East Chicago, Indiana 5-Year Parks and
Recreation Master Plan
2013 to 2017
A Comprehensive Master Plan by the East Chicago Park Board and
the East Chicago Parks and Recreation Department
East Chicago Parks and Recreation Department
1615 E. 142nd Street
East Chicago, IN 46312
(219) 391-8474
Website: www.eastchicago.com
1
EAST CHICAGO PARKS MASTER PLAN, 2013-2017
DRAFT WORK-IN-PROGRESS
Honorable Anthony Copeland, Mayor
City of East Chicago
Prepared by the:
Parks & Recreation Department
1615 E. 142nd Street
East Chicago, Indiana 46312
(219) 391-8474
Francisco Rosado, Jr., Park Superintendent
frosado@eastchicago.com
Frances Nowacki, Recreation Manager
fnowacki@eastchicago.com
Planning Department
4444 Railroad Avenue
East Chicago, Indiana 46312
(219) 391-8205
Richard F. Morrisroe, AICP, City Planner
rmorrisroe@eastchicago.com
Planning Staff, East Chicago Parks Master Plan
Marino Solorio, Project Consultant
msolorio1985@gmail.com
April 2013
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Parks & Recreation Directors:
Francisco Rosado, Jr., Parks Superintendent
Frances Nowacki, Recreation Manager
Planning Department Director:
Richard Morrisroe, AICP, City Planner
Planning Department Staff:
Marino Solorio, Project Consultant
Engineering Department Director:
Jezreel Rodriguez, PE, City Engineer
Economic Development Director:
Kathy R. Brown
Economic Development Staff:
Nelson Vargas
City Controller Staff:
Kimberly Anderson, City Controller
Alicia Aceves, CPA, Senior Accountant
Consultants:
Janet Cypra, Grants Consultant
Kevin Garcia, Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning
Commission
The Parks Master Plan, 2013-2017 was made possible through the time and talents of the
persons mentioned above. Our thanks also to others who contributed to its production.
3
Table of Contents
Publication Information ............................................................................................
2
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………....................
3
Table of Contents ..........................................................................................………
4
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………
5-6
Introduction ....................................................................................................………
7
Definition of the Planning Area…………………………………………………….
7
Parks and Recreation Board’s Mission and Role…………………………………..
7
Goals of the East Chicago Parks and Recreation Master Plan ..................................
8-10
Benefits to a Parks Master Planning Effort .......................................……………...
10-11
Process of Completing a Parks Master Plan .............................................................
11-13
The Parks and Recreation Board……………………………………………………
14
Park Board/Department…………………………………………………………….
14-16
Natural Features and Landscape…………………………………………………....
17-19
Man-made, Historical and Cultural………………………………………………...
19-23
Social and Economic Factors (U.S. Bureau of Census)……………………………
24-30
Neighborhood and Park Profiles……………………………………………………
31-39
Accessibility and Universal Design………………………………………………..
40-41
Accessibility Self Evaluation and Transition Plan…………………………………
42-49
Section 504 Compliance Form…………………………………………………….
50
Public Participation………………………………………………………………...
51
Public Participation Meetings………………………………………………………
52-63
Telephone Surveys…………………………………………………………………
63-66
Survey Analysis……………………………………………………………………
67-82
ParkAssessmentandSuitability,withProposedExpenditureTables………………….
83-93
Budget………………………………………………………………………………
93-94
Needs Analysis……………………………………………………………………
95-96
Maps…………………………………………………………………………………
97-99
Priorities and Action Schedule…………………………………………………….
100-102
Public Presentation of Plan…………………………………………………………
103
Board Resolution Adopting Plan………………………………………………….
104
Appendices………………………………………………………………………...
105-112
4
Public Hearing Sign-In Sheets…………………………………………….
105.
Survey Instrument…………………………………………………………
106-112
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The East Chicago Parks and Recreation Board’s 5-year Parks and Recreation Master Plan
was approved by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Outdoor Recreation Division
(IDNR-OR) for the 2008-2012 period. This plan addresses the 2013-2017 time period.
For a period of 33 years, a single mayoral administration led the City of East Chicago.
Certain major improvements occurred, such as the construction of five community centers and
two major swimming pools. But industry kept its land to itself. There was little opportunity to
acquire additional land zoned for manufacturing and commercial uses. Since 2005, with major
changes in steel plant ownership and technology, there are new opportunities for private-public
sector cooperation.
In October 2010, Anthony Copeland was chosen by the elected precinct officials to
complete former Mayor George Pabey’s term. In November 2011, Mayor Copeland was elected
to a four year term, of which he has completed his first year. The steel plants have undergone
major changes in ownership and management with the advent of ArcelorMittal Steel.
BP
continues to complete a $4 billion upgrade to handle and refine crude oil from the petroleum
soaked sands of western Canada.
The City finished updating its Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan, developed with the
assistance of the Lakota Group, was adopted by the East Chicago Common Council on
December 8, 2008. After 115 years as an industrial city, East Chicago is in the process of
reinventing itself.
One example is DuPont Chemical Industries. The plant began as the Grasselli Chemical
Works. Currently the DuPont Plant leases a substantial part of its land to W.R. Grace Chemical
Works. Another portion is under review for industrial and/or commercial use. A substantial
portion of the land is now under the management of the Nature Conservancy under the direction
of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Some land may become a warehousing and
distribution center.
6
Another example is Cline Avenue (US 912), a major connecting route which links the
Indiana Toll Road with East Chicago’s steel plants and oil refineries. A six lane highway, Cline
Avenue assists the rapid movement of steel suppliers and oil and steel workforce. However, in
November 2009 Cline Avenue was closed down because of structural weakness, after barely 25
years of operation. A four lane, downsized toll alternative has been proposed, approved by
Indiana Department of Transportation, and is scheduled to start construction during 2013.
Demolition of the existing structure was completed by March 2013. With the help of the
Northwest Indiana Regional Development Authority and inspired by the Marquette Plan goal of
providing more access to Lake Michigan, pedestrian access to Lake Michigan may again become
possible for families and not solely for youth daring to run across dangerous rail yards.
This Master Plan addresses community and neighborhood parks and recreation concerns.
It also looks to new opportunities. Read along and contribute your suggestions for a better East
Chicago. Its parks and recreation opportunities need your help.
7
INTRODUCTION
DEFINITION OF THE PLANNING AREA
The planning area for the East Chicago Parks and Recreation Board (ECPRB) is the same
as the municipal service area. East Chicago is bounded by the cities of Gary on its east,
Hammond on its south and west, and Whiting and Lake Michigan on its north. The service area
for the City of East Chicago stops at the city limits. East Chicago Parks and Recreation remains
committed to making our facilities and services available to anyone, regardless of resident status,
ability to pay, or physical/mental ability.
ECPRB’S MISSION AND ROLE
The East Chicago Parks and Recreation Board’s mission for the years 2013-2017 is to
“protect and provide outstanding natural, scenic, cultural, historic and recreational sites for the
enjoyment and education of present and future generations. This mission should create a better
quality of life, access to the outdoors, and opportunity for play of all kinds for all ages and
abilities.”
ECPRB’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan helps to accomplish its mission by
establishing the goals, development concepts, and resource management guidelines that strike a
balance among recreational use, development, and resource protection.
The ECPRB’s role will be changing as population shifts and recreational uses and trends
change. The main role that the ECPRB serves is to provide high quality parks and recreation
opportunities for the residents of East Chicago that are direct results from what the residents
want and deserve. The foundation for improvements and usage of existing parks is based on the
needs of the current and future users. Lastly, the ECPRB provides facilities for accessing
adjacent resources such as Lake Michigan, Grand Calumet River, wetlands, and other attractions.
8
GOALS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
This document outlines the East Chicago Parks and Recreation Department’s (ECPRD)
plans for the future development and management of the East Chicago Parks. The Master Plan
summarizes the issues, recreation needs, goals, development proposals, and resource
management guidelines associated with the parks and the process followed in formulating and
adopting the Master Plan.
The purpose of the East Chicago Parks Master Plan is to plan for both the protection and
public enjoyment of the resources that occur on the ECPRD’s properties. Master plans identify
and provide for the most appropriate recreational uses for city properties based on resource
opportunities and constraints, development opportunities and constraints, public recreation needs
and ECPRD’s role as a public recreation provider. A master plan may also identify lands that
ECPRD would consider acquiring from willing sellers to add to the parks, as well as
“endowment parcels” that logically should not be part of the park (An “endowment parcel” is
one given to the city, rather than acquired through purchase). A master plan also provides a
basis for preparing partnership agreements, budget and management priorities and detailed
development and management guidelines, and steps for requesting land use approval from
affected local governments for planned park projects.
The goal ultimate goal for the ECPRD is to update the 2008-2012 Plan by creating new
goals and objectives in the 2013-2017 Plan. The ECPRD visits and studies it current assets,
constraints, and limited resources to put together attainable priorities that can be implemented on
a realistic time schedule. Among the opportunities reviewed are park and community center
usage, handicapped accessibility, bike paths, and funding. The Plan seeks to incorporate other
plans such as the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission’s (NIRPC) 2040
Regional Comprehensive Plan and East Chicago’s current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Once
approved by IDNR, East Chicago intends to both use its own resources and to apply for grants to
improve its park and recreation facilities.
Several factors are considered in determining why the Parks Master Plan is being
produced. Foremost, it indicates which parks have already been planned for and which have not.
The ECPRD’s Superintendent and Park Board set the Master Plan completion priorities after a
review of staff recommendations, following community surveys and input. The East Chicago
Parks Master Plan is considered an ECPRD priority for the following reasons:
9
Changing Population and Recreational needs create conflicts that require attention
Needs and conflicts have increased to a level meriting a master planned approach. The
Parks Master Plan identifies recreation needs and conflicts related to the parks. It also suggests
solutions to these conflicts and needs. Survey results show that there is a demand for better
parks, but issues need to be addressed with the current supply that the City of East Chicago
provides. ECPRD addresses issues of capacity, and the retention or enhancement of appropriate
recreational settings and uses. Although the parks have been developed for years, a Master Plan
is needed to reflect current information on recreation needs and park resource opportunities and
constraints.
Master Plan needed for grants to fund improvements of parks
Current procedural steps in acquiring Land and Water Conservation funding and other
grants for park improvements require a 5-Year Parks Master Plan. This Plan will help not only
expedite these processes but will serve as a basis for other grants that provide funding for
specific features or uses.
NEPA evaluation of our parks is needed
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) establishes the legal requirements to
manage natural resources. This Plan addresses and reviews the status of East Chicago Parks
according to this Act. This act and other requirements help to guide the process and choices that
are made for the betterment of the parks and for the residents of East Chicago.
Facilities require improvement and investment
With the clear vision, goals, and timeframe, this Plan facilitates the process of planning
what are the priorities for the City in regards to parks and where money should be most
effectively and efficiently used.
This ensures that these improvements are made and are
following a cohesive plan of action. Redesign of some of the existing facilities is needed to
improve the efficiency of park operations, prevent conflicts among competing recreational uses,
and enhance visitors’ experiences.
This Plan makes more formal inclusion of the City’s eight community centers.
Ownership of three of them was transferred from the School City to the Department of
Redevelopment during early December 2012. These ownership transfers were primarily because
of funding capability. The Department of Redevelopment has more funding capacity than had
the School City.
10
A streamlined approval process
ECPRD staff spends much time arriving at agreement on diverse proposals. This Master
Plan should streamline this process by laying out all of the proposed facilities at once and
reviewing them for approval, in concept, at one time. The eight community centers are being
integrated into the Parks and Recreation Department. Also special attention is being given to the
two principal ped and pedal routes, one linking with Hammond’s intercity trail on the southwest
corner of the City; the other linking with Whiting on the City’s northeast corner and Gary on the
southeast corner. This Plan also contains detailed design standards and natural and cultural
resource management actions that can be approved as a part of it.
Expansion of current parks with new sites
Changes in the number of parks and boundaries may occur or have occurred since the
parks were designed and developed. Additionally, the Plan can review sites that can be added to
ECPRD’s ownership to expand the parks. In this case the ECPRD can assume the management
responsibility for those sites. The future uses and management of these areas need to be
addressed in the Master Plan.
ECPRD is exploring ways to help meet the increasing demands for beach and water
recreational facilities and to enhance natural resource values in suitable areas. Furthermore,
there are opportunities to provide trail connections to other cities. Nature Conservancy manages
the DuPont property and connections to neighboring commercial, residential, and public use
areas should be explored. The master planning process is an appropriate forum for determining
where such connections could occur.
BENEFITS TO A PARKS MASTER PLANNING EFFORT
A written and illustrated reference
This Plan contains extensive information about long term plans for the parks of East Chicago.
This Parks Master Plan is the guide for the parks’ future. It describes the planning purpose and
process, existing facilities in the park, future recreation demand, suitability of land for public
recreational uses, issues related to public use and management, goals, objectives and
development concepts for the future use and development of park properties, and guidelines for
managing the park resources.
11
Development concepts in the Master Plan
The Plan shows how to fit needed facilities into the parks. These are the conceptual
“blueprints” for the parks. The development concepts reflect the resource constraints and
opportunities and address the goals established in the planning process. They describe the
appropriate types, sizes, locations, and access for the proposed facilities.
Resource maps
As part of the Plan, a number of maps accompany the Master Plan document. They show
various natural, cultural, and scenic resources in the parks. These maps are invaluable planning
tools used frequently by different resource agencies, policy makers, and public members. They
are the basis for sound resource management and development decisions. The Parks Master Plan
includes the East Chicago Regional Map and the East Chicago Citywide Parks.
A public discussion occurs regarding the future of the parks
The master planning process was an excellent opportunity for the public to discuss and
provide input on the future of the parks in East Chicago. The planning process included four
public meetings and surveys which provided public input on issues associated with the parks
which this Parks Master Plan highlights. Through this and other input, proposals and guidelines
are established within the Parks Master Plan.
Partnerships
The master planning process helps provide an opportunity to encourage partnerships with
other agencies, interest groups, and neighbors that benefit park implementation and management.
PROCESS OF COMPLETING A PARKS MASTER PLAN
In the first steps, information was
gathered regarding natural, cultural and
scenic resources, existing facilities and
recreation and interpretive needs, and
information about the local community.
Issues
involving
the
use,
development, and management of the parks
were identified through meetings with Park
Department staff, the Park Board, the
Common Council, and the general public.
12
Goals for the future use and development of the parks and management of its resources
were determined. Resource management guidelines and development concepts for the park were
formulated. These were checked for consistency with the City’s land use goals and its 2008
Comprehensive Plan.
All of the above information was compiled into a draft Master Plan that was reviewed by
the interested public, and by the ECPRD Superintendent, the Recreation Manager, and the Parks
and Recreation Board. Comments were collected and the Master Plan was edited based on
guidance from the Superintendent and Board.
The edited draft was then presented for adoption as a local rule and for approval by the
Park Board. Additional comments were received from residents in formal public hearings, which
led to additional edits prior to final adoption. The flow chart that accompanies this section
illustrates the basic steps for completing the Master Plan.
Effective master planning required the involvement of citizens and various agencies inside
the city. Since parks and recreation facilities are designed for people of the community, it was
important to obtain ideas from its residents. Their viewpoints were obtained through formally
advertised planning meetings, informal contacts with city officials, and survey instruments.
In order for this Plan to be considered an accurate depiction of East Chicago as a
cohesive community with a vision, the planning process was used as a way for views of all facets
of the community’s population to be discussed, viewed, and understood. The City of East
Chicago has solicited input from the community to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses,
perceptions, and concerns from the community and its representatives about the Parks and
Recreation on three different levels:
:
An initial park planning workshop was held on December 20, 2012 with 13 people from
residents to Park Department staff. Four additional public input meetings took place bringing
together community stakeholders representing civic organizations, local business, church leaders,
schools, homeowners groups, and elected officials. The meetings were held from Febuary 4 to
February 12, 2013. Several meetings with different departments and department heads reflecting
similar community representation and views were held.
13
A random survey of 900 households in the City was conducted, which started in early
March. The survey resulted in 260 responses from respondents. Survey results are analyzed in
Public Participation, Phone Survey.
A windshield survey in conjunction with the site inventory and analysis of each park
helped evaluate the parks’ current conditions to guide the goal setting process.
As a result of the information collected from these sources, a set of preliminary
community goals was formulated for the City of East Chicago. These goals, along with more
detailed community planning objectives and policies, are incorporated into various sections of
the Master Plan. Simultaneously, these goals and input helped to create design concepts and
resource management guidelines, while enforcing certain land use requirements. All the above
variables comprise the East Chicago Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The following sections
describe the process and the input that was collected through each process.
14
THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
After much discussion, the East Chicago Parks and Recreation Board has agreed on the
following goals for the 5-Year Parks and Recreation Plan:

Gather feedback and input from as diverse a group of East Chicago residents as possible,
and report it in an accurate manner.

Use national recreation standards, combined with a careful needs analysis, to create new
priorities for parks and recreation in the city.

Create a plan that is dynamic and provides pertinent, useful information and guidance for
the next five years in East Chicago.

Present the plan and gain its acceptance within East Chicago community.

Submit the Master Plan to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Outdoor
Recreation Division, adhering to the required timeframe for a draft by January 15, 2013
and the finalized, adopted plan by April 15, 2013.

Receive approval from IDNR-OR for eligibility for application for Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant programs.

Use the Plan as a springboard to apply for any other applicable grants.

Offer a level of service appropriate to the size and growth of the community.

Provide new opportunities for exercise, fitness, and wellness for the community at large.

Act as a central part of daily life in the community, providing a city identity and a focus
for the people of East Chicago.
THE PARK BOARD/DEPARTMENT
The Park Board was first created in 1915, and was re-established in 1987 according to the
requirements of Indiana Code 36-10-3. East Chicago has a five-member board that serves
staggered four-year terms. The current East Chicago Park Board members are:
Lilia Ramos, Board President
5119 Walsh Ave.
East Chicago, IN 46312
Term: to 1/06/2014
15
Richard Gillis, Vice President
4211 Hidalgo Lane
East Chicago, IN 46312
Term: to 1/07/2014
Valda Lewis, Secretary
4121 Euclid Ave.
East Chicago, IN 46312
Term: to 12/13/2013
Ricardo Rodriguez
4711 Grasselli Ave.
East Chicago, IN 46312
Term: to 8/08/2013
.
Gilbert Cantu
4133 Grace St.
East Chicago, IN 46312
Term: to 6/03/2014
Carla Morgan, City Attorney/Park Board Attorney
Law Department
4525 Indianapolis Blvd.
East Chicago, IN 46312
The Park Department
Park Office
The main office for the Park Department is located at 1615 E. 142nd Street, East Chicago. The
phone is: (219) 391-8474; its fax is (219)391-8502. Website: www.eastchicago.com, which it
shares with the City of East Chicago.
Park Superintendent: Francisco Rosado, Jr.
9 years Parks and Recreation experience
Hired: 6/13/1983; Appointed Supt: 3/19/2012
Recreation Manager: Frances Nowacki
24 years Parks and Recreation experience
Hired: 6/01/1977; Appointed Rec. Mgr: 2/03/2005
Horticulturist: Raul Reyna
Hired: 3/01/2005
General Foremen:
Richard Kubiszewski: Hired: 9/03/1982
Leon Valdez: Hired: 5/27/1987
16

The East Chicago Parks Department employs 13 full-time park persons and approximately 32
seasonal employees each year.

