. This essay will analyse the history and process of habitat construction at the Nichols Wildflower
Meadow in order to determine how much of a success it is.
Before we look at the origins of the project, it is helpful to examine what the area looked like before there was Nichols Park. The land in question is situated between 55th and 53rd street and along Kenwood and Kimbark street. The future Nichols Park area used to be very densely populated, especially during the second world war. By the 1950s, the majority of the housing was sub-divided. There were even a number of “flophouses”, which are places that offer very low-cost lodging consisting of a place to sleep and minimal amenities. However, there were also parts with higher-quality housing. Moreover, a shopping and nightlife area could be found at the south edge of the park. The area even had a landmark, the Lutheran Church, but it burned down shortly before the area was cleared.
In 1963, the Chicago Park District obtained more than 6 acres of land (what would soon become Nichols Park) in Hyde Park from the city’s Department of Urban Renewal. Hyde Park was a slowly deteriorating neighbourhood at the time, and the Park District greatly improved this area by introducing a number of elements such as tennis courts, play areas and walkways. Although the Park District continued to expand the park throughout the next decade, many acres of cleared land remained undeveloped for years.
Most of the undeveloped land was situated at the north end of the park between 54th and 53rd street. The so-called Murray lot had been deeded to the local school but the school board had never made use of the land as school property. As a result of this, the school board and the city made an exchange so the city could take possession of the lot. In the mid-1980s, it was recommended by the Hyde Park Development Corporation that this land be used for stores and upscale townhouses. However, the majority of the neighbourhood residents were against this and favored a further expansion of Nichols Park. Starting in 1985, there was a “six year battle” (S. Franklin, pers. comm., Nov. 19), as described by Stephanie Franklin, one of the community leaders of the Murray lot project at the time. During this six year referendum fight, the community persistently lobbied for
the expansion of Nichols Park and eventually convinced the City Council to approve this
expansion.
After the Park District acquired this new property in 1991, the park consisted of more than 10 acres. Here is a map of Nichols Park today to make things more clear:
Fig 1. Map of Nichols Park. Credit: Google Maps
The Murray Lot (area that
remained undeveloped for a long
time
Native Plant section
Wildflower Meadow
The area of the park that was developed first
On the Nichols Park website it says that, “the later-realised Wildflower Meadow was built largely by community volunteers in conjunction with the Park District” (Hyde Park 2019). But as Stephanie Franklin informed me, it was not that simple.
According to her, there was a park designer who had planned out three different sections for the vacant Murray lot. There was to be a formal area, a lawn and then a native plant section in the west (as seen on the map above), which the wildflower meadow later became a part of. Specifically for the meadow, the Park District hired three different landscape contractors on separate occasions to plant native plants. However, the plants that were planted did not necessarily turn out to be native plants. For example, they planted things like Chicory, which is a wildflower, but not a native one. Furthermore, the contractor was supposed to do the planting work and then come back periodically to weed and maintain it. None of the contractors ever returned. In other words, the meadow got planted, but it never got weeded or taken care of in any way. Soon enough, it became simply a patch of weeds; a mixture of native and non-native plants. However, the Park District had a natural areas manager at this time, who was, according to the steward at that time, very good at her job. She worked hard to get the project started up again. Here is an extract from a report she wrote in 1996 that I found in the early correspondence documents between the Park District and the community leaders of the project:
Figure 2. Report from Park District Naturalist in 1996 Credit: Chicago Park District inter-office correspondence documents
It supports the point that the area was overrun with weeds at the time and that the wildflower meadow had not been successfully created yet.
Unfortunately, this natural areas manager was let go in 2003 and nobody remained in this position, meaning that there was no specialist from the Park District that could provide assistance on the project. On top of this, the Park District then disbanded what had been the beginnings of their natural areas program. As a result of this, nobody continued the work on the meadow, which at this point had become a patch of “miscellaneous nothing flowers” (S. Franklin, pers. comm., Nov. 19). At this point, the Nichols Park advisory council and the Hyde Park Garden Fair, who were the main supporters of the wildflower meadow project at the time, decided to take the situation into their own hands. And that was when everything really started.