The Recreation Department employs 13 full-time employees and approximately 66 seasonal
employees each year.
17
NATURAL FEATURES AND LANDSCAPE
Overview
The City lies within the biologically diverse Northwestern Morainal Natural Region of
Indiana. Contributing to the biodiversity is the convergence of three major ecological biomes:
prairie, eastern deciduous forest, and northern boreal forest in northwestern Indiana.
The
physical features and natural resources of this region are related to the Wisconsin glacier period.
Prior to this industrialization and resultant commercial and residential development, East
Chicago and the northern part of the Morainal Natural Region were characterized by a dune and
swale system with upland dunes interspersed with wetland swales. Much of this ecosystem has
been replaced by residential, commercial, and industrial development.
The high biodiversity of Northwest Indiana remains in a scattered, often unconnected
system of natural areas within the highly developed landscape. Natural areas and wetlands are
limited in size and extent due to existing development. Environmental corridors connecting
these systems are important to retain the unique biodiversity of the region.
Natural Areas
East Chicago has four isolated natural areas that provide environmental functions and
aesthetic value, including the Lake Michigan shoreline, Roxana Marsh, DuPont tract, and the
Grand Calumet Tern site. None of these areas is incorporated within a County Park, Indiana
State Natural Area, or a Wild and Scenic River designation.
The 1- to 2-acre Lake Michigan Shoreline natural area, which is immediately to the east
of Jeorse Park, extends into Gary. Much of the shoreline here consists of sand substrate with
limited vegetative cover. There are additional natural areas to the south of the railroad tracks
that run parallel to the shoreline. Ownership of the natural area is divided between the City of
East Chicago and ArcelorMittal. The shoreline natural area provides wildlife habitat and is in
fair condition.
DuPont site
The DuPont tract is located in the southeast corner of East Chicago between Gary Road
and the Grand Calumet River. This 298-acre complex of remnant dune and swale features also
contains a small amount of emergent wetlands and wet prairie, while other areas contain larger
18
amounts of shrub-scrub, open woodland/savanna. Small ponds within the site provide shorebird
habitat.
The property is currently managed by The Nature Conservancy under an agreement with
the DuPont Company, the land owner.
The ECPRD hopes to work with The Nature
Conservancy to provide environmental education and possible access.
Wetlands
Wetlands are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for jurisdictional purposes as
“those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.”
Wetland resources in East Chicago are primarily located along waterways and near
industrial areas. Wetlands present in the City of East Chicago were identified during field
review and use of the Nationwide Wetland Inventory maps. The Grand Calumet River corridor
has wetlands along its length including the DuPont/Nature Conservancy and the Grand Calumet
Tern sites.
Environmental Corridors
There are two primary environmental corridors within East Chicago: the Grand Calumet
River and Indiana Harbor Ship Canal. As both waterways are heavily contaminated, bodily
contact or fish consumption is not recommended.
In particular, heavy industry lines much of the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, and there is
little existing riparian habitat. As a connection between the Grand Calumet River and Lake
Michigan, the Canal does provide a corridor for the movement of aquatic species.
The Grand Calumet River has excellent potential as an environmental corridor. Although
the waterway is contaminated, green space and wetlands line much of the river both in East
Chicago and in surrounding communities. The restoration of and connection between existing
open spaces could enhance the value of the Grand Calumet River as a location of biodiversity
and a dispersion corridor for terrestrial and aquatic species. The corridor also could provide
recreation, trail, and education opportunities for the public.
19
Topography
The topography of East Chicago lends itself very well to most kinds of outdoor recreation,
especially those that require flat play surfaces; however, there are few hills on public property
that would be sufficient for good sledding/tobogganing in winter. Lake Michigan does provide
water attractions for recreation in East Chicago. There is potential for greater use of the Indiana
Harbor Ship Canal, South Branch corridor, for trail and water access.
MAN-MADE, HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL
Community History
East Chicago is located in northwestern Indiana. The City, which is approximately 15
square miles, is bordered by Whiting and Lake Michigan to the north, Hammond to the west and
south, and Gary to the east. It is approximately 18 miles southeast of downtown Chicago, 7 miles
west of downtown Gary, and 150 miles northwest of Indianapolis. (See Appendix)
According to “Twin City, A Pictorial History of East Chicago, Indiana,” (Archibald
McKinlay, 1988), the area that is now East Chicago was originally comprised of low-lying
wetlands and dunes between the Grand Calumet River and Lake Michigan. Although a natural
transportation corridor between Chicago and Detroit, development in the area was slow until the
mid-1800s.
Land speculation during the 1880’s led to the platting and settlement of East Chicago and
was prompted by the routing of rail through the region and its proximity to Lake Michigan.
Industrial development led the way, and much of the initial residential development was
undertaken to provide worker housing for newly created industries. This period also witnessed
the dredging of the canal between the Grand Calumet River and Lake Michigan, creating the
Indiana Harbor Ship Canal.
Constructed by the private sector, jurisdiction for the canal’s
maintenance was given to the US Army Corps of Engineers and for its safety to the US Coast
Guard.
Once established, East Chicago grew rapidly. The initial plat was south and west of the
canal, and East Chicago became a Town in 1889 and a City in 1893. It was during this time that
East Chicago’s long association with Inland Steel (now ArcelorMittal) began with the
construction of a rolling mill in the Indiana Harbor section of the city. Workers who walked to
work lived close to the steel plants.
East Chicago developed a strong and diverse industrial economy, resulting in such
metropolitan nicknames as “Workshop of the World” and “Arsenal of America.” Other notable
accomplishments included the development in 1917 of the Marktown neighborhood by urban
20
planner/architect Howard Van Doren Shaw. Marktown provided housing for workers at the
Mark Manufacturing Plant, which later became Youngstown Sheet & Tube, then LTV Steel, and
the International Steel Group, which is now owned by ArcelorMittal.
East Chicago is an established community of 29,698 (US Census Bureau, 2010) with
extensive development mostly serving the large steel industries traditionally located along Lake
Michigan. It also is known as the “Twin City” because of its dual commercial centers:
Downtown East Chicago (“Downtown”) and Indiana Harbor. The two commercial centers and
adjacent neighborhoods developed somewhat separately because railroads, Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal, and steel mills divided the area.
The first-half of the Twentieth Century was East Chicago’s industrial pinnacle. The
Indiana Harbor plat (in addition to other smaller neighborhood plats) south and east of the canal
allowed the City to grow dramatically in population, fueled by in-migration from the rural United
States and eastern and central Europe. Irish and Welsh, Germans and Swedes, Polish and Slovak,
Italian and Greek, Romanian, Croatian and Serbians migrated to East Chicago. These and other
immigrant populations contribute to the very diverse nature of the East Chicago community. The
cultural diversity of East Chicago is reflected in the wide variety of crafts, cuisines, and arts that
are represented at citywide and regional celebrations. Industrial employment also attracted racial
and ethnic diversity. African-Americans and Hispanics, particularly those of Mexican and Puerto
Rican backgrounds, migrated to East Chicago in large numbers.
The City had become a major transportation hub with five trunk railroads, a passenger
ferry to Chicago, passenger rail connections to the east and west, and a local streetcar system. In
1909, there were 125 scheduled train stops in East Chicago.
East Chicago has also experienced a revitalization of its infrastructure in recent decades.
The Indiana Toll Road (I-90) was constructed in the 1950’s through the southern part of the City.
At the same time, the Chicago South Shore & South Bend commuter rail was relocated from
Chicago Avenue to a right-of-way along the Calumet River and I-90. The Cline Avenue
Expressway (IN 912) was built as a major bypass connecting lakeshore industrial sites with I-90
and I-80-94 on both the west and southeast sides of the City and to Chicago. Page 6 tells of the
closure and proposed reconstruction of the Cline Avenue Bridge.
East Chicago has excellent access to a variety of transportation routes, including I-90
(Indiana Toll Road), and I-80-94, numerous freight lines, a commuter rail line, the nearby
Gary/Chicago International Airport, and Lake Michigan. East Chicago sits astride Indianapolis
Blvd. (US 20), Cline Ave. (IN 912), Columbus Dr. (US 12) and Chicago Ave. (IN 312). Most
local traffic uses the state highways and municipal streets for daily travel. Residents who need to
21
travel to ECPRD facilities are generally able to walk, bike, or drive using city streets without
having to access major highways.
The Gary/Chicago International Airport is a hub for private pilots, local corporations,
several small charter services, and one scheduled airline based in Gary, approximately 3 miles
east of the city. The City is also part of the Chicago metropolitan region, which has major
transportation connections, including several interstate highways and two additional major
airports in Chicago across the Illinois state line.
Similar to other large industrial centers, East Chicago has experienced a decline in jobs
and population as manufacturing has declined nationwide, while suburban Northwest Indiana has
experienced growth. Despite the decline in jobs, heavy industry remains the largest employer in
East Chicago. ArcelorMittal is the City’s largest employer with 6,400 employees and was
formed through the merger of Mittal Steel, Ispat Inland, and International Steel Group.
Recent economic development efforts included developing the lakefront into a marina,
park/beach, and casino site. The City continues to push for further environmental clean-up,
brownfield remediation, and redevelopment.
Other major employers are Ameristar (1,900
employees), St. Catherine Hospital (900 employees) and American Steel Foundries (300
employees).
The Plan focuses on the influence the East Chicago parks have or can have on the
economy, environment, and the community.
ECPRD offers 19 parks which include a
neighborhood garden and 8 community centers, not all of which are run by the ECPRD. Four
community centers are managed by the United Neighborhood Organization, which is funded in
part by the Lake Area United Way. These parks and facilities are located strategically around
the City to provide the best use of the parks and community centers. These parks and facilities
are discussed in more detail in the section on Park Assessment and Suitability, pp. 73-83.
History of the East Chicago Park System
The period between 1915 and 1920 marked the first move toward the development of the
park system. The Board of Park Commissioners purchased and improved the major parks of East
Chicago: Washington, Kosciusko, Tod, Riley, and Callahan during this period. These parks were
acquired and improved by means of bond issues authorized by the Common Council, and
represented a large expenditure because of the fact that at the time the land was purchased,
adjoining property was being improved and the Board was compelled to pay market prices for the
land. Vacant property near the business section was first used as a park. The circle at Baring and
Chicago Avenues remains as a memorial to the early park system of East Chicago.
22
In 1915, 100 benches were purchased for the parks. Trees were also purchased and
planted in the various parks. During 1916, in the area of Baring and Chicago Avenues, eight
Catalpa trees were planted. Lawn tennis courts were built in City Hall Park. Staking of park
grounds on 137th Street at Butternut and Alder now known as Callahan Park was started. Trees
and shrubs were planted in this park in 1917.
During the period from 1919 to 1926 many improvements took place in Washington
Park. Because of poor soil and general poor condition of the lawn, it was necessary to place a
new layer of black soil over the entire park.
In 1931, a home for the East Chicago Boys Scouts was erected in Riley Park. The Boy
Scouts constructed the major portion of the building except for the comfort stations, which were
constructed by the Park Department.
An athletic field consisting of a grass infield and outfield was built in Kosciuszko Park in
1931. Elm trees were planted in the parkway along Forsythe Avenue now known as Indianapolis
Blvd. A water line was extended to the lagoon for flooding and an 80-foot toboggan slide was
built nearby. Shrubbery, trees, and a lawn were planted.
Tod Park covers an area of 24 acres over the lagoon. Later the MacArthur Golf Course
was added. Block Stadium, a baseball field that serves Central High School and American
Legion baseball leagues, was built in 1941.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, four neighborhood community centers were
constructed to assist in meeting the recreational needs of their communities. The four centers
have been managed by the United Neighborhood Organization.
Arts
Most of the city’s history relevant to this Plan is found above in Planning Context,
Community History, pp. 16-18. East Chicago has always supported a strong artistic community.
Restoration of the Carnegie Library in the North Harbor, near to the reconstruction and
improvements to Nunez Park, symbolizes a citywide commitment to the arts.
Music
For its parades East Chicago has two bands, a conventional “River City” type high school
band and a mariachi band or music group. Both are coordinated through the Music Department
of East Chicago Central High School. The citywide festivals, mentioned in the next section,
23
showcase the cultural diversity of East Chicago with many styles of music being performed by
members of the community in celebration of their ethnic and religious traditions. The close
cooperation between the Park Board and the public school administrators also has promise for
performances in Tod and Callahan Parks.
Festivals
Three big events during the year utilize the city parks.
The African-American
community celebrates its Juneteenth commemoration around mid-June.
The Puerto Rican
community celebrates the Commonwealth Constitution Day with a public parade and a festival
held in Block Stadium in late July. The Mexican-American community celebrates Mexican
Independence Day with a public parade and festival held in Block Stadium in mid-September.
The festivals are increasingly important to the financial health of many non-profit
organizations in East Chicago because they are able to raise enough funds to be self-sufficient
for the following year from the proceeds of fundraiser booths and vending/craft opportunities.
The festivals help tie together the city’s many cultural activities.
24
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS (FROM US CENSUS)
Population (2000-2010)
A review of demographic characteristics reveals information about the city’s current
composition, as well as trends for the future. The information presented in this section was
compiled from 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census data.

According to the 2010 US Census, East Chicago had 29,698 residents.
o 46.8% Male, 53.2% Female
o Median Age: 30.9
o 35.5% White; 42.9% Black or African American; 0.6% American Indian; 0.1%
Asian; 50.9% Hispanic or Latino; 18.1% Some other race
o 26% of population over 5 years of age had a disability
o 46% of population speaks a language other than English at home

The 2005 estimated population of East Chicago was 30,946 people (4.5% estimated
decline in population over the five-year period).

The population in 2010 was 29,698 (4% decrease). The City hoped that new housing
construction in the Nunez and Callahan Parks area would stem the loss of residents.
Economics in East Chicago

According to the 2010 US Census, East Chicago had a 15% unemployment rate; January
2008 unemployment rate was 7.8%

Median family income in 2009 (dollars): $31,778, 64% of Indiana median family income

Families below poverty level: 22%

Largest non-agricultural employment area in East Chicago: Manufacturing; Second
largest: Retail trade; Casino
Housing

Average household size in East Chicago: 2.75

11,707 total housing units

11.7% of all units are vacant

45% of homes are owned, many of which have a mortgage; 55% of housing units are
renter occupied
Education

34% of population High school graduate or higher
25

5% Bachelor’s degree or higher
Socio-economic Summary

East Chicago has a higher number of people living in poverty than the national average,
and a lower than average level of education

East Chicago has a higher level of racial diversity than the state’s averages

The median age in East Chicago is eight years lower than the state’s median

The housing and economic characteristics for East Chicago are lower than statewide
averages
The implication of this data for parks and recreation is that East Chicago must consider
financial accessibility to their parks and programs, to avoid “pricing out” the 22% of the local
population that lives below poverty level.
Because of its industrial base, East Chicago is
relatively prosperous in its level of taxation, even though with a lower than state average
household income, and a higher than state average unemployment level. This industrial base
prosperity allows East Chicago the option of applying additional bonds, taxes, and fees as needed
for parks and recreation without undue economic burden to the majority of residents.
Population
The population of East Chicago, as determined by the census in 2010, was 29,698. This
represents a 4.0% decline in population over the five-year period. For the 2000 Census, East
Chicago was included within the Chicago-Gary-Kenosha Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical
Area (CMSA). In 2000, the population of the CMSA was 9,157,540, an 11.1% increase from the
1990 population. In addition, East Chicago is included within the Gary Primary Metropolitan
Statistical Area (PMSA), which incorporates Lake and Porter counties. The population of the
Gary PMSA in 2010 was 660,348, a 4.6% increase from 2000.
Table 2.1: Population by Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry
The following table presents data regarding the racial composition of East Chicago.
There is no racial category that comprises a majority of the population. In 2010 Caucasians
represented 36% of the population, African-Americans represented 44%, and 18% of the
population identified themselves as belonging to some other race.
Census Year
Race
2000
Number
2010
Number
Percent
26
Percent
11,843
Caucasian
11,695
Black or African
American
7,774
Some other race
844
Two or more races
166
American
Indian/Alaskan
66
Asian
26
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander
32,414
Total
Source: U.S. Census, 2000, 2010
36.5%
36.1%
10,530
12,736
35.5%
43.9%
24.0%
2.6%
0.5%
5,371
828
28
18.1%
2.8%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
10
12
0.0%
0.0%
100%
29,698
100%
Table 2.2: Hispanic/Latino Origin
The U.S. Census Bureau considers race and Hispanic/Latino origin to be two separate data sets.
Hispanics and Latinos can be of any race. For example, a Caucasian or African-American person
may also be of Hispanic origin. The following table shows the portion of the East Chicago’s
population that is of Hispanic/Latino origin is approximately half (51%).
Census Year
2000
Ethnicity
Number Percent
16,728
51.6%
Hispanic/Latino
Origin
15,686
48.4%
Non-Hispanic or
Latino
32,414
100%
Total
Source: U.S. Census, 2000, 2010
2010
Number
15,101
Percent
50.9%
14.593
49.1%
29,698
100%
Table 2.3: Diversity/Foreign-Born Residents
Table 2.3 shows another measure of East Chicago’s diversity, its percentage of foreign-born
residents. In 2010 about 15% were born outside the United States, with most of those residents
coming from Latin America.
Region of Origin
Latin America
Europe
Number
Percentage
of total of City
Population
4,324
386
13.30%
1.20%
27
Number
Percentage
of total of
City
Population
4,324
13.30%
386
1.20%
35
Asia
27
Africa
9
North America (not
U.S.)
4,781
Foreign Born Total
Source: U.S. Census, 2000, 2010
0.10%
0.10%
0.02%
35
27
9
0.10%
0.10%
0.02%
14.70%
4,781
14.70%
Table 2.4: Population by Sex
Table 2.4 presents data regarding the number of males and females in the City. As shown, there
is generally an equal distribution, but with females having an increasingly higher total.
Census Year
2000
2010
Sex
Number Percent Number
15,509
47.8%
13,909
Male
16,905
52.2%
15,789
Female
32,414
100%
29,698
Total
Source: U.S. Census, 2000, 2010
Percent
46.8%
53.2%
100%
Table 2.5: Population by Age Group
According to the 2010 Census, the median age of the City’s population was 30.8 years, which is
slightly lower than the Chicago metropolitan region’s median age of 33.9. Table 2.5 presents the
breakdown of population by age group. In 2010 the two largest age groups are 5 - to 14 -year
olds and 15 - to 24 - year olds. The third largest group is 25 - to 34 – year olds.
Census Year
2000
2010
Age Group
Number Percent Number Percent
2,944
9.1%
2,856
9.6%
Under 5 years
2,986
9.2%
2,674
9.0%
5 to 9 years
2,425
7.5%
2,354
7.9%
10 to 14 years
2,549
7.9%
2,354
7.9%
15 to 19 years
2,582
8.0%
2,003
6.7%
20 to 24 years
4,349
13.4%
4,155
14.0%
25 to 34 years
4,334
13.4%
3,382
11.4%
35 to 44 years
3,508
10.8%
2,684
12.5%
45 to 54 years
1,245
3.8%
1,611
5.4%
55 to 59 years
1,177
3.6%
1,288
4.3%
60 to 64 years
2,408
7.4%
1,689
5.7%
65 to 74 years
1,486
4.6%
1,001
4.8%
75 to 64 years
421
1.3%
437
1.3%
85 years and
over
32,414
100%
100%
100%
Total
Source: U.S. Census, 2000, 2010
28
These data indicate that, in the near term, the City will continue to be a community with many
families with children because a large percentage of the population is of childbearing age. This
will continue to place demands on services required by families, especially parks and schools.
Although not a large percentage, in 2000 the number of residents reaching retirement age was
expected to increase over the next 10 years, indicating a potential need for increased senior
services, including recreation and housing. However, as of 2010 the population 60 years and
over stayed the same.
Table 2.6: Household and Family Size
The following tables show information about households and families in East Chicago. The
average household size in East Chicago was 2.75 in both 2000 and 2010, slightly higher than the
2.63 average in the Chicago Metropolitan Area. The current average family size (a family is two
or more people residing together and related by birth, marriage, or adoption) was 3.42.
Census Year
2000
Total households
11,707
2.75
Average household size
7,941
Family household
(families)
3.41
Average family size
Source: U.S. Census, 2000, 2010
2010
10,724
2.75
7,197
3.42
Table 2.7: Demographic Trends
For more than 100 years, steelmakers and other local industries attracted workers and their
families to the City of East Chicago. During the peak of the great Industrial Revolution, East
Chicago was known as America’s ultimate melting pot where four out of five of its citizens were
foreign born. In recent years, the City has experienced a slow, but steady, population decline, as
well as substantial changes to the racial and ethnic composition of the population. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of East Chicago in 2010 was 29,698, which represents a
decrease of 12.4% from 1990’s population of 33,892 and of 8.4% from 2000’s population of
32,414.
Similar to the population decline pattern, East Chicago has been experiencing a decline in
households. From 2000 to 2010, there was a loss of 983 households to a total of 10,724
29
households. While the number of households has been declining, the average household size and
average family size have remained the same. Although average household and family size is
three to four persons, it is important to note that approximately 23% of all East Chicago families
have household sizes of five persons or more.
Census
Year
Number of
Households
1990
2000
12,122
11,707
Average
Household
Size
2.78
2.75
2010
10,724
2.75
Household Size
2000
(% of
Total)
32.30%
25.53%
19.29%
12.73%
5.83%
4.32%
2 persons
3 persons
4 persons
5 persons
6 persons
7 or more
persons
Source: U.S. Census, 2000, 2010
2006
(% of
Total)
32.63%
25.56%
19.24%
12.47%
5.96%
4.13%
Average
Family Size
3.42
3.41
3.42
2011
(% of
Total)
32.65%
25.50%
19.13%
12.45%
6.12%
4.16%
A slight majority of East Chicago’s residents are of Hispanic descent. Approximately 51% of the
population is Latino, most of which are of Mexican heritage. According to interviews and focus
group meetings, since the 2000 Census release, the Latino population growth has stabilized. East
Chicago has primarily served as a second stop for Latinos moving from the Chicago area.
Mobility data from 2000 appears to support this theory. More than a third of East Chicago’s
2010 population lived in the City less than five years. Approximately 66 percent of this new
population moved from the City of Chicago. According to key stakeholder and focus group
interviews, the main attractions to the community are job opportunities and lower cost housing
compared with rising housing values in Chicago.
The city’s population growth is dependent on its ability to attract new residents. East Chicago
can build on the increase in its Latino population and position itself not only as a second stop for
Chicago area residents but also as a potential “port of entry” from Mexico and other Latin
30
American countries. More specific strategies to accommodate Latinos and other immigrant
populations may include education and workforce training to prepare newcomers for available
jobs, better access to jobs, and increased bilingual and bicultural institutions.
31
NEIGHBORHOODS AND PARK PROFILES
The 2008 East Chicago Comprehensive Plan identified 13 neighborhoods: Roxana, South and
North sides, Marktown, New Addition, Indiana Harbor (Central Harbor, North Harbor, Martin
Luther King Corridor), Prairie Park, Washington Park, Sunnyside, Calumet, and East Calumet.
These defined areas continue to function as logical zones within the community, although some
consolidation could be considered for simplicity and to create larger communities to work
together for neighborhood improvement. The following map shows neighborhood locations. The
following neighborhood profiles use the U.S. Census 2000 and 2010 data.
Roxana Neighborhood:
The Roxana neighborhood is located in the southwest corner of the City and is bordered by
White Oak Avenue, Roxana Drive, Knights of Columbus Drive, Indianapolis Boulevard, and
U.S. Highway 20 (Michigan and Carroll Streets). Roxana abuts other neighborhoods located
within the City of Hammond.
Population
Race
White:
African-American/Black:
Other:
Ethnicity/Hispanic
Age
Under 18:
Over 65:
Households
Total:
Average Household Size:
Housing
Housing Units:
Owner-occupied:
Vacant:
Open Space: Roxana Park
Roxana Community Center
2000
962
2010
1,072
78.5%
5.5%
16.0%
39.1%
67.0%
8.2%
24.8%
64.6%
22.0%
25.5%
27.5%
12.8%
412
2.34
399
2.69
431
83.2%
4.4%
425
79.5%
6.1%
South Side Neighborhood:
The South Side neighborhood is located in southwest East Chicago and is bordered by White
Oak Avenue, Chicago Avenue, Railroad Avenue, and the IHB and EJ&E Railroads. East
32
Chicago’s “Downtown” is along Chicago Avenue (the northern edge of South side) and
Indianapolis Boulevard.
2000
2010
Population
6,561
6,514
Race
White:
50.5%
48.4%
African-American/Black:
14.0%
25.5%
Other:
35.5%
26.1%
Ethnicity/Hispanic
65.6%
64.0%
Age
Under 18:
30.1%
30.7%
Over 65:
12.3%
9.0%
Households
Total:
2,465
2,379
Average Household Size:
2.45
2.71
Housing
Housing Units:
2,802
2,767
Owner-occupied:
31.4%
27.2%
Vacant:
12.0%
14.0%
Open Space
Kosciuszko Park
Grand Calumet River and adjacent wetlands (Roxana Marsh)
North Side Neighborhood:
The North Side neighborhood is in west-central East Chicago and is bordered by White Oak
Avenue, McShane Drive, Railroad Avenue, and Chicago Avenue. East Chicago’s “Downtown”
is along Chicago Avenue and Indianapolis Boulevard. North side also includes City Hall.
Population
Race
White:
African-American/Black:
Other:
Ethnicity/Hispanic
Age
Under 18:
Over 65:
Households
Total:
Average Household Size:
Housing
Housing Units:
Owner-occupied:
Vacant:
Open Space
Tod Park
Edward Valve Park
2000
4,817
2010
4,326
48.7%
16.3%
35.0%
68.2%
53.5%
20.7%
25.8%
71.8%
30.7%
10.7%
32.7%
8.7%
1,603
2.44
1,386
3.12
1,808
45.9%
11.3%
1,610
47.6%
13.9%
33
MacArthur Golf Course
Veterans’ Park/City Hall
Heritage Hall Community Center
Marktown Neighborhood:
Marktown is in north-central East Chicago, near BP and ArcelorMittal Steel, and is bordered by
Pine Avenue, 129th Street, Dickey Road and Riley Road. This neighborhood, which is on the
National Register of Historic Places, was designed by architect Howard Van Doren Shaw in
1917 as a “model city” to house workers of the Mark Manufacturing Company. Most houses in
Marktown were built on 38-foot by 40-foot lots and set on the lot line. Each house has a covered
and open front porch and a stucco exterior. Most streets are narrow, and the neighborhood is
known for cars parking on the sidewalk and pedestrians walking in the street. Marktown is
surrounded by active industrial uses or land zoned for industrial uses.
2000
2010
Population
540
539
Race
White:
43.9%
61.0%
African-American/Black:
4.4%
14.5%
Other:
51.7%
24.5%
Ethnicity/Hispanic
71.7%
77.4%
Age
Under 18:
34.3%
39.3%
Over 65:
7.2%
3.7%
Households
Total:
168
151
Average Household Size:
2.87
3.57
Housing
Housing Units:
214
214
Owner-occupied:
46.7%
39.7%
Vacant:
21.5%
29.4%
Open Space: Marktown Park, designed by noted landscape architect Jens Jensen.
Marktown Community Center
New Addition Neighborhood:
New Addition is in central East Chicago and is bordered by Canal Port Street, Garfield Place,
Kennedy Avenue, and Columbus Drive. It is isolated from other residential neighborhoods by
industrial uses including rail yards, petroleum storage tanks, and a small cement plant. The
neighborhood does have good automobile access to both the East Chicago and Indiana Harbor
sides of the City because of its location at the foot of the Columbus Drive “flyover” bridge over
the railroad tracks.
2000
2010
Population
328
263
Race
White:
4.0%
6.1%
African-American/Black:
93.3%
86.3%
Other:
2.7%
7.6%
34
Ethnicity/Hispanic
5.6%
8.0%
Age
Under 18:
21.3%
22.8%
Over 65:
18.9%
21.3%
Households
Total:
148
110
Average Household Size:
1.76
2.39
Housing
Housing Units:
175
158
Owner-occupied:
33.7%
37.3%
Vacant:
15.4%
30.4%
Open Space/Institutional:
Bessie Owens Community Center and Park space located adjacent to the
Center
Indiana Harbor Neighborhood:
Indiana Harbor is bordered by Indiana Harbor Drive, Cline Avenue, and Columbus Drive.
ArcelorMittal Steel, the lakefront, and a casino are on the neighborhood's north, although
residential areas are separated from those uses by Cline Avenue and numerous railroad tracks.
The neighborhood has been the subject of several plans or developments, including:
 The City's developer, The Community Builders, has developed plans for commercial and
residential lots near the Main and Broadway intersection. The Main and Broadway
intersection is midway between Nunez Park and Callahan Park, two high priority sites for
major park improvements.
Population
Race
White:
African-American/Black:
Other:
Ethnicity/Hispanic
Age
Under 18:
Over 65:
2000
11,349
2010
9,831
26.5%
46.4%
27.1%
48.1%
22.8%
57.4%
16.3%
40.1%
32.5%
12.3%
33.1%
10.4%
Households
Total:
4,125
3,712
Average Household Size:
2.32
2.65
Housing
Housing Units:
4,786
4,691
Owner-occupied:
28.5%
22.9%
Vacant:
13.8%
20.9%
Open Space
Carey/Jackson Park, Nunez Park, Linear Park (former Pennsylvania railroad right-of-way),
Jeorse Park and the East Chicago Marina are just north of Cline along the lakefront. Callahan
Park, Roberto Clemente Community Center, Carnegie Library (undergoing renovation),
Pennsylvania Community Center
35
Indiana Harbor is further divided into three sub-neighborhoods, North Harbor, Central Harbor,
and Martin Luther King/Guthrie Corridor.
North Harbor Neighborhood:
North Harbor stretches from 138th Street on the South, Carey on the West, Indiana Harbor Drive
on the northwest, Martin Luther King/Guthrie on the southeast.
2000
3,608
2010
2,818
Population
Race
White:
25.9%
25.7%
African-American/Black:
43.1%
53.9%
Other:
31.0%
20.3%
Ethnicity/Hispanic
53.5%
44.0%
Age
Under 18:
34.1%
34.5%
Over 65:
12.8%
11.0%
Households
Total:
1,292
1,015
Average Household Size:
2.79
2.78
Housing
Housing Units:
1,546
1,378
Owner-occupied:
23.7%
Vacant:
16.4%
26.3%
Open Space: Nunez Park, Callahan Park, Carnegie Library
Roberto Clemente Community Center
Central Harbor Neighborhood:
Central Harbor extends from Columbus Drive on the south, Carey on the west, 138th Street on
the north, Martin Luther King/Guthrie on the southeast, west on 140th Street to Alder, then south
to Columbus Drive.
Population
Race
White:
African-American/Black:
Other:
Ethnicity/Hispanic
Age
Under 18:
Over 65:
Households
Total:
Average Household Size:
Housing
Housing Units:
Owner-occupied:
Vacant:
Open Space: Carey/Jackson Park
2000
6,130
2010
5,267
33.0%
36.6%
30.3%
55.5%
28.1%
47.3%
28.7%
13.9%
27.7%
12.5%
2,219
2.76
2,007
2.62
2,594
36.8%
14.5%
2,570
30.4%
21.9%
49.1%
36
Martin Luther King/Guthrie Corridor:
Martin Luther King/Guthrie Corridor is bounded by Martin Luther King/Guthrie on the
southwest, and Cline Avenue on the northeast, and Michigan Avenue on the north.
2000
2010
Population
1,571
1,746
Race
White:
1.8%
1.7%
African-American/Black:
91.6%
93.6%
Other:
6.6%
4.7%
Ethnicity/Hispanic
7.6%
6.6%
Age
Under 18:
44.5%
6.6%
Over 65:
4.7%
3.0%
Households
Total:
590
690
Average Household Size:
2.61
2.53
Housing
Housing Units:
618
743
Owner-occupied:
5.2%
2.7%
Vacant:
4.5%
7.1%
Open Space: Linear Park (formerly Pennsylvania Railroad right-of-way), Jeorse Park, and the
East Chicago Marina
Pennsylvania Community Center
Washington Park Neighborhood:
Washington Park is south of West Harbor and is bordered by Columbus, Carey, Elm, and 144th.
This neighborhood has strong collection of civic and institutional uses, including St. Catherine
Hospital, Block Stadium, and the Kenny Lofton Little League Complex.
Population
Race
White:
African-American/Black:
Other:
Ethnicity/Hispanic
Age
Under 18:
Over 65:
Households
Total:
Average Household Size:
Housing
Housing Units:
Owner-occupied:
Vacant:
Open Space
2000
1,605
2010
1,459
41.4%
29.4%
29.2%
60.5%
37.9%
38.1%
24.0%
60.3%
26.5%
16.5%
27.3%
15.1%
602
2.28
534
2.73
650
54.9%
7.4%
634
47.2%
15.8%
37
Parks & Recreation Department, Washington Park, Block Stadium, and Kenny Lofton Little
League Complex
Prairie Park Neighborhood:
Prairie Park, a neighborhood developed from the 1960s through the 1990s, is bordered by
Columbus, Elm, Cline, and Chicago Avenue with industrial properties to the south.
2000
946
Population
Race
White:
40.3%
African-American/Black:
46.2%
Other:
13.5%
Ethnicity/Hispanic
41.8%
Age
Under 18:
20.4%
Over 65:
19.9%
Households
Total:
339
Average Household Size:
2.37
Housing
Housing Units:
341
Owner-occupied:
95.6%
Vacant:
0.6%
Open Space
Open space at Block Junior High and Franklin Academy
2010
812
33.7%
46.2%
20.1%
48.0%
17.2%
25.7%
307
2.61
326
90.2%
5.8%
Sunnyside Neighborhood:
Sunnyside was originally built by Inland Steel for supervisory employees. The neighborhood is
comprised predominantly of duplexes, although there are some single-family homes along its
southern edge. It is bounded by Columbus, 140th, Cline, and Alder.
Population
Race
White:
African-American/Black:
Other:
Ethnicity/Hispanic
Age
Under 18:
Over 65:
Households
Total:
Average Household Size:
Housing
Housing Units:
Owner-occupied:
Vacant:
Open Space: Sunnyside Park
2000
926
2010
763
34.7%
45.1%
20.2%
47.8%
30.7%
54.7%
14.7%
41.8%
24.8%
16.5%
19.3%
22.9%
334
2.55
306
2.49
340
85.3%
1.8%
324
74.7%
5.6%
38
Calumet Neighborhood
Calumet, which is bounded by Chicago Avenue, the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, 151st, and
Huish Drive has a mix of commercial, institutional, and residential uses. The western portion of
the neighborhood includes a public housing development with a mix of single-family, twofamily, and three story multi-family buildings. It also includes institutional uses (a school, park,
community center, public housing offices, and public works facility), and other residential uses
on the north. East of McCook Avenue, the neighborhood was the subject of a 2003
Neighborhood Redevelopment Plan.
2000
2010
Population
2,785
2,185
Race
White:
7.9%
7.7%
African-American/Black:
84.4%
83.7%
Other:
7.7%
Ethnicity/Hispanic
13.7%
14.7%
Age
Under 18:
34.4%
37.1%
Over 65:
15.0%
12.4%
Households
Total:
991
762
Average Household Size:
2.67
2.75
Housing
Housing Units:
1,165
987
Owner-occupied:
22.0%
17.7%
Vacant:
14.9%
22.8%
Open Space: Goodman Park (adjacent to Carrie Gosch School). There is a two block green
space bordered by Huish, Kennedy, 151st and 149th, and there is a playground and basketball
court at 148th and Melville, across from the Martin Luther King Community Center.
151st Neighborhood Center, Martin Luther King Community Center
East Calumet Neighborhood:
The East Calumet neighborhood is located in the southeast corner of the City and is generally
bounded by Chicago Avenue, Parrish, 149th, and Huish Drive. It is a mostly single family
residential area, although it does have commercial frontage on Chicago Avenue.
Population
Race
White:
African-American/Black:
Other:
Ethnicity/Hispanic
Age
Under 18:
Over 65:
Households
Total:
Average Household Size:
Housing
2000
1,534
2010
1,349
36.1%
43.4%
20.5%
43.0%
25.9%
42.3%
20.9%
50.0%
28.3%
14.3%
25.9%
18.2%
500
2.46
468
2.88
39
Housing Units:
Owner-occupied:
Vacant:
Open Space:
Riley Center, Riley Park
528
73.5%
5.3%
525
65.5%
10.9%
40
ACCESSIBILITY AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN
Statement of Accessibility for East Chicago Parks and Recreation Department (ECPRD)
“The ECPRD makes it a part of our mandate to provide access to all of our facilities,
programs, activities, and employment. We strive to provide access and assistance to people with
physical and mental disabilities or inability to pay, both temporary and permanent. Information
on our accessibility is made available at all of our facilities.”
The members of the Mayor’s Commission on Disabilities are: Richard Morrisroe, City
Planner, suffered a major, disabling back injury in 1965. Appointed to the Mayor’s Committee for
People with Disabilities (“Mayor’s Disability Committee”) in summer 2006, he has a personal
stake in addressing the accessibility issue. Clifford Johnson, former city paralegal and longtime
wheelchair bound, and Patricia Naumoff are also members of the Mayor’s Committee for People
with Disabilities. The Interim Human Rights Commission Director, Consuelo Magana, has been
familiarizing herself with the accessibility issue. Human Rights staff assistant Maria Becerra has
been secretary for the Mayor’s Disabilities Committee for more than six years.
The Mayor’s Committee for People with Disabilities held a special meeting on January
10, 2013. Present were Cheryl Smith, President, Ms. Magana, Ms. Becerra, Richard Morrisroe,
Member and City Planner, Francisco Rosado, Jr., Parks & Recreation Department
Superintendent, and Frances Nowacki, Recreation Department Supervisor. City Engineer Jezreel
Rodriguez, along with East Chicago Building/Code Enforcement Department, designed the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan for the city’s transportation network. The
Parks Department has adapted the transportation Transition Plan for parks and recreation facilities
and programs.
The ECPRD has agreed with the Human Rights Commission and Mayor’s Committee on
People with Disabilities to partner and help conduct an accessibility review between January 10,
2013 and March 31, 2013 under the direction of Ms. Smith and Ms. Magana. The following areas
are to be evaluated and the anticipated results are bulleted below:

Policies – compliance with ADA copies of documents
o Estimated cost of compliance: $1,000
o Potential funding source: East Chicago, Park Fund, 5-15% of purchases

Employment – ADA/Rehabilitation Act compliant

Programs – ADA compliant

Facilities – ADA compliant except for: playgrounds and ingress/egress to playgrounds,
bathrooms, community center stages, and doors
41
o Estimated cost of compliance: $500,000 Minimum;
o Potential funding source: Parks budget, casino funds, public and private sector
grants.
Current Accessibility
East Chicago has accessible walkways, shelter houses, picnic areas, and restrooms in our
parks and facilities. Every activity available in the East Chicago parks has been developed to be
accessible to as many people as possible through one means or another, except for our aging play
structures. For Universal Design purposes, East Chicago has adopted the policy of purchasing
only accessible picnic tables and benches; ADA only requires that 50% of these amenities be
accessible.
Proposed Accessibility
East Chicago has a strong need to replace our old play structures. They do not meet
current Consumer Product Safety Commission guidelines, National Playground Safety Institute
guidelines, or the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Play Areas. The
playgrounds need to be updated with age-appropriate play equipment that has safe and accessible
surfacing underneath it, and accessible routes to the parking lots and other amenities in our parks.
The bare minimum cost estimate for this kind of upgrade is $500,000. Funds are expected to
come from parks budget, casino funds, foundation and private sector grants.
42
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT
ADA SELF EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN FOR
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EAST CHICAGO, INDIANA
Jezreel Rodriguez, P.E.
City Engineer, ADA Coordinator
April 9, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. TRANSITION PLAN DEVELOPMENT
A. ADA COORDINATOR
B. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
C. SELF EVALUATION/COMMITMENT/SCHEDULE
D. ADA STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
3. IMPLEMENTATION
2
3
3
3
5
6
6
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: COMPLAINT/GRIEVANCE FORM
7
43
INTRODUCTION
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted on July 26, 1990, and later amended
effective January 1, 2009. As written and implemented, the ADA provides comprehensive civil
rights protections to persons with disabilities in the areas of employment, state and local
government services, access to public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunication.
The ADA is a companion civil rights legislation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In order to be protected by the ADA, one must have a
disability or have a relationship or association with an individual with a disability. An individual
with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such
impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such impairment. The ADA,
however, does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered.
The ADA is divided into five sections covering the following topics:
Title I: Employment
Title II: Public Services (Parks and Recreation)
Title III: Public Accommodations (and Commercial Facilities)
Title IV: Telecommunications
Title V: Miscellaneous Provisions
Title II, specifically prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against persons
with disabilities or from excluding participation in or denying benefits of programs, services, or
activities to person with disabilities. It is under this title that this transition plan has been
prepared. This transition plan is intended to outline the methods by which physical changes will
be made to give effect to the non-discrimination policies described in Title II.
44
TRANSITION PLAN DEVELOPMENT
To ensure program accessibility for people with disability in the community, the Parks and
Recreation Department of the City of East Chicago has developed a Transition Plan, which is to
be considered good practice. The Transition Plan for Parks and Recreation considers the
following:
A. ADA COORDINATOR:
Effective communication is essential to address all the complaints or concerns of all
individuals. In order to keep maintaining the lines of communication open, and thereby
ensuring effective communication between all parties, the City of East Chicago has
designated the City Engineer as the ADA coordinator. The ADA Coordinator shall
coordinate the City's efforts to comply with and carry out its responsibilities under Title
II of the ADA, including any investigation of any complaint communicated to the ADA
coordinator. Such complaints may take the form of alleging noncompliance with ADA
mandates or alleging any actions that would be prohibited under the ADA. The City shall
make available to all interested individuals the name, office address, and telephone
number of the employee(s) so designated and shall adopt and publish procedures for the
prompt and equitable resolution of complaints. Every complaint must be directed in
writing to the ADA Coordinator, in this case the City Engineer.
B. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE:
The Grievance Procedure established below is intended to adhere to the standards
outlined in the ADA. The procedure must be used by anyone who wishes to file a
complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provisions of services,
activities, programs, or benefits provided by the Parks and Recreation Department of the
City of East Chicago.
The complaint should be in writing and contain information about the alleged
discrimination such as name, address, phone number of complaint and location, date, and
description of the problem. Grievance Forms must be used to lodge a complaint, please
make reference to Appendix A. Alternative means of filing complaints, such as personal
interviews or recording of the complaint will be made available for persons with
disabilities upon request. The complaint should be submitted by the grievant and/or
45
his/her designee as soon as possible but no later than 180 calendar days after the alleged
violation to:
ADA Coordinator
4444 Railroad Avenue
East Chicago, IN 46312
Within 15 calendar days after receipt of the complaint, ADA Coordinator or his designee
will meet with the complainant to discuss the complaint and the possible resolutions.
Within 15 calendar days of the meeting, ADA Coordinator or his designee will respond
in writing, and where appropriate, in a format accessible to the complainant, such as large
print, Braille, or audio tape. The response will explain the position of the Parks and
Recreation Department of the City of East Chicago and offer options for substantive
resolution of the complaint.
If the response by ADA Coordinator or his designee does not satisfactorily resolve the
issue, the complainant or his/her designee may appeal the decision within 15 calendar
days after receipt of the response to the ADA Coordinator or his designee. Within 15
calendar days after receipt of the appeal, the ADA Coordinator or his designee will meet
again with the complainant to discuss the appeal and possible resolutions. Within 15
calendar days after the meeting, the ADA Coordinator or his designee will respond in
writing, and, where appropriate, in a formats described above that accessible to the
complainant, with a final resolution of the complaint.
All written complaints received by the ADA Coordinator or his designee, appeals to the
ADA Coordinator or his designee, and responses from ADA office will be retained by the
City of East Chicago for at least three years.
C. SELF EVALUATION/COMMITMENT
The Parks and Recreation Department of the City of East Chicago has conducted and
continues to conduct an inventory of evaluations of access paths, park benches, and
playground equipment employing parks workers and a similar inventory of evaluations of
the eight community centers by city building inspectors. Each evaluator utilized the
checklists attached herein as Appendix B. The evaluations revealed that the majority of
the access paths, park benches, swimming pools, and playground equipment do not meet
46
ADA requirements. However, the City is committed to making all access paths, park
benches, swimming pools, and playground equipment accessible to all pedestrians
including those with disabilities. This will be accomplished through the following
programs:
o All new parks construction, reconstruction, or alterations, including federal
projects under the control and/or inspection of the Department of Public
Works will be in compliance with the ADA;
o The city will have in place an access paths, park benches, swimming pools,
and playground equipment repair program annually;
o Allotting a conservative estimate of $300 per access path, park benches,
swimming pools, and playground equipment installation or reconstruction,
starting in 2013, the City of East Chicago will commit gaming funds every
year to solicit a separate contract for the sole purpose of installing new
access paths, park benches, swimming pools, and playground equipment
and reconstructing existing curb access paths, park benches, swimming
pools, and playground equipment to meet compliance.
The missing or non-compliant access paths, park benches, swimming pools, and
playground equipment shall be prioritized.
D. ADA STANDARDS/GUIDELINES:
The standards are intended to apply to all parks and recreation construction undertaken
within the City. The 2008 Indiana University “Best Practices of Accessibility in Parks
and Recreation: A Delphi Survey of National Experts in Accessibility” and the U.S.
Department of Justice “Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II Technical Assistance
Manual Covering State and Local Government Programs and Services” design guidelines
and standard drawings, and Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines will serves as
the primaries standards and guidelines for this plan. Other standards, if necessary, will be
applied at the discretion of the ADA Coordinator.
IMPLEMENTATION
The Parks and Recreation Department of the City intends to implement this Transition Plan
effective the date of this document. Not only does the City commit to following the guidelines
set forth in this Transition Plan but it also commits to actively revising and amending this
47
document as new information is discovered. Further, as a matter of policy, this document will be
updated at least every five years. Finally, a copy of this document will be placed on the City’s
website.
APPENDIX A
Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan for Parks & Recreation
Complaint / Grievance Form
Grievant Information:
Grievant Name:
Address:
City:
EAST CHICAGO
Phone:
(
)
Alternative Phone:
)
IN
ZIP Code:
46312
E-mail:
(
State:
-
Person Preparing Complaint Relationship to Grievant (if different from Grievant):
Name:
Address:
Phone:
City:
(
Alternative Phone:
)
)
ZIP Code:
E-mail:
(
State:
-
Please specify any location(s) related to the complaint or grievance (if applicable):
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________
Please provide a complete description of the specific complaint or grievance:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
___________________________
48
Please state what you think should be done to resolve the complaint or grievance:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Please attach additional pages as needed.
Signature: ______________________________________
Date:
____________________
City’s Corrective Action:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
___
By: ______________________________
Please return to: ADA Coordinator, 4444 Railroad Ave., East Chicago, IN 46312 or via fax
(219) 391-8401.
Upon request, reasonable accommodation will be provided in completing this
Form or copies of the form will be provided in alternative formats. Contact the
ADA Coordinator at the address listed above or via telephone (219) 391-8355.
49
SECTION 504 COMPLIANCE FORM
ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE
SECTION 504
OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
The East Chicago Parks and Recreation Board (Applicant) has received and read the guidelines
for compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 issued by the United States
Department of the Interior and will comply with the ACT and these guidelines.
SIGNATURE
APPLICANT PRESIDENT
Lilia Ramos
SIGNATURE
APPLICANT SECRETARY
Valda Lewis
DATE: April 9, 2013
50
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The ECPRD recognizes its mission to serve the community. The best way for us to
provide service to the community is to ask what their needs, opinions, and preferences are, and
apply that information to all future planning. For this Master Plan, two methods of public input
were used – public participation meetings and telephone surveys --followed by a final analysis of
data to double-check our earlier opinion gathering.
These methods helped the ECPRD formulate achievable goals and objectives to truly
make this plan a plan for and by the people. Hopefully this can make East Chicago a model for
Parks and Recreation around the region. In advance the ECPRD would like to thank those who
participated for giving up their time to give their input, which was crucial. The results give
ECPRD ideas for the best way to provide services to the community and apply the information
gathered to future planning.
Following is the flyer sent as a water utility bill insert to promote the public meetings
around East Chicago. Furthermore, it was posted in all main government buildings, on East
Chicago’s main webpage, and on Facebook. Also a press release was sent out and two stories
appeared in the Northwest Indiana Times. As daunting this task was, the amount of participation
from the residents was well worth it compared with the last time the Plan was drawn up.
______________________________________________________________________________
East Chicago Parks and Recreation Department (ECPRD) needs your input!
The subjects of parks, recreation, and community facilities/spaces are several important aspects
concerning the quality of life in East Chicago. As such the ECPRD would like to invite you, its
resident, in helping with the upcoming five year Parks and Recreation Plan.
The ECPRD would like to set goals and objectives for this upcoming 2013-2017 Parks and
Recreation Plan. To set and achieve those goals and objectives, the ECPRD requires public
involvement. In this plan the ECPRD will recognize resource constraints and strive to encourage
early public participation. The ECPRD would like to involve the public as often as it can
throughout this decision making process and also identify, communicate with and listen to
affected sectors of the public.
We are asking for your attendance and participation to any of the following meetings:



Monday – February 4th, 2013 6:00pm – 8:00pm at Heritage Hall Community Center
located at 4506 Tod Ave. This will be the first public input meeting.
Tuesday – February 5th, 2013 6:00pm – 7:00pm at Marktown Community Center
located at 3509 Spruce Street. This will be the first focus group.
Monday – February 11th, 2013 6:00pm – 7:00pm at Martin Luther King
Community Center located 4802 Melville Ave. This will be the second focus group
meeting.
51

Tuesday – February 12th, 2013 6:00pm – 8:00pm at Roberto Clemente Community
Center located at 3616 Elm Street. This will be the second public input meeting.
This process will help the ECPRD formulate your issues, ideas, and opinions into achievable
goals and objectives to add to the five year plan. If you have any questions regarding this
process or any of the meetings/focus groups please do not hesitate in calling the Parks and
Recreation Department’s main office number at 391-8474 or visit www.eastchicago.com.
We would like to formally thank you for helping the City of East Chicago with its five year
Park and Recreation Plan and look forward to your participation.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETINGS
The locations of the meetings were discussed by the City Planner and Park Department
Superintendent. The following sites chosen were thought to be optimal sites that incorporated all
the neighborhoods.
-
Heritage Hall Community Center – North Side and South Side
-
Roberto Clemente Community Center – Harborside
-
Marktown Community Center – Marktown
-
Martin Luther King Community Center – West Calumet
In particular, the Marktown and the West Calumet areas were the locations of separate
focus group meetings, addressing the needs of these geographically separate neighborhoods. The
following are the findings of those meetings.
Heritage Hall Community Center – North Side and South Side Public Input Meeting
Monday – February 4, 2013, 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm at Heritage Hall Community Center
15 residents participated in the Heritage Hall Community Center Public Participation
meeting. A total of 21 people were present, five of whom were facilitators and one was a park
staff employee. Before the meeting, the Park Survey was distributed for the participants to fill
out and will be later discussed in detail in the Survey section.
The moderator, Marino Solorio, opened the meeting by asking why parks are important.
After receiving answers from the participants, he read the top 10 different reasons why they are
important. Some reasons coincided with what the public stated. Then he asked the participants
to split into groups color coded by posted notes to discuss the needs, dreams, and improvements
that they felt their community or city needed and to write them on designated posted notes. They
52
were asked to prioritize the needs, dreams, and improvements in order of importance. Each
group leader chosen by the group or self-appointed read their team’s priorities.
The moderator asked each group to read their first priorities for needs and to put them on
the East Chicago map in the area they felt these items pertained to. If they were located on the
center of the map, it meant all of East Chicago. Then he asked about their second priorities, and
finally the third. They then moved on to dreams and then improvements following the same
procedure. Although the groups came up with these priorities as individual groups, many of the
groups coincided with one another. The most common and most important needs, dreams, and
improvements are stated below, along with an “other” section. The needs, dreams, and
improvements are as follows in order of importance:
-
Needs
o Lighting and security
o Handicap Accessibility
o Accessible paths and maintenance (ex. snow removal)
o Adequate restroom facilities throughout all the parks
o Other needs

More Programs for all ages

-
Parks and Community Centers
Dreams
o One main Community and Recreational Center
o Bicycle Path that connects the city as a whole
o Skating rinks in some of the parks
o Other Dreams
-

Indoor pool

Workout facility

Arts and craft activities

Kayaking and access to canal
Improvements
o Marketing of various activities, centers, and parks
o Make parks and community centers offer wide range of programs for various age
groups
o Current lighting inadequate
53
o Resurfacing of some courts
o Signage

Other

Upgrade playground area

Upkeep basketball rims and courts

Better recreational programs
The moderator moved to the last part of the meeting, asking about the main assets of the
city. These assets were derived from a meeting with the Park Superintendent and City Planner
who identified five major assets. What they responded in terms of each assets are stated at the
end of this section. These sections are a combination of all the meetings and are not specifically
identified from one meeting or another. The assets are as follows:
-
Beach
-
Marina/Social Center
-
MacArthur Golf Course
-
Block stadium/Kenny Lofton Baseball Complex
-
Bike Trails
Marktown Community Center – Marktown Focus Group
Tuesday – February 5, 2013, 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm at Marktown Community Center
Seven residents participated in the Marktown Community Center Focus Group meeting.
A total of twelve people were present, four of whom were facilitators and one was a park staff
employee. Before the meeting commenced, the Park Survey was distributed for the participants
to fill out and will later be discussed in detail in the Survey section under Marktown focus group.
The moderator opened up with the question of why parks are important. After receiving
answers from the participants he read the top 10 reasons from the previous meeting. Some
reasons coincided with those the public stated. From that he asked each participant to use the
color coded posted notes and to write what they felt were the needs, dreams, and improvements
of their community or city. The moderator asked each person to write the needs on yellow
posted note, dreams on green, and red for improvements.
54
From those needs, dreams, and improvements, they were asked to prioritize them in order
of importance. Each person read their priorities starting with their first priorities for needs. He
wrote them on his notepad and as a consolidated list on the dry eraser board. He asked to specify
where these items pertained to and separated them by community or all of East Chicago. Some
items were for both Marktown and East Chicago. He then asked about their second priorities,
and finally the third. They then moved on to dreams and then improvements following the same
procedure.
Although the groups came up with these priorities as individuals, many of them
coincided. The most common and most important needs, dreams, and improvements are stated
below along with an “other” section. The majority agreed the items were both dealing with their
community and the city as a whole. Therefore, for purposes of simplicity, each item will
represent all of East Chicago unless stated otherwise.
The needs, dreams, and improvements
are as follow in order of importance:
-
Needs – Yellow
o Security and lighting

Blind Spot Landscaping (Marktown)

Maintenance
o More Activities for all ages

More Computers (Marktown)
o Better Park and Playground Equipment

Park benches and picnic tables
o Secure bathrooms and centrally locate them (Marktown)

Adequate Bathrooms
o Other

-
Removal of graffiti on hothouse (Marktown)
Dreams – Green
o Community Center rebuilt (Marktown)
o Tot Park/splash park (Marktown)
o Beautify lot across the community center (Marktown)
o Upkeep parks
o Other

Handicap accessible park/playground for children

Ice skating
55
-
Improvements – Red
o Activities for all ages
o Landscaping and beautification

Painting (Marktown)

New mulch in playground area (Marktown)
o Defining parks all around the city
o Open space vs. vacant lots
o Other

Designated area for specific sports (Marktown)

Need for athletic leagues

Improvements need to be made before they become too costly
The moderator moved to the last part of the meeting, asking about the main assets of the
city. Again these assets were derived from a meeting with the Park Superintendent and City
Planner who identified five major assets. What they responded in terms of each assets are stated
almost at the end of the public participation section with headers separating each asset. Again
these sections are a combination of all the meetings and are not specifically identified in one
meeting or another.
Martin Luther King Community Center – West Calumet Focus Group
Monday – February 11, 2013, 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm at Martin Luther King Community Ctr.
Twenty residents participated in the Martin Luther King Community Center Focus
Group meeting. A total of 26 people were present, four of whom were facilitators and two were
park staff employees. Before the meeting commenced, the Park Survey was distributed for the
participants to fill out and will later be discussed in detail in the Survey section under Martin
Luther King focus group.
The moderator opened up with the question of why parks are important. After receiving
answers from the participants, he read out the top 10 reasons from the previous meetings. Some
reasons coincided with what the public stated. From that he asked each participant to form a
group and to use the color coded posted notes to write what they felt were the needs, dreams, and
improvements of their community or city. The moderator asked each group to write the needs on
56
yellow posted note, dreams on green, and red for improvements. From those needs, dreams, and
improvements, they were asked to prioritize them in order of importance.
Each group read their priorities starting with needs as he wrote them on his notepad. He
asked to specify where they felt these items pertained to and separated them by community or all
of East Chicago. Some items were for both West Calumet and East Chicago. Then he asked
about their second priorities, and finally the third.
They moved on to dreams and then
improvements following the same procedure.
Although the groups came up with these priorities as individuals many of them coincided.
The most common and most important needs, dreams, and improvements are stated below along
with an “other” section. Also for purposes of simplicity each item represents all of East Chicago
unless stated otherwise. The majority agreed the items were dealt with their community and the
city as a whole. The needs, dreams, and improvements are as follows in order of importance:
-
Needs – Yellow
o Security/Lighting
o Funding
o Upgrade facilities
o Keep the centers open for children and seniors
o Other

-
Center fairness

Unity and communication among centers

Cleaning and maintenance of centers both inside and out

Road repairs (West Calumet)

Identifying new centers
Dreams – Green
o Educational and tutoring programs
o Deep River water park on the Lakefront
o Good restaurants to coincide with recreational opportunities
o Skating rinks
o Other

Programs and field trips

Culture for kids
57
-

Cruise from our dock to Chicago (Navy Pier)

Movies in the parks
Improvements – Red
o More Summer programs

Activities for all ages group
o Modernize and upgrade centers and facilities
o Basketball Court resurfacing

Fence needs to be repaired (West Calumet)

Rim repair (West Calumet)
o Pool upgrade (West Calumet)
o Other

Picnic tables and benches

New Addition Neighborhood

At risk youth programs in conjunction with schools
Roberto Clemente Community Center – Harbor Public Input Meeting
Tuesday – February 12, 2013, 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm at Roberto Clemente Community Center
Twelve residents participated in the Roberto Clemente Community Center Public Input
meeting. A total of 17 people were present, four of whom were facilitators and one was a park
staff employee. Before the meeting commenced, the Park Survey was distributed for the
participants to fill out and will later be discussed in detail in the Survey section under Roberto
Clemente focus group.
The moderator opened up with the question of why parks are important. After receiving
answers from the participants, he read the top 10 reasons from the previous meeting. Some
reasons coincided with those the public stated. He then asked each participant to use the color
coded posted notes to write what they felt were the needs, dreams, and improvements of their
community or city. The moderator asked each person to write the needs on yellow posted notes,
dreams on green, and red for improvements.
From those needs, dreams, and improvements, they were asked to prioritize them in order
of importance. Each person read their priorities starting with their first priorities for needs as he
wrote them on his notepad. He asked to specify where they felt these items pertained to and
separated them by community or all of East Chicago. Some items were for both Harbor and East
58
Chicago. Then he asked about their second priorities, and finally the third. They then moved on
to dreams and then improvements following the same procedure.
Although the groups came up with these priorities as individuals, many of them
coincided. The most common and most important needs, dreams, and improvements are stated
below along with an “other” section. Also for purposes of simplicity each item will represent all
of East Chicago unless stated otherwise. The majority agreed the items both dealt with their
community and the city as a whole. The needs, dreams, and improvements are as follows in
order of importance:
-
Needs – Yellow
o Make parks affordable

Fees

Pool

Leagues

Create a volunteer to pay program for these fees

Rental of facilities

To high

Application
o Income base fee
o More Green space, gardens, greenery

Community driven

Workshops about planting and gardening
o Complete paths and accessible
o Specific teen areas
o Safety and Lighting

Visibility
o Other
-

More paths and sidewalks and upkeep

Sense of community
Dreams
o Incorporating arts in the parks

Canon and landmarks were used before
o Events
59

WOW fest

Different activities in parks for different age groups
o Community Events

Consistent throughout all parks and community centers
o Walkable park system
o Other
-

Various sports

Presentations, movies at parks
Improvements – Red
o More money

Budget

Accessibility of funding
o Signage

Rules of parks
o Little leagues

Baseball fields improvements
o Accessing a volunteer base
o Involve other community organizations