Franklin describes how, even though a few of the volunteers did not have a lot of knowledge on gardening and native plants in the beginning, the project succeeded by combining everyone’s knowledge and pooling all of their resources. Most of the members of the Advisory Council had almost no knowledge of native plants, but many members of the Garden Fair Committee, including the first steward of the project Carol Schneider, already had significant knowledge on the subject. They succeeded in getting a grant of ten thousand dollars from the Southeast Chicago Commission and began to intensely research native plants. The planning process, however, was by no means simple. The members of the project started by drawing a map of the entire meadow. They proceeded to grid it and number it in squares. Overall, the site was 0.28 acres large. These squares (there were around 85 of them) were then used to indicate which areas of the meadow were high or low, which areas were in the shade or in the sun, etc. This was important because the areas that are lower have wetter soil, and specific plants such as Irises prefer this environment to grow in. Carol Schneider recounts that “we marked off areas where each plant group would go; it took a long time and because the site was new, we could not know many factors that would be good or bad for the specific plants---drainage, light, soil type” (C. Schneider, pers. comm., Nov. 19). A list of all the desired plants was made, and then, with the help of community volunteers, they were planted
throughout the course of three weekend workdays. Around 100 different plants were ordered and
after they had all had been put into the earth, the site still had to be watered for several weeks. Here are some examples of the plants that were ordered for 2003:
Fig.3 List of plant orderings for 2003 Credit: Chicago Park District
inter-office correspondence documents
You can see that the plants are divided into two sections, depending if they need sun or shade to grow.
This project provides the perfect example for how important volunteer efforts in restoration projects truly are. Without the highly motivated and persistent community members that were involved in the development of this site, the Murray lot, which includes the wildflower meadow, would now most likely consist of townhouses and a shopping mall. Citizens are often so enthusiastic about getting involved in restoration projects as they “see the results of their efforts and benefit directly from them” (Cairns 1993). A big part of how successful a restoration project is depends on how appealing it is to the public. With urban habitat construction projects it is often not the main focus to restore an ecosystem back to how it once was. Instead, a new one is constructed that will be visually appealing to the public, while still providing benefits to the natural environment. Many people like the wildflower meadow specifically because it is so beautiful to look at and because children have fun playing next to it. In addition, for several decades now, “public disenchantment with and distrust in the traditional top-down, expert-driven style of decision making in the U.S. has spurred initiatives aimed at giving the public a voice in government” (Davenport et al. 2006). This is reflected in the development of the wildflower meadow. When the public started pushing back on the idea of building infrastructure on the lot, they were heard and eventually allowed to plan the creation of a natural area. The development of the wildflower meadow would, therefore, not have been possible without the voice of the public. The fact that the public had so much power when it came to the development of this site is one of the things that makes it most successful.
The creation of the wildflower meadow had a number of different goals. First and foremost, the site was meant to be a showcase of native North American Prairie plants. Some of these plants include culver’s root, obedient plant, swamp milkweed, butterfly weed, and rattlesnake master. The area is defined as a bonafide natural area by the city, which means that all the invasive plants are taken out and only native plants are planted. But this is not the only goal of the project. The site also creates a rest stop for many critters such as bees, birds and butterflies. In the past few years, for example, volunteers have planted large amounts of milkweed which has led to a boost in the Monarch butterfly population. This is because milkweeds are the host plants that monarch butterfly caterpillars need (female monarchs lay their eggs on milkweeds). But their flowers also provide nectar for bees, butterflies, and other insects. Additionally, a big portion of the plants carry seeds that provide food for many birds such as sparrows. The site also often attracts rabbits and has even attracted the first hawks to come into the park. The hawks feed on smaller mammals that are attracted to the wildflowers such as rats, squirrels and rabbits. So, even though the site is so small, it provides huge benefits to the local wildlife. Finally, the wildflower meadow also has a community function. Many volunteers invest their time in this site and get to see that there really is a purpose in restoration projects. In addition, there are often high school students that fulfil their volunteer hours at this site. Educating young people on the importance of restoration projects could have great positive impacts on our environment in the long-run. By involving them in real-life restoration work and not just teaching them about it they can see for themselves what a big difference restoration projects can make.
It is important to look at the current process of restoration at the site and how this process has changed over time. Just as ecosystems are constantly evolving, so do restoration processes. Franklin describes how “a lot of the original planting just simply got overwhelmed” (S. Franklin, pers. comm., Nov. 19) and many of the older plant species have died by now. With restoration projects like these, it is normal for some plants to flourish and others to fade away over time, and it is important to take this into account when planning out the site. For example, the Queen of the Prairie has been one of the greatest successes from the very start of the project. In contrast, the Cardinal Flower has now, after a long time, come back and taken hold on the site. Schneider also points out that “we know that the plants are coming up earlier and the insect types have changed” (C. Schneider, pers. comm., Nov. 19). This supports the fact that ecosystems are never completely stable over time and restoration projects must account for that. For example, a different set of seeds might be planted now than when the project first started, or they might be planted at different times of the year. One of the main principles from the SER guidelines on restoration projects is that “ecological restoration practice is informed by native reference ecosystems, while considering environmental change” (SER 2019). Similarly, the wildflower meadow is based off of a prairie ecosystem, in this case the reference ecosystem, but still takes into account that ecosystems are constantly changing.