Churches

Schools

Clubs
o Marketing and promotion of activities and facilities
o Other

Modernization of centers and facilities
East Chicago Top Five Assets
Jeorse Park Beach
The general consensus is that the beach is not a place where people take their family for
many reasons. The perception that it is unsafe, handicap inaccessible, an eyesore, and has
inadequate parking are among the most common reasons why residents do not visit the city’s
main asset.
The beach seems to have made itself home for bird dropping, diapers, and trash
along with E coli. The E coli issue has become a major problem for the beach in the past years.
Those who visit and use the beach disregard the E coli warnings signs altogether. This only adds
60
to the problem. Also, the lack of shade and greenery makes the beach unappealing along with
the negligence of those who use it.
The perceived culprits to some of the problems are those who frequent the beach and are
thought to be non-residents who do not care about littering and loitering. The fact that it is one
of the only free beaches in Northwest Indiana was thought to be a defining factor. Among other
complaints were that the concession stand was never open and that there are no water fountains.
Furthermore, the playground is awkwardly placed and typically buried in sand. The bathrooms
are not easily accessible and although there is a ramp, the beach itself is not handicapped
accessible.
The shared parking frustrates visitors because the furthermost parking is used for the
beach while the nearest is used for the casino employees which is thought to be in opposite order.
The security guard on staff does not help to guide traffic along. It was thought that if adequate
lighting were installed, along with charging a fee to use the beach, it would curb some of the
unruliness and safety concerns. The only shelter that can be used for picnic and shade is also
awkwardly placed to some and lacks a place to sit.
A man at one of the meetings was heading the cleaning of the Jeorse Park Beach and
studied the E coli problem. According to him, about 6,000 lbs. of garbage was collected from
the beach one summer. Also the Long Shore current study stated that the reason why this beach
in particular has a lot of E coli problems is because of lack of circulation caused by the break
wall used at one point to dock the casino boat. Now that the boat is not being docked anymore,
he suggested an engineer look at retrofitting the breakwall. More questions about what type of
money can be used for improvements were asked, such as Tax Increment Financing.
Finally, the consensus is that the beach can be one of East Chicago’s most prized real
estate locations for social and physical activity if the city made a commitment to it, diamond in
the rough as some suggested.
Marina/Social Center
The Marina is also a space not being used to its full potential and is typically used by
businessmen, the city, or those who dock in it. Furthermore, there is a complete disconnect from
the beach because the physical barrier the casino imposes. The consensus was that the Marina
61
has a beautiful social center and is a great place to rent out. Much of the problem for the site is
the lack of marketing of the facility. It was confirmed that a new restaurant was opening its door
there and that the site is mainly used by out-of-towners.
Some participants suggested that it could be used as a small convention center and for
indoor and outdoor concerts. Another constraint is its parking which typically is used by those
who dock or use the facility for recreational purposes such as fishing. Aside from that there is not
a lot to do at this site. Better signage around the city would help get people there, but lack of
events or activities drive people away. Some suggested a boardwalk that would connect the
beach, casino, and marina.
Currently a sailing program is being offered by professionals teaching high school age
kids. The Director of Marketing and Events for the facility was at the meeting and suggested
that good things were coming for the residents in terms of usability of this asset. Furthermore,
he made the commitment of working with the city and others to create more events to bring
residents there. The only current event that the city hosts at the marina is the Fourth of July
festivities.
MacArthur Golf Course
The main observations and perceptions of this asset is that it is overall a nice golf course
and is used most by out-of-towners. The rates should be increased. Although there are batting
cages and miniature golf aside from the nine-hole golf course, there really is nothing else to do.
The inaccessible parking for some and the gated area makes for the perception that the place is
closed. The lack of promotion of the facility could be part of the problem for some and the
current sign should be used as a marketing tool.
If the city or leagues put on some sort of neighborhood competition, it would bring
people to this asset, some suggested. Also, activities for all ages would also boost attendance,
such as Cub Scout Troops and Class Trips. Although many people stated that the site does offer
some form of fun and activities, the miniature golf is really something you would only do once.
Also unless you are in a league practicing batting, the batting cages do not offer much for others.
Block Stadium/Kenny Lofton Baseball Complex
62
The general consensus is that Block Stadium is well used when it is used for festivals;
however, the main problem is when it rains. Block Stadium suffers from severe drainage and
flooding problems. Some suggested that because of the use outside the norm of what the site
should be used for, it has led to its inferior conditions. Bleachers need to be removed and major
rehabilitation would need to take place to make this a major asset again.
Many saw the potential of this site as a place specifically used for what it was designed
for, baseball or softball. The site could host a minor league team sponsored by one of the big
local industries such as ArcelorMittal or BP. It could also be used by Central High School since
the school lacks a facility such as this. Various community leagues can be created to use the
facility. Also low impact uses such as movie in the park program could be implemented and be
very beneficial.
It seemed that the Kenny Lofton Baseball Complex is well used by current leagues,
community groups, and schools. It was said that at one point that this asset used to host the
regional championships but with its current conditions they are now being hosted elsewhere.
Bike Trails
Lastly, many participants suggested the need for more bike trails. Some did not even
know that there was a current bike trail, though small, in place. Many fear, for security reasons
that bicyclists do not want to ride around East Chicago because they are afraid of being assaulted
or because of safety issues with oncoming traffic or pedestrians. The current bike trail lacks
adequate lighting and signage. Furthermore, the current bike trail is not well promoted and some
feel it has very little use.
The bike trail consists of the connection of three parks, Kosciuszko Park, Veteran’s and
Tod Park. Tod Park offers a designated bike trail, but is mainly used by pedestrians, who create
conflicts with cyclists. The current bike trail does not connect the city as a whole and is not
connected with other existing and proposed bike trails, such as in the regional Marquette Trail,
mentioned below, pp. 75-76.
TELEPHONE SURVEY
The IDNR requires a random method of gathering public input; therefore, ECPRD
created a survey for random telephone administration throughout the city.
63
After getting
significant contributions from parks and recreation staff, staff developed the East Chicago
Parks and Recreation Public Input Survey (PIS). The survey instrument had 18 questions,
grouped into four sections that covered use patterns of parks, issue identification, goals and
funding, and demographics. The consultant inputted the data to tabulate and analyze the data
from the survey results. The following is the four page survey instrument that follows the
description below.
-
Part 1: Helps the City understand general patterns and use of parks: how often the
respondents use the parks, why, and when.
-
Part 2: Helps the City understand what issues the respondents felt were important when
using East Chicago parks and help to identify areas of improvements.
-
Part 3: Financing to help the City determine where the budget should be or the likelihood
of potential funding.
-
Part 4: Demographics of the respondents.
Stratified Random Sampling
The ECPRD on the advice of the consultant, decided to use a stratified random sampling
method which reduces sampling error. The main difference between stratified sampling and
random sampling is that with a true random sampling all eligible respondents have an equal
opportunity to be chosen to participate in this survey. In contrast, stratified sampling creates a
stratum which is a subset of the population. The stratum of the population must share at least
one common characteristic which in this case was a listed phone number in the 2012 Haines
Directory. Stratified sampling is often used when one or more of the stratums in the population
have a low incidence relative to other stratums, in this case those with phone number listed
versus those without. Approximately 69% percent of the entries had no phone number listed,
and given that this is a phone survey, this percentage would make it almost impossible to
administer this survey if the stratum was not created.
After creating a stratum, the random sampling procedure is used where a number of
potential respondents from the list are randomly selected. A sufficient number selected from the
stratum should be a sample size large enough to be reasonably confident that the stratum
represents the population which is 29,698 residents according to 2010 U.S. Census data. The
consultant identified the relevant stratum and its actual representation in the population based on
the Census Block Groups provided by the directory. Geographically the stratum was evenly
distributed throughout East Chicago, with some of the larger block groups accounting for more
entries.
64
The numbers below explain the procedure of random survey sampling and how the
ECPRD determined the sufficient number to represent the population. The desired error level
and population size are as follows illustrated below. The numbers next to each confidence level
indicate how many people needed to complete the survey to achieve the specified error level.
#1 - How many survey respondents are needed?
ECPRD’s margin of error
Population
Chicago
of
5.0
% Good
relevance
East
29,698
90% Confidence
95% Confidence
99% Confidence
270
margin
of
error
for
based on the 2010 Census Data
survey respondents needed
379
649
#2 - How many people do you need to administer the survey to?
How many people need to complete the survey?
270
From #1 above
Estimated response rate?
30
Total needed
900
90% confidence level
% based on 2008 survey (25%)
entries randomly selected
Since the directory had 69% entries without phone numbers; the response rate could have
been adjusted to reflect at minimum 70% fewer responses than what ECPRD used of 30%. It
would bring the response rate to 9% and therefore increasing the list to 3,000 entries in hope that
enough phone respondents would respond to meet the goal of 270 responses. Regardless, those
residents without a phone number would still not be able to participate, unless mailed or done
door to door. This option was discussed, but staff concluded that although only 900 entries
would be needed for a random sampling, it would be too costly and time consuming. Lastly,
ECPRD does not have the staff to take on that endeavor.
By using the 2012 Haines Directory ECPRD was able to access 14,906 residential entries
of which 900 were randomly selected out of a stratum of 4,588 that listed phone numbers. The
consultant used a computerized random list generator that select 900 entries. The list was then
distributed to the administrators of the telephone survey.
Administering the Telephone Survey
65
The survey was administered through an onsite phone location with the help of seven of
ECPRD’s staff and a bilingual multimedia staff member. The phone survey effort required
bilingual (English-Spanish) staff. When an English only interviewer encountered a Spanish
dominant respondent, the respondent was offered the opportunity to conduct their interview with
one of the bilingual interviewers. They called from 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm daily for about four
weeks from March 4th - 28th, and offsite calls were made by volunteers and the consultant for
about another month to accommodate hours and people who did not meet the parameters of
when the survey was being administered. All the survey administrators attended a workshop on
how to administer a survey, procedures, frequently asked questions, and quality control issues
given by the consultant. The results were well worth all the work, where a total of 260 responses
were collected, just shy of ECPRD’s goal of 270 responses. This gives ECPRD a margin of
error of 5.1% on a 90% confidence level, which is gives great validity to this survey.
A total of 467 responses was collected in the timeframe mentioned above of about two
months from various sources including the stratified random survey. Since ECPRD thought it
may or may not reach its target goal of 270, staff decided to administer the survey at other sites
as focus group surveys. Included in these focus groups were the two public participation
meetings and the two focus group meetings which occurred in early February. Also the online
survey, which went live two weeks after the phone survey began, was open to all East Chicago
residents. It was publicized on Facebook and the City’s website. The following is the list of the
various data sources with the number of respondents beside each.
-
Citywide randomized survey: 260
-
Heritage Hall Focus Group: 27
o Public Participation Meeting (14)
o Community Center users (13)
-
Marktown Focus Group: 9
-
Martin Luther King Focus Group: 87
o Focus Group meeting (18)
o Community Center users (69)
-
Roberto Clemente Focus Group: 12
-
St. Mary Church: 16
-
Roxana Center: 20
-
Penn Center: 12
-
Online Survey: 24
66
The following section illustrates the analysis of ECPRD’s data that was collected for the
citywide randomized survey. The main analysis will be that of the stratified random sampling.
The other surveys will serve as an internal analysis for the basis of checking specifically in what
areas ECPRD needs to improve, specifically what community centers or areas. How community
centers users view or use other parks and facilities in the city. What the main differences in
thought patterns are when comparing different data sets. Finally, to see how outside groups use
ECPRD’s parks and facilities and to validate issues that were mentioned during the public
meetings.
SURVEY ANALYSIS
Frequencies
After all the surveys were collected, the data was inputted into the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS) to facilitate the analysis of this data. The first section analyzed was
section four: demographics. The following figures and tables illustrate the frequencies of the
data collected. Note that some of the respondents chose to leave some questions blank. When
the survey was administered to the respondents, they were told if they were not comfortable
responding
to
a
question, to just say so,
and the administrator
would move on to the
next
question.
Therefore, some data
can be skewed slightly.
When analyzing those
responses,
the
“No
Response” is noted on
Figure 1.0
some of the figures or
tables.
The main ethnicity and/or race of the respondents are illustrated on Figure 1.0. It was
decided to put ethnicity as part of this race question since according to the previous two
Censuses, there is an overwhelming population of Hispanics of a little more than half. The U.S.
Census Bureau considers race and Hispanic/Latino origin to be two separate data sets. Hispanics
and Latinos can be of any race. Although the Hispanic population in the previous Census has
Table 1.0
67
shown to decrease, in our survey they were the main respondents of this questionnaire which is
not surprising.
Table 1.0 shows a higher number of females answered the questionnaire. This could be
due to many factors such as actual male to female ratio, which according to the 2010 Census, for
every one man there are 1.135 females, higher than the previous Census. It could also be due to
Table 1.2
Table 1.3
stay home mom versus working
dad and when the time the survey
was administered, but it is only
assumed.
However, both the
trends of male and Hispanic
population decline are worth
noting.
Table 1.1
The following three Tables below, Table 1.1, 1.2,
and 1.3, describe the amount of the respondents’ household
income, members living within the household of a certain
age group, and how long the respondent has lived in East
Chicago in descending order. The income question, with
only 175 responses, has fewer responses when compared to
other questions on the demographic section. However, the
highest income rates are 0-$9,999 and $35,000-$49,999.
About 22%, according to the Census, fall below the poverty
line. In terms of respondents, about 17%+ fell below the
poverty line. The highest age groups in households in total
are 18-29 year olds, followed by 30-49. When comparing
this to Census data, most of the numbers align with age
groups in the population.
Young adults to middle aged adults are the highest population
according to the 2010 Census. When asked how long has the respondent lived in East Chicago,
an overwhelming number responded more than 21+ years, followed by 16-20 years.
The following questions are more lifestyle questions than demographics, but are a good
segway to the next section of this
analysis. When asked how many
bikes and cars are found in the
household, the majority responded
Table 1.4
68
Table 1.5
with one bike and two cars shown on Tables 1.4 and 1.5. This will become more important for
the cross tabulation section to see how people feel about certain issues related to their
transportation options. The respondents’ households, according to these numbers, have around
630 bikes and 795 cars. The ratio shows that for every one bike there are 1.26 cars.
The following analysis, from Section 2, uses pattern questions. These questions are
important to ECPRD because it helps ECPRD understand how the respondents use parks and
facilities along with
transportation to get
there.
When asked,
“What is the main type
of transportation used
to get to parks and
facilities?”,
the
top
choice was walking
with 38% as illustrated
Figure 1.1
on Figure 1.1.
This
figure
that
shows
along with walking, cars are used most often. Surprisingly, though there are few bike trails in the
city or secure paths to reach parks; 15% use bikes to get to parks and facilities. From the top
four types, buses are the least used.
Table 1.6 and table 1.7 describe the frequency of the respondents’ selections of parks and
Table 1.6
community centers in East Chicago. The statement of
most visited is avoided because some places were
visited more than once in a year. For purposes of this
analysis only the frequency of the Park or Community
Center being selected is important.
Table 1.6
illustrates the major parks discussed by ECPRD.
Although the smaller pocket parks are not included on
this list, some were listed as visited on the survey. The
purpose of this question though was to gage how often
the respondents used East Chicago’s major community and neighborhood parks. The top five
frequently selected parks were Todd Park, Veteran’s Park, Washington Park, Jeorse Park and
Beach, and Kosciuszko Park. In most communities with beaches the typical top response would
be the beach unlike here where it comes in fourth. In some of the public participation meetings it
69
was mentioned that the beach receives more outside visitors. Also other reasons mentioned in the
windshield survey may have something to do with its position on the table.
A similar situation occurs at MacArthur Golf Course, where it is thought that many in the
city do not play golf. However, besides the substantial investment and updates that MacArthur
Golf Course has received in 2007, including batting cages and miniature golf, the frequency on
this survey concludes that it is not being used as hoped. Many reasons described on the
windshield survey could be reasons.
Callahan, along with Nunez, received some updates
including pavilions, shelters, benches, lighting, and new basketball courts; however they are also
on the bottom. This is to be understood, being that they are smaller in size than the major
community parks. Goodman Park pool was resurfaced and opened last year which may account
for it being selected more than the last two parks. However, it is the only major park gated from
the rest of the city, which could also play a role on why it was visited less.
Some on this list, were options to another question for respondents to rate the four
important assets of East Chicago. The order should follow the way the respondents want to see
them expanded or improved. The options were the Marina-Restaurant/Social Center, MacArthur
Golf Course, Jeorse Park Beach, and Block Stadium. When rating the four important assets, the
number one priority was Jeorse Park Beach with 50% of the respondents agreeing with this
placement. The second priority was Block Stadium with almost 55% who agreed. The third was
the Marina-Restaurant/Social center with a little more than 33% who agreed. Lastly, MacArthur
Golf Course with a overwhelming 72% who agreed with the placement as fourth. These results,
along with previous results, show the importance of improving the beach so that more people
will want to visit it and Block Stadium. It seems the reason MacArthur Golf Course was selected
last was the lack of interest in the sports and the demographics who play it as stated previously.
Table 1.7 below shows the most frequently visited community centers on the survey.
Roberto Clemente, along with Heritage Hall, are the community centers chosen the most. Some
Table 1.7
residents considered these the main
community centers in the city. These
community centers are situated on the
east and west side of the city, accessible
to those who live on either side. Not
surprising
Martin
Luther
King
Community Center took third place
then
followed
by
Bessie
Owens.
According to the site visits, Martin Luther King had major renovations done to its multi-purpose
70
room and the facility boasts one of the largest computer rooms in all the centers. Bessie Owens
has been closed for some time because of structural damage, yet it was fourth on the list. Many
are anticipating its reopening which, according to The Redevelopment Department, may happen
within the next months. Major renovations to bring the building up to code have been made.
More was mentioned on the windshield survey and stake holder interview section.
Lastly, although during the windshield survey of the community centers, 151st
Community Center was very busy and most argue has the most money for recreational
opportunities and programs it comes second to last in terms of frequency, wirh Marktown
Community Center last.
Roxana Community Center, which is within a smaller secluded
neighborhood was selected more times. Besides the first two on the list, most of the other
community centers service smaller neighborhoods. Marktown Community Center specifically
could be considered one of the smallest neighborhoods based on population, along with the New
Addition neighborhood.
Although Bessie Owens is located within the New Addition
neighborhood, it is between both sides of the city just off the Columbus Drive Bridge that
connects both sides of the city. This may explain the placement on the table also.
The
Table 1.8
following
questions
required
a
response to why the respondents visited the parks
or why they did not. Table 1.8 shows the top
reasons why the respondents visited the parks and
facilities while Table 1.9 below shows top reasons
why they do not or rarely use them.
The top
reasons the parks and facilities were visited were
because of special events, picnic, playground use,
attending meetings, or private permit. Aside from
the common uses such as picnic and playground
use, the results potentially show a gap of those
who use the parks and facilities. Teens, adults,
and seniors may be the population that is being least serviced. Even Children Sports League
comes in 6th on the list.
Illustrated on Table 1.9 below are the reasons in
order of most frequently selected, of why respondents or
those in their households rarely or never use East Chicago
Parks and Facilties. Note that the results show fewer people
responded to this question, but this has more to do with the
71
Table 1.9
question being geared toward a group of respondents who do not or rarely use parks. The most
common selection was that they are unsafe. This question is extremely important to ECPRD
because it give a direct reason why residents are not using the parks and facilities provided in
East Chicago. Second on the list is that there is nothing to do which may coincide with the
probable deficiency of services found within certain age groups.
Although the third on the list is other reasons, the common comment under that response
was too busy, working, or had no time. In our society today that is becoming more and more
prevalent. However, that selection does not really give ECPRD an idea of the deficiencies,
therefore, unkept will be looked at as third and not handicapped accessible as fourth. The last
two selections are understood why they are at the bottom of the list. East Chicago Parks per
capita require more park space, but the parks are located geographically well throughout the city.
All the parks excluding the Jeorse Park Beach have good shade and many trees. When asked the
question, how satisfied are they with the overall parks and facilities provided in East Chicago,
about 40% responded with
somewhat dissatisfied; the
second top response was
neutral. When adding the
selection
completely
dissatisfied
to
the
percentage
of
the
dissatisfied
selection
it
jumps to more than 50%.
The good news is
Figure 1.2
regardless of how people feel about the parks and facilities and whether they visit them and for
what, the vast majority feels united in one area, which is financing. When looking at Figure 1.2
on top the vast majority agree the budget for ECPRD should be increased, about 70%.
Furthermore, Figure 1.3 on
the
left
shows
most
residents would support a
new bond measure to help
finance improvements and
expansions of the East
Chicago
Park
System.
When adding Probably Yes
72
Figure 1.3
to Definitely Yes, about 61% support a bond issue, while a little more than 28% are neutral, and
only a little more than 10% are on the no side. This is very important because according to
interviews of stakeholders, public participation, and the survey, the resonating theme of lack of
funds and how it has an adverse effect on the quality of the ECPRD can be somewhat resolved
through implementation of some sort of bond measure, or private/public venture. People are
willing to pay for quality programs and facilities. The dip in the ECPRD budget has taken a toll
on the quality of recreational and social/cultural opportunities that ECPRD provides based on the
results.
Cross Tabulation
The basic frequency analysis has been done and although there are more questions to be
looked at, cross tabulation will add more validity.
The following questions result from
frequencies but are cross tabulated to see how those who answered a certain way on one question
responded to similar questions. Cross tabulation is very important because it helps the analyzer
see trends and also helps point out any inconsistency or helps support a certain issue. In terms of
trends the ECPRD may want to know how a certain demographic felt about a particular issue. In
terms of inconsistency or support of an issue, if someone answered that parks are unsafe on one
question it could be cross referenced through a cross tabulation with a question about lighting or
another question about safety to see if they responded similarly.
For simplicity purposes this section will go through the frequency of responses to the
major issue and needs while making important cross tabulation references.
For example,
throughout the analysis when cross tabulating, a theme that arises is that male respondents are
slightly more concerned about physical activities while women respondents seem to be slightly
more concerned about educational/cultural goals. Women tend to use the parks more than men
and also the community centers more than their male counterparts. However, when added
together, both use East Chicago facilities less than what their activities levels are for both
physical and social/cultural needs.
Women frequent these places more because of their children
who may be participating in certain recreational programs or use the playgrounds, stated as one
of the top reason why people visit the parks in the previous section. No specific assumption in
terms of demographics can be made because respondents responded for both themselves and/or
their households in many of the questions.
Table 2.0 below illustrates the general statements on the issue section where the
respondent was asked to circle 1 for strongly disagree, 2 being disagree, 3 being neutral, 4 being
agree, and 5 being strongly agree.
Highlighted are the frequencies of the most common
73
responses to those questions. Based on cross tabulation, certain assumptions were hypothesized
and were concluded to have some validity. The following will be a breakdown about how
respondents responded to the various questions along with a cross tabulation of key
demographics to see how those key groups responded to these questions.
The first question about accessibility and location, respondents have a general consensus
of strongly agreeing with the statement. More than half of the respondents felt this way. Of
those 58% of them were walkers. Out of the total amount of walking respondents, 78% strongly
Table 2.0
agreed to this statement. 67% of total biker respondents were indifferent making up about 4%
who responded to strongly agree. Those who drove seemed to be more scattered mainly between
neutral and strongly agree. All bus respondents strongly agreed with this statement, which made
up 8% of the total respondents of strongly agreeing. This is important because it shows that
people do feel the parks are located well throughout the city, which has been described as a
positive for the ECPRD. Though the city lacks acreage, it compensates in location especially for
those that have more of an inconvenience to travel to them, such as walkers, bikers, and people
who take the bus.
Those households that have 1-3 bikes are more likely to bike to and from the parks and
facilities than those with more. Also, those who have no cars in their household were more
likely to walk than to bike or bus. Those who ride their bike tend to have the option to use a car
since they mainly come from households with 2 cars. This could be that they are making more
of conscious effort and choice to use a bike than a car. Those households that have bikes half the
74
time bike and half the time walk; this may be more of an issue of proximity in terms of the
choice. If the park is further away, it may entice the rider to use his/her bike. However, in terms
of distance most will probably use a car.
Although driving may seem like more of a convenience compared to walking or biking,
drivers felt less enthusiastic with the statement of ample parking. Drivers who responded to the
question were mainly neutral with 37% but were more on the positive side of the spectrum than
the negative. Out of the total respondents, 40% strongly agree, with this statement. Walkers
made up 53% who felt that way. Bikers were either on the positive side of spectrum or the
negative. Bus takers were at complete ends of the spectrum.
63% of all respondents felt that all parks should provide picnic areas/benches, which is
not surprising being that is one of the top reasons why people visited the parks. More than a
third of the respondents were neutral to the statement of the ECPRD providing many after school
programs. However, more than a quarter of respondents strongly agreed with this statement.
Particularly, those households that had 1-29 year olds seemed more positive about that statement
than those households with higher ages, whom seem to be indifferent or a bit on the negative
side.
About 36% of the respondents strongly agreed that the park staff was really helpful.
However when it came to safety, 42% of respondents disagreed that the parks and facilities were
safe for all ages.
Surprisingly, women agreed with this statement more than their male
counterparts who were pretty neutral. However, women’s second most selected response was to
disagree with that statement. Whites are more neutral and African Americans more optimistic.
Hispanics respondents were the least optimistic being more neutral/disagreeing with the
statement. People who take the bus strongly agreed with the statement while those who walked
or drove were mainly neutral and on the positive side of the spectrum. Those who bike were
more neutral. Households with various age groups seem to be neutral or more on the positive
side of the spectrum for this statement.
When asked about sports programs for various ages, Hispanics were mainly neutral,
while whites and African Americans were more positive. Households that had age groups of 629 were more positive than those below or above. Many of these age groups also have school
sports they are a part of which, and therefore, may have skewed the results in that age group’s
favor. It has been a theme throughout this process of the lack of programs for different age
groups. One-third of the respondents disagreed with this statement and when adding the
response of those who strongly disagree, almost half of the respondents thought negatively about
this statement.
75
Table 2.1 below illustrates the next three questions that deal with cleanliness of parks and
facilities and community centers being in good conditions, and well maintained, most
respondents were mainly neutral, but leaning more toward the negative spectrum. This may
Table 2.1
contribute to one of the reason why people do not frequent the community centers as much.
Those who responded to visiting the community centers felt more negative about the issue than
those who did not visit them as often. The next two statements on that table also have the same
effect when compared to those who responded to visiting parks. These results suggest some
reasons why parks are not being frequented as much, but are not the sole reasons.
Again although more neutral, respondents are slightly more inclined to disagree that the
parks have well maintained playground equipment or offer many recreational opportunities.
Since visiting the playground is a top reason why many residents visit the parks, it is critical that
this issue be looked at further. It coincides with some stakeholder meetings, public participation
meetings, and the windshield surveys. When comparing the recreational opportunity statement
to that of household members per age group, there is a correlation between those who disagree
and those respondents whose members fall among age brackets were obvious deficiency in
services and recreational opportunities have been stated in this analysis and in the public
meetings.
The general statement about restrooms being located in every park has respondents
strongly agreeing to it. That coincides with the public participation meetings. The following
statement of ample bike racks was cross tabulated with the number of household bikes and the
main transportation used to go to the parks and facilities. The results show that although the
respondents are fairly neutral on the subject, those who have 2-4 bikes in their household
disagreed more with the statement than those with 5+, 1, or none. Furthermore, those who use
their bikes to reach the parks and facilities strongly disagree with that statement. 50% of bikers
76
strongly disagree with the statement of ample bike racks and with those who disagree, that
percentage increases to 75%. This can be a reason why more bikers are not using their bikes to
get to parks, which coincides with the earlier statement that those households with 1-3 bikes may
be more likely to ride their bike than those with more. More bike racks provide more space
bikes.
The statement about restrooms provided in facilities being adequate received a mainly
neutral. When comparing it to how those responded to the statement about all parks having
restroom facilities, a little less than half the respondents, who stated strongly, agree to all parks
having restroom facilities felt that the facilities were adequate. When asked whether community
parks should be located closer to the respondents’ neighborhood, the majority were neutral to the
statement, however leaned more toward agreeing and strongly agreeing. When cross tabulating
that response with the first statement of whether parks were accessible and located well
throughout the city, respondents tended to follow suit to how they responded to the this
statement.
The following last two statements are important to cross tabulate to see how each cross
reference relates to the other. When respondents were asked about the statement of not going to
the beach because of lack of shade most were neutral slightly disagreeing; however, when cross
tabulating that response with not visiting parks because of lack of shade a surprising correlation
can be made. 100% of those who responded to not visiting parks because of lack of shade also do
not visit the beach for the same reason. When compared to those who responded as not being
handicap accessible only 50% of those respondents agreed that they did not visit the beach
because of shade. The questions were cross tabulated with the handicap question because it was
mentioned in the public participation meeting, windshield survey, and stakeholder meetings that
handicap accessibility may be one of the reasons why some do not visit the beach. This issue
about shade seems to be more of a problem for middle age adults to seniors as it is to women.
The last statement will have more of a correlation with handicap accessibility than the
previous one. When asked about the
statement if East Chicago parks and
facilities are handicap accessible, 39%
responded to be neutral; however if the
number of disagree was added to
strongly disagree, then 42% would
disagree. When cross tabulating these
results
77
Table 2.2
to
those
who
responded,
handicap accessibility was one of the reasons they did not go to parks.
100% of those
respondents strongly disagreed that parks and facilities are handicap accessible. Furthermore,
those households that have senior citizens also felt the same way. When cross tabulated with the
questions of visiting parks and community centers for physical goals and educational/cultural
goals, those who disagreed with the statement of handicap accessibility tended not to visit the
parks or community centers as often.
When the question of bond measure is cross tabulated with different demographics, the
results are as follows. More men are willing to contribute money to improve the park system
than women as show on Table 2.2. This could be due to stay home moms who do not have
disposable income, which is a common trend with Hispanic families who in this case are about
42% of the survey respondents. Also, more middle income families are less willing to support a
bond measure than those of any other income level; however those middle income families that
are willing far supersede those that do not. Whites are a little less likely to support the bond
measure as compared to African Americans and Hispanics who come up as second. Those who
have lived in East Chicago for 21+ years and those for 2-5 years are more willing to support the
measure than those who fall in between or living here for shorter than 2-5 years.
Households that have children, pre-teens, teenagers, young adults up to 29 years, and
senior citizens are more likely to support a bond measure than those households with only adults
to middle aged adults. This could be because adults and middle age adults have less time to
participate in recreational and/or social/cultural opportunities. Almost every income bracket
thought the budget should be increased except those in the income bracket 0-$9,999, who felt it
should stay the same. No one felt it should be decreased. There is almost no difference between
women and men in regards to increasing the budget. The main consensus is to increase the
budget.
Those living here between 11-15 years are the only group that feels the budget should be
decreased, which may relate to the adults/middle age adults who live in East Chicago. This
coincides with households that have middle age members. This is the only bracket that feels it
should be decreased; however, within that same bracket the majority feels it should be increased.
A small percentage of Hispanics are the only ethnicity/race that feels the budget should be
decreased, but the vast majority within that group feels it should be increased.
78
This last section is the analysis of other related issues/needs and how the respondents felt
about a certain type of recreational opportunities, facilities, or program listed. The respondent
was ask to check which of the responses most related to what they thought. The responses
options were Not Enough, Enough, Too Much, and Don’t Know. Table 2.3 below illustrates the
facility or program; following it to the right is the most common response. Beside those columns
are NE (Not Enough) and E (Enough). On the right of those columns are whom the issue relates
and correlates with the most based on various demographics and cross tabulations.
Table 2.3
According t o Table 2.3 male respondents put more emphasis on sport related
questions, such as basketball courts, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, while woman put more
emphasis on cultural events, interpretive classes, and tennis courts among other things. Walkers,
Table 2.4
bikers, and drivers had a bigger correlation to the first four questions, of all the other cross
tabs. Females seem to care more about paved paths or sidewalks, while males are more
interested in bicycle trails. Both males and females feel there are not enough areas for wildlife
viewing and self-guided nature study trails. Physically active people care about bicycle trails
more than those that stated they did not participate in much physical activity. Walkers seem to
care about the first five items on this list.
Table 2.4 illustrates how households with various age groups and females care about
picnic tables just like females.
Females also feel the same way about covered picnic
79
Table 2.5
pavilions and those that seek shade. More males responded to not enough access to rivers,
lakes, or ponds for recreational purposes. Females also felt cultural events were important
along with Hispanics and African Americans. Females felt there were not enough historic
and interpretive facilities and programs along with households with middle age groups to
senior
citizens.
Although
those
who
rarely
participate in
both
physical
and
educational/cultural goals felt there were enough of all the mentioned facilities or programs,
the majority felt that there were not enough.
The Table 2.5 shows that households with members of 0-12 years old feel there are not
enough playgrounds. Females are more interested about this than their male counterparts. All
age groups along with females and all races felt there were not enough handicap accessible
playgrounds. Males and females seemed as interested in indoor activities for teens/teen center;
however females were more enthusiastic about art and other creative activities for youths/adults.
Households with age groups 13-29 also felt the same way. When it came to Nature education
programs for all ages, all households with various age groups and females were receptive. Most
females and those that have lived here for 21+ years feel strong about activities that promote
neighborhood interaction.
Table 2.6
On Table 2.6, African Americans strongly agree that there are not enough basketball
courts in the parks, although the windshield survey showed there may be enough. However the
conditions of them are unsafe to play in some locations. Some courts do not have rims,
backboards, or nets. Whites and females agree that there should be more tennis courts in the
parks; however through the windshield survey it seems there may be enough but are also in bad
shape with some courts without nets. Hispanics mainly think that there are not enough soccer
fields; through the windshield survey it can be confirmed. At least there are no apparent fields
that are delineated. Although Hispanics and whites feel there are not enough baseball, softball,
and little league fields, African Americans think there are enough. This seems like the other two
80
sports that have designated areas, where there may be enough, but not in good shape.
Hispanics along with African Americans, Females, and lower income families all feel
that there are enough golf courses and driving ranges. However, whites and higher income
families, and middle age adults, particularly males feel differently.
In terms of Miniature
Golf/Batting Cages, Hispanics feel there are not enough along with whites and households with
the age groups of 17 and under. African Americans and females seem to be indifferent. Whites,
Males, and those between 13-17 years feel there are not enough skateboard parks. Women and
Males alike feel there are not enough pools for children and families in East Chicago. Also those
households with 0-29 year old members agree.
Illustrated in Table 2.7 below, females along with households with age groups 0-12 years
said that there are not enough zero-depth water spray parks. Males on the other hand feel there
are not enough dog parks along with households with age groups of 18-49. Race did not seem to
play a part on dog parks. Whites, Hispanics, and Females feel there are not enough skating
rinks. All races that responded wanted to see more places to hold events indoor and outdoor,
along with females. Those households with middle household incomes and whites feel there
should be more beach/boardwalk.
In conclusion, it seems that there are many deficiencies that through this analysis have
been pointed out. For example, women tend to relate to more educational/cultural goals and
Table 2.7
males prefer physical. However, compared to males, females are the higher users of parks and
facilities. The main age group that uses the parks based on household members tends to be
children or senior citizen, while young adults and those in between seem to be a group not well
served. Hispanics are the highest ethnicity in terms of census data from the city and respondents
of this survey tend to use the parks and community centers more than whites, but less than
African Americans. This could be because of a language barrier. Their frequency for visiting
the parks could be more about their children and less to do with themselves. Senior citizens
would use the facilities more if they were more handicap accessible.
In general if the sites, both parks and community centers, were kept up to date and
maintained more people would visit them. African Americans feel that there is a presumed lack
of basketball courts because of the condition of those available. Whites also do not frequent the
parks and facilities as much as other races because there may not be programs or sports of their
81
liking available.
Tennis courts for women and whites are also presumed to be lacking.
Hispanics would visit more if there were more delineated soccer fields. Bikers would use more
parks and facilities if there were more bike trails connecting neighborhoods and more bike racks.
Drivers would visit parks and facilities more if parking were less of an issue which may have
more to do with the beach. Walkers seem to be okay with locations of parks and facilities.
Many of the issues may be seemed perceived, but have some validity. The ECPRD should
promote its programs and facilities based on providing quality programing, usable playgrounds,
sport courts, handicap accessible facilities, quality leagues, and festivals for neighborhood
interaction.
Ultimately, the ECPRD needs to provide quality programs and facilities for all age
groups, race, sex, and origin to enjoy so that the gaps can be closed. Furthermore, it needs to
take what it already has and improve it before it expands, which according to this data may seem
the better alternative. A bike path that connects all the Community Parks should be ideal and
practical. Lastly, opportunities need to be identified for potential growth in the directions that
most can agree with. This analysis, along with public participation meetings, windshield surveys,
and stakeholder meetings, are a stepping stone to creating ECPRD’s new goals and objectives
and formulating ways to achieve them.
PARK ASSESSMENT AND SUITABILITY
Overview
Parks and open space within East Chicago include public parks, bike paths, recreation
facilities, natural areas, and underutilized industrial properties surrounding the Indiana Harbor
Ship Canal and the Grand Calumet River. These areas provide recreation opportunities, wildlife
habitat, improved air quality, and balance with the predominantly urban character of the
community.
Facility Inventory
The age of the parks and much of their equipment create special problems for
accessibility, maintenance, and development. In many cases, due to limited funds and staffing,
features of the parks are in dire need of updating, replacement, or renovation. The following is a
brief synopsis of the nineteen East Chicago parks.
City Parks
Nineteen public parks are maintained by the East Chicago Parks Department. The system
is comprised of 161.3 acres, including open space, a range of sports and recreation facilities,
82
pedestrian/bicycle trails, picnic facilities and community centers. Public parks range in size from
less than 0.5 to 25 acres. The following are National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA)
recommended standards for community park systems:
Park Type
Recommended Size
Service Area
Major Community Park
20 to 35 acres
1 to 4 miles
Community Level Park
15 to 25 acres
within biking distance
Neighborhood Level Park
6 to 8 acres
neighborhood
Neighborhood Playground
5 to 10 acres
one-half mile
Play Lot
3 acres or less
one-quarter mile
The NRPA recommends a minimum of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed open space per
1,000 residents, taking into consideration a community’s geographic and historic characteristics.
This would indicate that East Chicago should provide approximately 200 to 340 acres of
parkland for its 29,698 residents. According to these standards, the 161.3 acres currently
provided by the City, are insufficient. However, while the quality and placement of parks within
the community appear to have compensated for this shortfall, additional open space is needed
and planned for.
The City also provides a wide range of recreation facilities, including eight community
centers, spray parks, a miniature golf course, batting cages, high-quality baseball and little league
fields, and pool facilities. These recreation facilities are managed by the Recreation Department.
The following is an inventory of the City’s parks and recreational facilities. To simplify the
analysis, the NRPA standards have been combined into three park categories, as well as an
additional category to include community center facilities:
Park Type
Recommended Size
Service Area
Community Parks
15 to 35 acres
1 to 4 miles, within biking distance
Neighborhood Parks
5 to 10 acres
neighborhood
Pocket Parks
3 acres or less
one-half mile
Community Centers
Although East Chicago lacks the quantity of parkland suggested by NRPA standards, the
placement of existing parkland and facilities generally provides a high level of service to
residents. Most neighborhoods are served by at least one park within biking distance (one mile)
83
or walking distance (1/2 mile). In addition, City parks are not easily categorized by size, as a
number of existing parks perform multiple functions. These functions fit within the NRPA’s
standards of community, neighborhood and pocket parks, even if they do not completely
conform to the typical sizes in the NRPA standards.
Community Parks: typically 15 to 35 acres (1 to 4 Mile Service Area)
Community parks are large open spaces that accommodate a large number of people and
a wide variety of activities. Activities may include playgrounds, trails, swimming pools,
basketball courts, gardens, natural areas, pavilions, ample parking, and bathrooms. Such parks
act as both citywide and regional activity generators. East Chicago has seven community-level
parks: Tod, Kosciuszko, Washington, Riley, Veterans Park, Jeorse and MacArthur. Following
each park is a list of acquisitions recommended by parks staff.

Tod Park, 140th & Indianapolis Blvd. – This 24 acre park is located in the North side
neighborhood, north of Columbus Drive (US 12) at 140th Street & Tod Avenue. A
previous three-phase improvement plan, of which the first two phases were completed,
helps Tod Park offers many recreational opportunities. Facilities now include multipurpose field, picnic pavilions, playground, and a walking/running track. Among the
plans for improvement at this time are the following:
Project Description
QTY
Fix Flooding
TBD
Delineate Soccer
Field and Goal Posts 1
Picnic Tables
3
Benches
10
Volleyball Court
Resurfacing
2
Fix a few lights
2
Total

Cost
$5,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$25,000.00
$3,000.00
2013
2014
2015
$5,000.00
$3,000.00
$10,000.00
2016
2017
Total
$5,000.00
$3,000.00
$10,000.00
$50,000.00
$6,000.00
$50,000.00
$6,000.00
$74,000.00
Kosciuszko Park, 151st & Indianapolis Blvd. – This 20.5 acre park is located in the
Southside neighborhood, south of the business district along Indianapolis Boulevard. At
20.5 acres, it is one of the community’s largest parks. Facilities include playground,
picnic areas, Little League fields, pedestrian trails, bike trail, Kosciuszko Memorial, a
maintenance facility, swimming pool, basketball courts, and parking. Among the plans
for improvement at this time are the following:
84
Project Description QTY
*Pool Resurfacing
1
Resurfacing of Sport
Courts
4
Resurface Baseball
diamond
1
*Picnic Shelters
3
Hothouse Rehab
1
Tuck point older
building
TBD
Update Benches
5
Update Picnic
4
Lighting
6
Landscaping
TBD
Total

Cost
$100,000.00
2013
$100,000.00
$18,000.00
2014
2016
2017
$72,000.00
$15,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$3,000.00
2015
Total
$100,000.00
$72,000.00
$15,000.00
$60,000.00
$15,000.00
$60,000.00
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
$5,000.00
$4,000.00
$18,000.00
$5,000.00
$4,000.00
$18,000.00
$294,000.00
Washington Park, 142 & Parrish – This 17 acre park is located in the Washington Park
nd
neighborhood, south of Columbus Drive. Block Stadium and the Kenny Lofton Little
League complex are located across from the southern edge of the park. Playground
improvements are planned for 2014.
Facilities include playground, swimming pool,
picnic areas, Parks & Recreation Department office, greenhouses, the Nunez Memorial,
perennial gardens, tennis courts, basketball courts, maintenance facility, and parking.
Among the plans for improvement at this time are the following:
Project Description
QTY
*Pool Resurfacing
1
Resurfacing of Sport
Courts
4
Bike/paved path
fixing
TBD
New Picnic Tables
4
Parking Lots
resurface/repair
TBD
Recondition aging
structure
TBD
New Tot Swings
1
New Swing
1
*New Playground
ADA
1
*Picnic Shelters
3
Total

Cost
$100,000.00
$18,000.00
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
$100,000.00
Total
$100,000.00
$72,000.00
$72,000.00
$1,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$45,000.00
$20,000.00
$45,000.00
$60,000.00
$45,000.00
$60,000.00
$284,000.00
Riley Park, Chicago & Grasselli – This 6.4 acre park is located in the East Calumet
neighborhood at Chicago and Grasselli Avenues. The park includes the Riley Community
Center and some City administrative offices.
Facilities now include playground,
basketball courts, picnic areas, restrooms, Little League field, tennis courts, and Memorial
cannon. New picnic shelters are planned as well as a complete park renovation.
85
Project Description
QTY
Make all Benches
ADA
3
Resurfacing of
Basketball Courts
4
Resurface of
Baseball Diamond
1
New Tot Swings
1
New swings
1
New Playground
ADA
1
New Picnic Tables
3
New Bleachers
1
*Picnic Shelters
3
*Bike Trail ($40/LF) TBD
Bike Rack
1
Delineate a Soccer
Field
1
Total

Cost
$250.00
2013
$45,000.00
$1,000.00
$25,000.00
$20,000.00
$200,000.00
$600.00
2015
2016
2017
$750.00
$18,000.00
$15,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
2014
Total
$750.00
$72,000.00
$72,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$45,000.00
$3,000.00
$25,000.00
$60,000.00
$200,000.00
$600.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$45,000.00
$3,000.00
$25,000.00
$60,000.00
$200,000.00
$600.00
$5,000.00
$429,350.00
Veterans Park, 4525 Indianapolis Blvd. – This 5.5 acre park is located in the North side
neighborhood and incorporates City Hall and the Heritage Hall community center.
Veterans Park is also smaller than a typical community-level park. However, its central
location, band shell, and municipal and cultural facilities result in an open space with a
citywide focus. Facilities now include playground, basketball courts, historic band shell,
and a community center. Among the plans for improvement at this time are the following:
Project Description
Resurfacing of
Basketball Courts
Lighting
Hothouse Rehab
Addition of Picnic
Tables
*Veterans Memorial
*Gazebo Renovation
Total

QTY
Cost
4
3
1
$18,000.00
$3,000.00
$20,000.00
3
1
$1,000.00
$100,000.00
1
$50,000.00
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
$72,000.00
Total
$72,000.00
$9,000.00
$20,000.00
$9,000.00
$20,000.00
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$254,000.00
Jeorse Park, 3301 Aldis – This 1 acre park is located on the Lake Michigan waterfront
across Cline Avenue from the North Harbor neighborhood. Although this space is much
smaller than a standard community-level park, it provides important citywide and regional
Lake Michigan beach access. The City of East Chicago is cooperating with the City of
Gary to improve the beach, which straddles the two city boundaries. Facilities now
include playground, beach, and picnic shelters. Concessions and restroom facilities were
among the newest improvements along with volleyball area. This site is also handicap
accessible through a newly constructed ramp. Among the plans for improvement at this
time are the following:
86
Project Description QTY
Retrofit Parking
1
Connect pavilion
with handicap ramp
1
Plant vegetation and
trees
1
Volleyball Court
maintenance
1
*Opening up Aldis
Avenue to the
Lakefront
TBD
Bike Trail ($40/LF) TBD
Total

Cost
$250,000.00
2013
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$100,000.00
$1,000.00
2014
2015
2016
$250,000.00
2017
$15,000.00
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$1,000.00
$200,000.00
Total
$250,000.00
$1,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$200,000.00
$566,000.00
MacArthur Park, Columbus Dr. & Indianapolis Blvd. – This Park, located in the North
Side neighborhood at Indianapolis Boulevard and Columbus Drive, provides specialized
recreational facilities, a 9 hole golf course, batting cages, and miniature golf course. The
last two items were added a couple years back.
Project Description
*Renovate Club
House
Lighting
Electronic Sign
Picnic Tables
Benches
Golf Course
Expansion
Total
QTY
TBD
5
1
4
4
Cost
$3,000.00
$12,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
$15,000.00
Total
$15,000.00
$12,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$12,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
TBD
$35,000.00
Neighborhood Parks: 6 to 8 acres (Neighborhood Service Area)