The site has always had a number of community workdays throughout the year. Among other things, these consist of planting new plants, removing invasive species, or trampling down the meadow in preparation for a burn. Here is a plan for the workdays throughout the year from 2002:
Fig.4 Plan for Community Workdays from 2002 Credit: Chicago Park
District inter-office correspondence documents
The workday I attended in November of this year was, however, slightly different. Our main task was to cut or trample down plants on the field, while some specific grass species were kept up, as birds can feed off them. This was done in preparation for a burn in the spring. After the burn, new seeds can be planted. Here is a picture of the site after all of the plants were trampled down:
Fig.5 The wildflower meadow after it was trampled down during the workday in November
However, not only have natural processes within the site changed, but also how people are getting involved in the site. Only around 2006, for example, after it re-constituted its natural areas program, the Park District has gotten involved with the site again. According to Dan Brown, the current steward on the project, the community is now getting advice and support from the Park District. Every year, he gives the Park District an idea for specific plants he wants to plant in the next year, and they might tell him “well, that one can be aggressive, are you sure you want it?” (D. Brown, pers. comm., Nov.19). This is helpful as invasive species can be detrimental to an ecosystem if they take over. Basically, the Park District performs regular walkthroughs with the steward and contractor of the site to assess what is working and what is not working. Additionally, the Park District now conducts a survey of the exact plants growing at the site about every two or three years. This helps determine the number of plants that should or should not be there, in other words how many native and invasive species there are. Finally, the site is currently undergoing somewhat regular burnings that are organised by the Park District. As wildfires occur naturally in prairies, it is important to conduct burns in environments that are modelled after prairies too. The Nichols Park website explains that “without fire, natural areas often become thickets of shrubs or weeds with little diversity. Fire burns off dead vegetation and stimulates new plant growth by allowing sunlight to warm the dark soil, encouraging germination. Fire also enriches the soil by returning nutrients back to the soil” (Hyde Park 2019). As a positive side effect, burns also control invasive plants, which greatly reduces the amount of pesticides that need to be used on the site. According to the Ontario Tallgrass Prairie and Savanna Association, “newly created prairies can be burned every year initially, then every two to three years after the vegetation is well established” (TGO 2019). The last burn at the wildflower meadow was conducted this past spring, and prior to that there was a burn in the spring of 2014. As these burns were four years apart, this was not completely optimal. However, after I contacted the former natural areas manager of the
Park District for this site Jason Steger, he explained that there is a good reason why burns can’t
be performed that regularly at the moment. He says that
“this is a difficult site to burn for several reasons. The main reason is the lack of ladder fuel or grasses to help the burn spread through the site. The other is the fact that the meadow is tucked up against several condo buildings making prescriptive wind values difficult to achieve” (J. Steger, pers. comm., Nov. 19). Additionally, the current natural areas manager, Isaiah Ballinger, brings up the important point that “there is a difference between organized and executed. We schedule all burns 2-3 years apart but Mother Nature always has the final say” (I. Ballinger, pers. comm., Nov. 19). A much bigger problem at the site was, therefore, that there could not be burns conducted every year at the beginnings of the project. This was, however, because the Park District was not even involved in the project at that point. Nevertheless, according to Carol Schneider, even after the Park District got involved in the site again around 2006, it was hard to get them to do the burns. When Dan Brown, the current steward on the project, first requested there to be a burn, the Park District said it would be impossible if all the plants are still standing. That is why they started cutting and trampling the plants down in the winter. Despite all of this, the Park District has been conducting relatively regular burns about every 3-4 years.
Nonetheless, Stephanie Franklin is still concerned about the fact that burns are being conducted in the spring rather than in the fall. Apparently,“ it's often too wet early in the spring for stuff to start growing. And then if it then if it's later in the spring they also burn things like insects and birds that have decided to settle there” (S. Franklin, pers. comm., Nov. 19). She does not understand what the Park District’s rationale is for having the burns in the spring and would propose having the burns in the late fall. However, most of the past few burnings have taken place in the spring. In response to this, Ballinger said that “to perform a successful prescribed burn a lot of variables need to align (some examples include: relative humidity, continuity of fuels, ground moisture, wind speed, wind direction, temperature, present wildlife, etc.)” (I. Ballinger, pers. comm., Nov. 19). The fact that
there are certain weather conditions required for the burns helps explain why they have been
performed in the spring rather than in the fall. Here is a table of these required conditions from the Park District in 2016:
Fig.4 Required weather conditions to conduct a burn at the wildflower meadow Credit: Chicago Park District Nichols Park burn plan
According to Ballinger, the next burn is scheduled for the Fall of 2020.