Goodman Park, 140th & Magnolia – This 16.2 acre park is located in the West Calumet
neighborhood adjacent to Magnolia Lane. Although larger than National Recreation and
Park Association (NRPA) guidelines, it lacks the community-level functions due to its
location within an East Chicago public housing development and lack of visibility from
nearby streets. Facilities now include playground, basketball courts, swimming pool,
softball fields, pedestrian trails, multi-purpose field, and picnic areas. Among the plans
for improvement at this time are the following:
Project Description QTY
Fix pool resurfacing
problem
TBD
Resurface
Basketball Courts
3
New Playground
ADA
1
Upgrade other play
area
1
New Picnic Tables
3
Total
Cost
$18,000.00
2013
2014
2015
$54,000.00
2017
Total
$54,000.00
$45,000.00
$20,000.00
$1,000.00
2016
$45,000.00
$20,000.00
$3,000.00
87
$45,000.00
$20,000.00
$3,000.00
$122,000.00

Marktown Park, Broad St. & Pine – This 13.0 acre park is located within the Historical
Marktown neighborhood. Facilities now include playground, soccer field, softball fields,
tennis courts, basketball courts, picnic area, and band shell.
Among the plans for
improvement at this time are the following:
Project Description QTY
Cost
*New Playground
1
$45,000.00
Resurface Sport Courts4
$18,000.00
New Picnic Tables
6
$1,000.00
New Benches
6
$1,000.00
Hothouse Rehab
1
$20,000.00
Bike Trail ($40/LF) TBD $200,000.00
Delineate Soccer Field and
1 Goal$5,000.00
Posts
New Tot Swings
1
$1,000.00
1
$2,000.00
New Swings
2013
2014
2015
$45,000.00
2016
2017
Total
Total
$45,000.00
$72,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$20,000.00
$200,000.00
$5,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$357,000.00
$20,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00

Linear Park, Between Guthrie St. & Pennsylvania – This 12.0 acre park is located in the
$72,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
North Harbor neighborhood and extends for almost one mile parallel to Guthrie
Street/Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. The park land became available in 1975 when
the Pennsylvania Railroad mainline was moved closer to Lake Michigan on New York
Central tracks. The park’s length adjacent to multi-family housing provides a high level
of accessibility to the park, although the narrow width limits the types of recreational
facilities that may be provided. Facilities now include basketball court, playground, and
picnic area. Playground updates and expansions are anticipated for completion. Among
the plans for improvement at this time are the following:
Project Description
Resurface Sport
Courts
Sign
New Picnic Tables/
update sitting area
New Benches
Add to current
Playgrounds ADA
New Tot Lot
New Swings
Total
QTY
Cost
2013
2014
10
2
$18,000.00
$500.00
$72,000.00
$1,000.00
4
6
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$4,000.00
$6,000.00
1
1
1
$45,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
2015
2016
$36,000.00
$72,000.00
2017
Total
$180,000.00
$1,000.00
$4,000.00
$6,000.00
$45,000.00
$45,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
$248,000.00
North Harbor Development
One of the significant proposed projects is the improvements to the two existing
parks in Indiana Harbor.
Mayor Copeland and the Indiana Harbor Management
Development Team understand the importance these parks have to the quality of life of
the current and future residents to the North Harbor community. The two main parks in
the North Indiana Harbor are Nunez and Callahan Parks. Both are only a few blocks from
the historical intersection of Main and Broadway. This was been identified as the center of
the revitalization effort for the first phase of development. Together with multiple
88
stakeholders and community residents, a series of workshops have helped to determine the
most desirable uses and design for the parks.

Nunez Park, 136th & Elm St. – This 5.5 acre Park is located in the North Harbor
neighborhood at Deodar and Broadway Streets. The park includes the Roberto Clemente
Community Center. As part of extensive renovations, the parkland was merged with the
adjacent Lincoln Elementary School grounds to create a combined campus park facility.
136th St. was closed to enhance safety for the Lincoln School students. Facilities now
include tennis court, soccer field, softball field, and a basketball court.
As a result of recent improvements, Nunez Park continues its role as an active park
that caters to a variety of users such as families, youth, children, and elderly. Nunez Park
has been enhanced with a softball field, a multipurpose field,, a tennis court, basketball
courts, playground facilities, and walking paths.
It was expanded to connect to the
southern lot of Lincoln Elementary School. The direct connection from the school to the
park increased the park area and provides a safer connection to the new amenities of the
park. The on-site Roberto Clemente Community Center currently has adult, children, and
senior programs.
The improvements to the park have enhanced their programs by
providing a greater variety of outdoor activities for their constituents. Among the plans
for improvement at this time are the following:
Project Description
Repaint Basketball
Courts
New Swings
New Benches
New Picnic Tables
Complete Entryway
Signs
Bike Trail ($40/LF)
Total

QTY
Cost
1
1
4
4
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
4
1
$1,000.00
$200,000.00
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
$2,000.00
Total
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$4,000.00
$200,000.00
$216,000.00
Callahan Park, 138th & Alder St. – This 3.6 acre park, also called “Baby Park,” is located
in the East Harbor neighborhood at Alder and Broadway Streets. Although smaller than
NRPA standards, the park provides important neighborhood-level functions. Facilities
now include playground, basketball court, community garden, picnic areas, and restrooms.
Phase one of a three-phase project has been completed. Callahan Park was identified as a
passive park although it will maintain some recreational elements. The design caters to
the needs of residents for community gardening, walks, picnicking, and family reunions.
89
Project Description
Resurface
Basketball Courts
New Playground
ADA
New Swings
Restroom update
New Benches
Bike Trail ($40/LF)
Total

QTY
Cost
1
$18,000.00
1
1
TBD
3
1
$45,000.00
$2,000.00
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
$18,000.00
Total
$18,000.00
$45,000.00
$2,000.00
$45,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$200,000.00
$3,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$3,000.00
$200,000.00
$268,000.00
Sunnyside Park, 141st & Grace – This 3.0 acre park is located in the Sunnyside
neighborhood at 141st Street and Grace Avenue. Although small than NRPA standards,
the park provides important neighborhood-level functions.
Facilities now include
playground, basketball courts, and multi-purpose field. Among the plans for improvement
at this time are the following:
Project Description
*Picnic Shelter
Basketball Court
Resurface
New Benches
Tot Playground
update
New Swings
Bike Rack
Hothouse Rehab
Total
QTY
1
Cost
$20,000.00
3
3
$18,000.00
$1,000.00
1
1
1
1
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
$600.00
$20,000.00
2013
$20,000.00
2014
2015
2016
2017
$54,000.00
Total
$20,000.00
$54,000.00
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
$600.00
$20,000.00
$109,600.00
$600.00
$20,000.00
Pocket Parks: 3 acres or less (One-quarter Mile Service Area)

Smith Park, 140th & Alexander Ave. – This 2.5 acre park is located in the New Addition
neighborhood at 140th Street and Melville Avenue. Facilities now include playground,
basketball court, multi-purpose field, and Bessie Owens Community Center. Among the
plans for improvement at this time are the following:
Project Description
Resurface
Basketball Court
Bike Rack
Total

QTY
1
1
Cost
$18,000.00
$600.00
2013
2014
2015
$18,000.00
$600.00
2016
2017
Total
$18,000.00
$600.00
$18,600.00
Edward Valve Park, 143rd & Homerlee – This 2.1 acre park is located in the North
side neighborhood at 143rd Street and Homerlee Avenue. Facilities now include
playground,
small ball diamond, skate ramp, basketball court, and picnic area. Among the plans for
improvement at this time are the following:
90
Project Description
Resurfacing
Basketball Court
Resurfacing
Baseball Diamond
Small Volleyball
Court
Signage
Lighting
Bike Rack
Broken swings
Move Shelter and
Playground
Total

QTY
Cost
1
$18,000.00
1
$15,000.00
1
1
4
1
1
$15,000.00
$500.00
$3,000.00
$600.00
$2,000.00
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
$18,000.00
Total
$18,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$500.00
$12,000.00
$600.00
$2,000.00
$500.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$600.00
$2,000.00
TBD
$63,100.00
Carey/Jackson Park, 140th & Carey – This 2.0 acre park is located in the West Harbor
neighborhood. Facilities now include playground, basketball court, and small green
space. Among the plans for improvement at this time are the following:
Project Description
Resurface
Basketball Courts
New Playground
ADA
New Picnic Tables
New Benches
New Lights
Total

QTY
Cost
1
$18,000.00
1
2
2
6
$45,000.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$3,000.00
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
$18,000.00
Total
$18,000.00
$45,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$45,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$18,000.00
$85,000.00
Roxana Tot Lot, Roxana Dr. & White Oak – This 2.0 acre lot is located at Roxana
Drive along the Grand Calumet River. Facilities now include a playground and picnic
area. A playground equipment update and expansion are anticipated.
Project Description
*New Playground
ADA

QTY
1
Cost
$45,000.00
2013
2014
2015
$45,000.00
2016
2017
Total
$45,000.00
Roxana Park, Roxana Dr. & White Oak – This 1.5 acre park is located in the Roxana
neighborhood at Magoun Avenue adjacent to Roxana School. Facilities now include
basketball court, tennis court, and ball field. Upgraded basketball court surfacing and
equipment, new fencing, and a new baseball backstop are anticipated. Among the
plans for improvement at this time are the following:
91
Project Description
*New Playground
ADA
QTY
1
Resurface Sport
Courts
1
Resurface Baseball
Diamond
1
Update lighting
6
Fix fencing
TBD
Sign
1
Landscaping
TBD
Picnic Tables
3
Benches
2
Hothouse Rehab
1
New Playground
ADA
1
New Bleachers
2
Bike Rack
1
Total

Cost
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
$45,000.00
$45,000.00
$45,000.00
$18,000.00
$18,000.00
$18,000.00
$15,000.00
$3,000.00
$500.00
$15,000.00
$9,000.00
$500.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
$20,000.00
$45,000.00
$3,000.00
$600.00
$15,000.00
$18,000.00
$9,000.00
$3,000.00
$2,000.00
$20,000.00
$45,000.00
$3,000.00
$2,000.00
$20,000.00
$45,000.00
$6,000.00
$600.00
$128,100.00
$6,000.00
$600.00
Martin Luther King, Jr. Park, 148th & Melville – This 1.0 acre park is located in the
Calumet neighborhood at 148th Street and Melville Avenue. Facilities now include
playground, basketball court, and small green space. Upgrades to the basketball court
surface, court equipment, and new fencing were completed in 2006.
Project Description
New Swings
Resurface
Basketball Court
Sign
Bike Rack
Picnic Table
Fix Fencing
Total

QTY
Cost
2013
1
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
1
1
1
1
TBD
$18,000.00
$500.00
$600.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$600.00
2014
2015
2016
2017
Total
$2,000.00
$18,000.00
$1,000.00
$18,000.00
$500.00
$600.00
$1,000.00
$22,100.00
Block Stadium
, 144th & Parrish – This historical baseball park built in 1942, is in
need of extensive restoration. The Stadium is used for baseball activities, and in the
past, to host large-scale community events. Users of the baseball field include girls
and boys of all ages from the civil city, local schools, local colleges, and surrounding
communities. Needed work includes:

Demolition of the existing dilapidated entrance building and construction of a new
entrance building that will include a ticket office, concession stands, souvenir
stand, restrooms, security room, administration room, storage room, and
mechanical room.

Renovation and build-out of the stadium seating area.
This will include
construction of new ADA ramps and seating areas with companion seating; decks
at both ends of the bleachers that will have concession stands, storage rooms, and
92
restroom facilities; new locker room facilities, new fiberglass benches beneath the
existing seating; fencing; and paving.

Renovation of the existing baseball playing field area. This will include regarding,
new irrigation system and sod; new scoreboard; four posts, lighting, bullpens and
construction of a centerfield evergreen backdrop, and two new picnic areas along
the first and third base line.
Project Description
QTY
Cost
Parking Lot
resurfacing
TBD
Park Pavilion
1
$882,000.00
Stadium Seating
Area
1 $2,146,743.00
Field Improvements
including flooding
1
$586,530.00
Bike Racks
2
$600.00
Total

2013
2014
$715,581.00
$293,265.00
$1,200.00
2015
$715,581.00
2016
2017
Total
$441,000.00
$441,000.00
$882,000.00
$715,581.00
$2,146,743.00
$293,265.00
$586,530.00
$1,200.00
$3,616,473.00
Kenny Lofton Baseball Complex – Located on 144th& Elm Street next to Block
Stadium. Baseball Fields, Home of the IN Harbor Little league, 1 Sr. League Field, 2
Little League Fields, 1 T-Ball Field, Concessions & Restrooms.
Project Description
QTY
Resurface Baseball
Fields
3
New Bike Racks
2
Parking Lot
resurfacing
TBD
New Bleachers
3
Install track
($40/LF)
1
Total
Cost
$15,000.00
$600.00
$30,000.00
2013
2014
2015
2017
$45,000.00
Total
$45,000.00
$45,000.00
$1,200.00
$45,000.00
$90,000.00
$1,200.00
$200,000.00
Community Centers
2016
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$200,000.00
$336,200.00
Address
Neighborhood
Roxana Center
900 Shell Street
Roxana
Heritage Hall Center
4506 Tod Avenue
North Side
Marktown Community Center
3509 Spruce Street
Marktown
Bessie Owens Center
4001 Alexander Avenue
New Addition
Roberto Clemente Center
3616 Elm Street
North Harbor
Penn Center
3550 Pennsylvania Avenue
King Corridor
151st Street Center
4925 Gladiola Avenue
Calumet
Martin Luther King Center
4802 Melville Avenue
Calumet
93
Current Recreation Programs
East Chicago offers a diverse array of programs that attract many different kinds of users.
East Chicago has responded to the needs of our community by providing traditional programs like
youth and adult sports leagues, as well as non-traditional activities (at the request of users). The
following is a snapshot of some of the recreation classes and activities that have been offered by
ECPRD staff:

Boys and Girls Little League Baseball (in cooperation with the Indiana Harbor and East
Chicago Little League of East Chicago)

Pop Warner Football (volunteer coached and officiated)

Boys, Girls, and Teen Soccer (uses East Chicago School District facilities)

Red Cross swimming lessons; senior and adult water aerobics (uses West Side High
School pool)

Summer recreation day-camps (in cooperation with the East Chicago School District)

Ice skating in Tod Park during winter projected with Fire Department assistance (ice
skating conditions permitting)

“Summerfest” ice cream social and fireworks festival July 4th of each year (co-sponsored
by the Lake County Visitor’s Bureau and the Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce)

East Chicago Fest, Veterans Park, Taste of East Chicago, late August.
Other Recreation Providers
The following is a partial list of other recreation providers in the City of East Chicago:

St. Catherine Hospital – Millennium cardiac rehabilitation program; some open to the
public hours.

East Chicago School District – playgrounds available to public while school not in
session; some winter gymnasium and pool programs offered in cooperation with the
ECPRD.
Northwest Indiana Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Plan of 2010
Two intercity bicycle paths within the City of East Chicago are addressed. The first is
part of the Marquette Greenway, a State Visionary Trail, East Chicago/Southwest Sector –
Hammond, East Chicago, Gary, is partially complete within East Chicago. The second is a
medium priority Corridor, the Buffington Corridor, part of which runs through Indiana
94
Harbor/Northeast Sector – Whiting, East Chicago, Gary, exists in Hammond and Whiting but not
yet within East Chicago and Gary.
The East Chicago/Southwest Bike Path just short of two miles, links together three city
parks, running from Tod Park at 140th Street, south along Railroad Avenue, west through
Veteran’s Park, then again west on 145th Street to Baring Avenue, south to enter into Kosciusko
Park at 151st Street.
This bike path needs to be extended in two directions. The first is to go north from Tod
Park along Indianapolis Blvd to 131st Street, where it enters Whiting. It also needs to be
extended southward from Kosciusko Park, along Indianapolis Blvd. across the Grand Calumet
River, where it will join the Marquette Trail, coming east along Grand Calumet River from the
Hammond. Once the two sections are tied together, they continue southward under
the Indiana Toll Road to Michigan Avenue (5700 south). At Michigan Avenue, the bikeway
extends east along the Michigan Avenue corridor, also the boundary between East Chicago and
Hammond, until reaching Kennedy Avenue, where it exits East Chicago. It proceeds east until it
crosses Cline Avenue, at which point it enters the City of Gary and then continues eastward
along Lake Michigan.
The Indiana Harbor/Northwest Ped and Pedal trail comes from Whiting, along the Lake
Michigan shoreline until it enters East Chicago near the industrial area which contains the BP
Refinery, Praxair Industrial Gases, and ArcelorMittal Steel Company.
The Dickey Road
Corridor leads bikes in a southeasterly direction until crossing over the Indiana Harbor Ship
Canal. Once over the Harbor Canal, the path continues southeast until it reaches Michigan and
Martin Luther King/Guthrie. The path should then proceed along the East Chicago Marina,
Ameristar Casino, and the Indiana Harbor Beach, at which point it crosses into the City of Gary.
BUDGET
The ECPRD has experienced several significant budget cuts from the City in recent years, and
anticipates that this may be a continuing trend. This has a direct negative effect on several
aspects of our operations and maintenance, including the number of staff hired, level of
maintenance performed, replacement of vital equipment, and amount of new programming
created. The following table shows the past five years of budget for ECPRD by three main
categories: operations and programming, maintenance, and capital projects.
95
Year
Operations and
Programming
Maintenance
Capital Projects
2013
$1,034,315.00
2014
$1,790,846.00
2015
$1,563,581.00
2016
$2,162,181.00
2017
$1,015,600.00
96
Table 1: ECPRD Budget
2013-2017 Capital Improvement Budget
Park
Project Description
Fix Flooding
Delineate Soccer Field and Goal Posts
Picnic Tables
Tod Park
Benches
Volleyball Court Resurfacing
Fix a few lights
Total
*Pool Resurfacing
Resurfacing of Sport Courts
Resurface Baseball diamond
*Picnic Shelters
Hothouse Rehab
Kosciuszko Park Tuck point older building
Update Benches
Update Picnic Tables
Lighting
Landscaping
Total
*Pool Resurfacing
Resurfacing of Sport Courts
Bike/paved path fixing
New Picnic Tables
Parking Lots resurface/repair
Washington Park Recondition aging structure
New Tot Swings
New Swing
*New Playground ADA
*Picnic Shelters
Total
Make all Benches ADA
Resurfacing of Basketball Courts
Resurface of Baseball Diamond
New Tot Swings
New swings
New Playground ADA
Riley Park
New Picnic Tables
New Bleachers
*Picnic Shelters
*Bike Trail ($40/LF)
Bike Rack
Delineate a Soccer Field
Total
Resurfacing of Basketball Courts
Lighting
Hothouse Rehab
Veteran's Park Addition of Picnic Tables
*Veterans Memorial
*Gazebo Renovation
Total
Retrofit Parking
Connect pavilion with handicap ramp
Plant vegetation and trees
Jeorse Park
Volleyball Court maintenance
*Opening up Aldis Avenue to the Lakefront
Bike Trail ($40/LF)
Total
*Renovate Club House
Lighting
Electronic Sign
MacArthur Golf
Picnic Tables
Course
Benches
Golf Course Expansion
Total
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017 Total
$5,000.00
$3,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$3,000.00
$10,000.00
$50,000.00
$6,000.00
$74,000.00
$50,000.00
$6,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$72,000.00
$15,000.00
$60,000.00
$20,000.00
$72,000.00
$15,000.00
$60,000.00
$20,000.00
$5,000.00
$4,000.00
$18,000.00
$5,000.00
$4,000.00
$18,000.00
$294,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$72,000.00
$72,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$45,000.00
$60,000.00
$284,000.00
$45,000.00
$60,000.00
$750.00
$72,000.00
$15,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$45,000.00
$3,000.00
$25,000.00
$60,000.00
$200,000.00
$600.00
$5,000.00
$72,000.00
$9,000.00
$20,000.00
$3,000.00
$100,000.00
$50,000.00
$250,000.00
$15,000.00
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$1,000.00
$15,000.00
$12,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$750.00
$72,000.00
$15,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$45,000.00
$3,000.00
$25,000.00
$60,000.00
$200,000.00
$600.00
$5,000.00
$429,350.00
$72,000.00
$9,000.00
$20,000.00
$3,000.00
$100,000.00
$50,000.00
$254,000.00
$250,000.00
$15,000.00
$100,000.00
$1,000.00
$200,000.00
$566,000.00
$15,000.00
$12,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$35,000.00
97
Fix pool resurfacing problem
Resurface Basketball Courts
New Playground ADA
Goodman Park
Upgrade other play area
New Picnic Tables
Total
*New Playground
Resurface Sport Courts
New Picnic Tables
New Benches
Hothouse Rehab
Marktown Park
Bike Trail ($40/LF)
Delineate Soccer Field and Goal Posts
New Tot Swings
New Swings
Total
Resurface Sport Courts
Sign
New Picnic Tables/ update sitting area
New Benches
Linear Park
Add to current Playgrounds ADA
New Tot Lot
New Swings
Total
Repaint Basketball Courts
New Swings
New Benches
Nunez Park
New Picnic Tables
Complete Entryway Signs
Bike Trail ($40/LF)
Total
Resurface Basketball Courts
New Playground ADA
New Swings
Callahan Park Restroom update
New Benches
Bike Trail ($40/LF)
Total
*Picnic Shelter
Basketball Court Resurface
New Benches
Tot Playground update
Sunnyside Park
New Swings
Bike Rack
Hothouse Rehab
Total
Resurface Basketball Court
Smith Park
Bike Rack
Total
Resurfacing Basketball Court
Resurfacing Baseball Diamond
Small Volleyball Court
Signage
Edward Valve
Lighting
Park
Bike Rack
Broken swings
Move Shelter and Playground
Total
Project Description
Resurface Basketball Courts
Carey/Jackson New Playground ADA
Park
New Picnic Tables
New Benches
New Lights
Roxana Tot Lot *New Playground ADA
$54,000.00
$45,000.00
$20,000.00
$3,000.00
$45,000.00
$72,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$20,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$72,000.00
$1,000.00
$36,000.00
$72,000.00
$4,000.00
$6,000.00
$45,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$18,000.00
$54,000.00
$45,000.00
$20,000.00
$3,000.00
$122,000.00
$45,000.00
$72,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$20,000.00
$200,000.00
$5,000.00
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$357,000.00
$180,000.00
$1,000.00
$4,000.00
$6,000.00
$45,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
$248,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$4,000.00
$200,000.00
$216,000.00
$18,000.00
$45,000.00
$2,000.00
$45,000.00
$2,000.00
$3,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$20,000.00
$3,000.00
$200,000.00
$268,000.00
$20,000.00
$54,000.00
$3,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
$600.00
$20,000.00
$109,600.00
$54,000.00
$3,000.00
$10,000.00
$2,000.00
$600.00
$20,000.00
$18,000.00
$18,000.00
$600.00
$18,600.00
$600.00
$18,000.00
$600.00
$2,000.00
$18,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$500.00
$12,000.00
$600.00
$2,000.00
$18,000.00
$63,100.00
$18,000.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
$500.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$45,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$6,000.00
$45,000.00
98
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$45,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$18,000.00
$85,000.00
$45,000.00
Resurface Sport Courts
Resurface Baseball Diamond
Update lighting
Fix fencing
Sign
Landscaping
Roxana Park
Picnic Tables
Benches
Hothouse Rehab
New Playground ADA
New Bleachers
Bike Rack
Total
New Swings
Resurface Basketball Court
Sign
Martín Luther
Bike Rack
King Jr. Park
Picnic Table
Fix Fencing
Total
Parking Lot resurfacing
Park Pavilion
Stadium Seating Area
Block Stadium
Field Improvements including flooding
Bike Racks
Total
Resurface Baseball Fields
New Bike Racks
Kenny Loften Parking Lot resurfacing
Baseball Complex New Bleachers
Install track ($40/LF)
Total
Maintenance (trash)
General Cost Landscaping Maintenance
Pool Maintenance
Bike Path
Expansion of trail
Total
Total
$18,000.00
$15,000.00
$9,000.00
$18,000.00
$15,000.00
$18,000.00
$9,000.00
$500.00
$500.00
$3,000.00
$2,000.00
$20,000.00
$45,000.00
$6,000.00
$600.00
$2,000.00
$18,000.00
$500.00
$600.00
$1,000.00
$3,000.00
$2,000.00
$20,000.00
$45,000.00
$6,000.00
$600.00
$128,100.00
$2,000.00
$18,000.00
$500.00
$600.00
$1,000.00
$22,100.00
$293,265.00
$1,200.00
$715,581.00
$293,265.00
$715,581.00
$441,000.00
$715,581.00
$441,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$45,000.00
$1,200.00
$45,000.00
$45,000.00
$882,000.00
$2,146,743.00
$586,530.00
$1,200.00
$3,616,473.00
$45,000.00
$1,200.00
$90,000.00
$200,000.00
$336,200.00
$1,034,315.00 $1,790,846.00 $1,563,581.00 $2,162,181.00 $1,015,600.00 $7,571,523.00
NEEDS ANALYSIS
What is Issue Analysis?
Since the ECPRD is developing this master plan in house, we are using a simplified issue
analysis method of performing the required needs analysis. This analysis tallied results from each
method of public input, the input from the Park Board and the Park staff, and identified common
themes from each method and condensed the themes into underlying issues. The issues were
placed in priority order based on financial and other constraints, then turned into a coherent
priority and action plan.
Issues from the Public Input