The relationship between community members and the Chicago Park District has greatly changed over time. Franklin describes how, even today, “it’s not perfect by any means. But I think they’ve gotten to the point where they’re more helpful than hurtful. But for a long time they weren’t” (S. Franklin, pers. comm., Nov. 19). She goes on to explain that, especially in the beginnings of the project, they “had problems with the Park District hiring contractors whose employees didn't know one plant from another. And so we've spent a bunch of time putting things in and then had a bunch of stuff got ripped out because they didn't know what they were doing” (S. Franklin, pers. comm., Nov. 19). Carol Schneider told me that, from her perspective, “most of the PD workers are patronage workers and our joke is they can't tell a daffodil from a dandelion” (C. Schneider, pers. comm., Nov. 19). As an expert on native plants, she “tried to be there whenever a PD person was supposed to come” (C. Schneider, pers. comm., Nov. 19). It is important to remember, though, that Franklin and Schneider were only directly involved in the site when it first started being developed around 2000. Many things have changed since the Park District reinstated their natural areas department and started getting involved in the project again. The current steward Dan Brown has managed to maintain a good relationship with the Park District in the past few years. Dave, a regular volunteer, explains that “I was a flower idiot when I started, so we’re actually grateful for the guidance. We’ve gone to conferences together and starting to actually see why stuff grows where it does” (Dave, pers. comm., Nov. 19). Although this seems like a big step in the right
direction, it is still slightly concerning that the main community leaders on the project did not understand the reasoning behind some of the actions of the Park District.
In conclusion, now that we have looked at the history of development at the wildflower meadow, its main goals and its biggest problems, we can determine if the site is an overall success or not. On one hand, the site provides both ecological and social benefits. It provides a habitat for a variety of different species such as birds and butterflies and therefore contributes to the biodiversity of its surrounding environment. But we also have to consider the social aspect. The fact that the site has gained so much community support over the years only speaks for its success. Not only were the stakeholders involved in the project, they completely took over the project for a significant amount of time. Especially in urban areas, public involvement is important because the sites are situated right in the middle of cities and, therefore, directly affect their surrounding human inhabitants. There are a number of volunteers that help with the maintenance of the site, which helps bring the community together and also increases overall awareness on the importance of restoration projects. These points speak to the fact that this urban construction project provides the same benefits to the environment as a classic restoration project would, if not more. Even though this site was entirely constructed by humans, it still provides ecological benefits but is at the same time much more interlinked with the local community. Looking into the future, as the rate of ecological degradation will drastically increase, urban construction projects will play a big role in countering these effects. Additionally, the restoration processes at urban habitat construction projects like these are much more flexible and adaptable than restoration projects that use a historic point in time as a reference. As human interference is necessary even after the site has been established, it is easier to adjust to a
changing environment.
On the other hand, in my opinion, one aspect of the site is still preventing it from being a complete success. The communication between the Park District and the volunteers needs to be improved. The community was left to fend for themselves at the very beginnings of the site, which resulted in many of the community members having a very negative view of the Park District. However, in the past ten years, the Park District has been greatly involved in the project again. They help plan out which plants would do well, or which plants might not bring the site forward. However, even though the information seemed to be easily accessible, the community leaders still did not understand why the Park District did or did not do specific things, such as the burns for example. There needs to be more open communication between these two parties in order for the site to be able to reach its full potential.
References
Cairns, John, “Is Restoration Ecology Practical?”. Society for Restoration Ecology, March 1993.
Chicago Park District Inter-Office Correspondence, 1993-2003.
Davenport et al., “Building Trust in Natural Resource Management Within Local Communities: A Case Study of the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie”. Springer Science+Business Media, September 2006.
Falk et al., “The Influence of Climate Variability and Change on the Science and Practice of Restoration Ecology”. Society for Ecological Restoration, 2016.
Gann et al., “Ecological restoration: A mean of conserving biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods”. Society for Ecological Restoration International, 2006. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ser.org/resource/ resmgr/custompages/publications/ser_publications/Global_Rationale_English.pdf
Gobster et al., “Resident and user support for urban natural areas restoration practices”. Biological Conservation no. 203, 2016.
Hobbs et al., “Defining novel ecosystems.” John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
Hyde Park. “About Nichols Park and its history”. Last accessed November 19, 2019. http://www.hydepark.org/parks/nichols/aboutnichols.htm
SER, “International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Second Edition Summary”. Society for Ecological Restoration, 2019.
Society for Ecological Restoration. “What is Ecological Restoration?”. Last accessed December 5, 2019. https://www.ser-rrc.org/what-is-ecological-restoration/
Tallgrass Ontario. “Prescribed Burn FAQs”. Last accessed December 5, 2019. https:// www.tallgrassontario.org/prescribed_burn_faqs.html
16