Playground renovation/new equipment/accessibility

Nunez Park and Callahan Park renovation, part of North Harbor Redevelopment

Block Stadium, Tod Park Phase 3

More programs; especially family and youth-oriented (“latchkey kid” programs)
99
Issues from the Board, Staff and Municipal officers

Accessibility of facilities, programs and policies: need to upgrade all to current ADA
standards

Remove and replace outdated/unsafe play equipment

Add programs strategically for youth, and families

Lack of funding across the board

Limited available/affordable new green space for parks

No “signature” attraction for ECPRD; consider splash pad or skate park
What We Need




Consistent funding
New and accessible play equipment
More programs of many kinds
More parks and park space
100
Map 1: Northwestern Indiana, including East Chicago, Lake County
101
102
Map 2: East Chicago Parks and Recreation Centers
103
EAST CHICAGO PARKS AND RECREATION CENTERS KEY
104
1.
MARKTOWN PARK
2.
MACARTHUR GOLF COURSE
3.
TOD PARK
4.
EDWARD VALVE PARK
5.
VETERANS PARK
6.
KOSCIUSZKO PARK
7.
ROXANA CENTER
8.
GOODMAN PARK
9.
151ST STREET CENTER
10.
MARTIN LUTHER KING CENTER
11.
RILEY PARK
12.
KENNY LOFTON LITTLE LEAGUE FIELD
13.
BLOCK STADIUM
14.
WASHINGTON PARK
15.
BESSIE OWENS CENTER
16.
NUNEZ PARK
17.
CALLAHAN PARK
18.
PENN CENTER
19.
LINEAR PARK
105
PRIORITIES AND ACTION SCHEDULE
Setting the priorities for this plan was difficult, as financial constraints are the deciding
factor for almost all new development or land acquisition for the East Chicago Parks. Capital
improvements have been limited for the last 20+ years in East Chicago.
Transition into the New Plan
During the transition into the new planning period, the ECPRD will concentrate on
fundraising of all types, with an eye toward increasing the current East Chicago Park Fund.
Potential fundraising options during the transition period:

Municipal bonds

User fees

Creative partnerships (with private entities such as United Neighborhood Organization,
the Lake Area United Way, and other public entities)

Grants (Federal, State, Foundations, Non-profits,)

Casino Fund

Corporate Donations:
o Local businesses and residents
o Tax write-offs

Naming rights

Product sales (hats, t-shirts, etc.)
Fundraising will be critical; each of the action plan elements depends on having available
funds to create it. Residents of East Chicago have provided input into what they want from parks
and recreation for the next five years; now it is time to figure out a way to pay for it. This is
particularly true of the grants application process. Most grants have some variety of “match”,
which requires that the grant recipient provide a required percentage of the total cost of the grant
funded project.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund, for example, provides a 50%
reimbursement of the costs of approved projects; which means that East Chicago must raise in
advance the rest of the money for any projects that we wish to build under this grant.
106
(Framework replicates that of 2008-2012 Plan. Years have been changed; content is to be
worked on in preparation for April 2013 submission.)
ECPRD System-wide Action Schedule
Budget
Year
Priority Item
Lead Entity
Potential Cost
Potential Funding Source
2013Ongoing
Nunez Park and
Callahan, integral part of
North Harbor
Development
East Chicago Park
Board; E. Chicago
Redevelopment
Commission
Estimated cost of $2.3 million ECPRD Budget Donations,
local businesses; grants;
ArcelorMittal, BP, other
Foundation matches
2013Ongoing
Exploration of all
available/willing seller
potential park properties
Citywide
Cost should be nor more than
$2,000.
2013
Creation of new
programs for families,
latchkey kids, and adults
East Chicago Park
Board; Mayor’s
Comm. For People
w/Disabilities; E.C.
Planning Dept.
ECPRD Recreation
Director
2013-2014
2014-2015
2014-2015
2014-2017
Negotiations with Nature
Conservancy/
IDNR/DuPont about
education. Access to
Nature Preserve
Installation of new,
accessible play
equipment; using
volunteers and donated
materials as much as
possible
Block Stadium
renovation
Purchase/donation/
of new park lands
Citywide; 40 acres of
MacArthur Park
expansion, golf athletic
fields
ECPRD Park
Superintendent;
E.C. Schools; E.C.
Planning
Varies based on attendance,
ECPRD Budget;
type of program, fees charged, fees/donations as needed
etc. Approx. $15,000/yr.
Minimal costs to negotiate;
Action costs to be estimated
based on access options for
school programs, bike trail
feasibility
ECPRD
Depends on source of
Maintenance
equipment, potential for
Supervisor; Park
volunteer installation, size of
Superintendent
equipment, etc. Costs
estimated as high as $350,000
for two or three medium-sized
play structures on accessible
surfaces
ECPRD Park
Costs depend on project
Superintendent;
complexity; approximately
City Engineer; E.C. $3,000,000
Schools
East Chicago Park Costs could range from $5. to
Board; Park Staff
$7,000,000
107
ECPRD Budget; Human
Rights Budget; City Planning
Budget
ECPRD Budget; DuPont
Foundation
East Chicago Park Fund;
grants; donations and in-kind;
bequests; ECPRD Budget.
East Chicago Park Fund;
grants, donations, etc.
East Chicago Park Fund; E.C.
Waterway Management
District; Local industry grants
and/or technical assistance
2015-2017
2016-2017
Development of all
ECPRD Park
newly acquired parks for Superintendent;
multiple-uses
Maintenance
Supervisor
Costs depend on number/size East Chicago Park Fund;
of parks to develop/amenities; grants; donations and in-kind;
costs could range from
bequests; etc.
$500,000 to $1,000,000
Signature amenities for
larger parks, such as a
splashpad or skatepark
Costs depend on
size/complexity of design of
amenities; could range from
$500,000 to $1,000,000
East Chicago Park
Board, Park
Superintendent
108
East Chicago Park Fund;
grants; donations and in-kind;
bequests; etc.
PLAN PRESENTATION AND PUBLIC HEARING, FOLLOWED BY ECPR BOARD
ADOPTION
The draft plan, completed on April 1, 2013, was the subject of a Public Hearing, required
by Indiana Law, and held April 9, 2013.
The Public Hearings were advertised and held
according to statutory requirements.
On April 2, 2013, draft copies of the East Chicago 5-year Parks and Recreation Master
Plan were placed at City Hall, the Parks and Recreation Department Office, the City Planning
Department, the Main and Pastrick Branches of the Public Library, and the Lakeshore (East
Chicago and Hammond) Chamber of Commerce.
Comment sheets and phone contact
information were also available. The plan was also posted on the city’s website with e-mail and
phone numbers available for comments. April 8, 2013 was the comments submission deadline.
No additional written or oral comments were received. The public was provided a final
opportunity to suggest feedback and comment on the draft plan prior to its adoption by the Park
Board.
After considering the Master Plan, the East Chicago Parks and Recreation Board
formally adopted the Master Plan during its regular April 9, 2013 meeting.
109
BOARD RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2013-2017 PLAN
WHEREAS, the East Chicago Parks and Recreation Board is aware of the parks and
recreation needs of the residents of East Chicago Indiana, and
WHEREAS, the Board realizes the importance of sound planning in order to meet the
needs of its citizens,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE EAST CHICAGO PARKS AND
RECREATION BOARD, by unanimous declaration, does adopt the East Chicago 5-year 20132017 Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan as its official plan for the next five
years, for the growth and development of parks and recreational opportunities in East
Chicago.
Passed and signed this 9th day of April, 2013
ATTEST:
Lilia Ramos, President
Richard Gillis, Vice President
Valda Lewis, Secretary
Carla Morgan, Parks and Recreation Board Attorney/City Attorney
110
APPENDICES (Confer Table of Contents)
NEWSPAPER NOTICES, ARTICLES, SIGN-IN SHEETS AND MEETING INFORMATION
Newspaper Legal Notices for February 4, 6, 11 and 13, 2013 Public Hearings on Parks
Master Plan to be included here.
Sign-in sheets and agendas for meetings (by date)
Sign-in Sheet for February 4, 2013 Meeting (copy of sign-in sheet included here)
Sign-in Sheet for February 5, 2013 Meeting (copy of sign-in sheet included here)
Sign-in Sheet for February 11, 2013 Meeting (copy of sign-in sheet included here)
Sign-in Sheet for February 12, 2013 Meeting (copy of sign-in sheet included here)
111
Two Documents for Public Input Survey:
1. Procedures for Sampling
Random Survey Sample
#1 - How many survey respondents are needed?
The desired error level and population size are as follows below. The numbers next to each
confidence level indicate how many people need to complete the survey to achieve the specified
error level.
How much error are you
willing to tolerate?
5.0
How many people are in
your population?
29698
% Good margin of error for relevance
based off of 2010 Census Data
90% Confidence
95% Confidence
99% Confidence
270
we don’t need anything more
379
649
#2 - How many people do you need to send the survey to?
How many people need to
complete the survey?
270
90% confidence level
From #1 above
What is your estimated
response rate?
80
Minimum % based on previous survey in 2008 (80%)
Send the survey to
386
people
How the survey will be administered?
Based off the 2012 Haines Directory there are 12,775 residential entries of those 386 will be
randomly selected as follows.
The addresses selected will receive this survey through mail with a return envelope
postage paid. We will wait a month to see how many are turned in; however we will also begin
calling by week two of this process, to give the person the option to do it over the phone. Lastly
112
the option of doing it online will be provided on both the mailed version and through the phone.
2.
Survey Instrument: 386 response target (drafted, discussed, edited, 01/08.2013
Dear East Chicago Residents,
Thank you for helping with the 2013 Parks and Recreation master planning process in East
Chicago. This public input survey will assist the Parks and Recreational Department to
understand the needs of the community, set goals for the plan, and get a better understanding of
how Parks and Recreational facilities serve the community. Your honest opinions are
appreciated.
Part 1: Use Patterns
This Section helps us understand general patterns and use of parks, how often you use the parks,
and why.
Q1.1: Please Mark with an X.
Question: On average, how often do
members of your household or you…
Almost
every
day
A few
times
per
week
About
once
per
week
About
once
per
month
Less
than
once per
month
participate in recreational activities
that mainly involve physical activity
(such as running, bike riding,
working out, playing a sport, etc.)?
participate in recreational activities
that mainly involve
educational/cultural goals (such as
going to museums, taking an art
class, visiting a nature center, etc.)?
use or visit an East Chicago Park
(not including using Community
Center and/or indoor recreational
facilities)?
use or visit an East Chicago
Community Center (includes
recreational indoor facilities)?
Q1.2: Please state Yes (Y) or No (N) and, if yes, how many times (X) per (/) year.
In the past year have you visited any of the following East Chicago Parks, Recreational
Facilities, or Community Centers (CC)?
113
Rarely
or
never
Q1.3: Please Mark X to all that apply.
What are the main reasons people in your household or you visit or use East Chicago Parks
(includes community centers/indoor recreational facilities)?
Park/Center
Y-N
X/Year
Tod Park
Jeorse Park Beach
Kosciuszko Park
Veteran’s Park
Block Stadium
MacArthur Golf Course
Washington Park
Park/Center
X/Year
Nunez Park
Riley Park
Callahan Park
Goodman Park
Bessie Owens CC
Heritage Hall CC
Marktown CC
____ Picnic
____ Adult Sports
League
____ Child Day Care
____ Teen Club/Program
____ Playground
____ Private Permit
Event
____
____
____
Y-N
Park/Center
Y-N
X/Year
Martin Luther King CC
Pennsylvania CC
Roberto Clemente CC
Roxana Community CC
151st CC
____
Special Event
Scheduled Classes
Children Sports
League
After School
Program
Senior Activity
____
____
____
____
To Attend a
Meeting
Nature Walks
Other
Q1.4: Please Mark with an X. When using East Chicago Parks and Community Centers,
what is the MAIN type of transportation those in your household or you use to reach the
Parks.
____ Walk ____
Automobile
____
Bike
____
Bus
____
Other
Part 2: Issue Identification
This section will help us understand what issues you feel are important when using East Chicago
parks and will also help identify areas of improvement.
Q2.1: Circle your Choices (1 being Strongly Disagree, 3 being Neutral and 5 being Strongly
Agree).
Rate how well you agree with the following statements describing East Chicago Parks
(including community centers/indoor recreational facilities).
Statements referring to East Chicago Parks and Facilities
They are easily accessible and located well throughout the city/my
neighborhood
They provide more than ample parking for its users
They should provide picnic areas/benches in all the parks
They provide many After School Programs
The Park Staff is very helpful
They are safe for all ages
They provide many Sport Programs for all ages
114
How well you
agree
1 2 3 4
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
The Parks and Facilities are very clean
The Facility buildings/Community Centers are in good conditions
The Community Centers are well kept and maintained
They provide well maintained playground equipment
They provide many recreational opportunities
They should provide restroom facilities in all parks
They provide more than ample bike racks
The restrooms provided are adequate in the facilities
Community Parks need to be closer to my neighborhood
I do not go to the beach because of lack of shade and trees
They are handicap accessible
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Q2.2: Mark with an X.
How satisfied are you overall with the Parks & Facilities in East Chicago?
____ Very Satisfied
____ Somewhat Dissatisfied
____ Somewhat Satisfied
____ Very Dissatisfied
____ Neutral/Unsure
Q2.3: Mark with an X to all that apply
Out of the following, check those that are reasons why you do not use or rarely use the
Parks & Facilities in East Chicago?
____ Unkept ____ Unsafe
____ No Shade ____ Nothing to do
____ Not Handicap Accessible
____ Proximity ____ Other
_______________________________________________________________
Q2.4: Rate the following in order of importance (1 being most important, 4 being least
important).
If the following facilities/parks in East Chicago are to be improved or expanded, rate the
order you would like to see them improved?
____
____
____
____
Marina-Restaurant/Social Center
Jeorse Park Beach
MacArthur Golf Course
Block Stadium
115
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Q2.5: Place an X for Enough, Not Enough, Too Much, or Don’t Know
Please indicate your answers in the appropriate columns next to each facility or
program. Do you think there are enough of the facilities or programs provided in
your area?
Not
Enough
Recreational Facility or Program
Enough
Paved paths or sidewalks along streets
Paved bicycle trails connecting neighborhoods
Trailheads with parking for access to public lands
Bike and Hiking trails
Areas for wildlife viewing and self-guided nature study trails with
signs
Picnic tables (for individuals or small groups)
Covered picnic pavilions (for groups and events)
Access to rivers, lakes or ponds for recreational purposes
Cultural events (concerts, art fairs, festivals, etc.)
Historic and interpretive facilities and programs
Playgrounds for school-aged children
Handicap accessible playgrounds
Indoor activities for teens/teen center
Art and other creative activity classes for youths/adults
Nature education programs for children, adults, or families
Activities that promote neighborhood interaction
Basketball courts
Tennis courts
Youth/Adult soccer fields
Youth/Adult baseball, softball and little league fields
Golf courses/driving ranges
Miniature Golf/Batting Cages
Skateboard parks
Swimming Pools for children and family
Zero-depth water spray parks
Dog park
Skating rink
Places to hold special events (indoor or outdoor)
Beach/Boardwalk
Part 3: Financing
This section helps us to prioritize funding for running the parks and/or capital
improvements.
116
Too
Much
Don’t
Know
Q3.1 Mark with an X
Do you think funding for East Chicago parks and facilities/programs should be
increased, decreased or stay the same?
____ Increased
Know
____ Decreased
____ Stay about the same
____ Don’t
Q3.2 Mark with an X
Would you support a new bond measure to help fund future parks and upgraded
facilities/programs for specific projects identified with input from the community?
____ Definitely Yes
____ Definitely Not
____ Probably Yes
____ Maybe
____ Probably Not
Part 4: Demographics
This section is important because it helps understand your background, but in no way are
you obligated to answer the questions if you are uncomfortable doing so. (Write NCR on
the side of the question if you are Not Comfortable Responding)
Q4.1 What is your Ethnicity and/or Race?
____
____
____
____
____
White (Non- Hispanic)
African American
Hispanic
Asian
Other
Q4.2 How many of each age group live in your Household?
____ 1-5
____ 6-12 ____ 13-17
____ 18-29 ____ 30-49 ____ 50-64
____ 65+
Q4.3 About how long have you lived in East Chicago?
____ 0-1 year
____ 6-10 years
____ 16-20 years
____ 2-5 years
____ 11-15 years
____ 21+ years
Q4.4 What is your sex?
____ Male
____ Female
Q4.5 What is your average yearly Household Income?
117
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
$0-$9,999
$10,000-$14,999
$15,000-$24,999
$25,000-$34,999
$35,000-$49,999
$50,000-$74,999
$75,000-$99,999
$100,000-$149,999
$150,000-$199,999
$200,000 or more
Q4.6 How many bikes are in your household?
____ 0
____ 2
____ 4
____ 1
____ 3
____ 5+
Q4.7 How many cars are in your household?
____ 0
____ 2
____ 1
____ 3+
Please use the Space below for any additional comments, suggestions or concerns
you may have and you would like us to be aware of, for purposes of this plan. We
appreciate your input!
Thank you for completing the survey!
Additional information about the East Chicago Parks and Recreation Master Plan public
input process may be obtained on the East Chicago Parks website
www.eastchicago.com/parks or (219) 391-8205.
118