<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>eCommons Collection:</title>
    <link>http://hdl.handle.net/1813/22757</link>
    <description />
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:32:18 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:date>2013-06-20T13:32:18Z</dc:date>
    
    <item>
      <title>Ready or Not, Here They Come: How U.S. Cities are Preparing for the Aging Population, and Lessons from New York City and Atlanta</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/1813/29607</link>
      <description>Title: Ready or Not, Here They Come: How U.S. Cities are Preparing for the Aging Population, and Lessons from New York City and Atlanta
Authors: Morken, Lydia J
Abstract: Graying Baby Boomers and advances in medicine, technology and public health mean that by 2030 nearly one in five people in the U.S. will be 65 years old or older. The needs of this aging population will put unprecedented pressure on society, including on cities, through new demands on housing, transportation, public space, health care, and a wide range of services. This paper examines the role of cities in this demographic transformation by exploring the notion of elder-friendly communities, the relationship between human aging and the built environment, and a comparison of Age-friendly NYC in New York City and Lifelong Communities in Atlanta, two wide-ranging initiatives to make those places friendlier to older residents. It compares the two efforts  to understand what strategies were developed to address the challenges unique to each place, and explores several major lessons that have emerged from which other cities might learn.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/1813/29607</guid>
      <dc:date>2012-08-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Public Private Partnerships in Urban Parks: A Case Study of Five U.S. Parks</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/1813/29010</link>
      <description>Title: Public Private Partnerships in Urban Parks: A Case Study of Five U.S. Parks
Authors: Wilson, Amanda
Abstract: Public-private partnerships (P3s) are increasingly used to manage public parks. What do cities, citizens, and organizations need to know when establishing a P3 for park management? What are the opportunities and implications of these partnerships? This research provides information not readily available on the structure and operations of public-private partnerships in five U.S. parks. These parks present a range of funding sources and expenditures, programming, concessions, and historical contexts. Though these parks differ in certain aspects, distinct trends and lessons emerge. From these trends and a review of academic literature I propose recommendations for establishing and monitoring the public-private partnership process. This research began as part of an in internship with the Downtown Austin Alliance in the summer of 2010. Data on these parks were collected through interviews with park managers during the summer and fall of 2010 and supplemented by park websites or online news sources.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/1813/29010</guid>
      <dc:date>2011-06-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Effect of NSP on HUD and its Grantees</title>
      <link>http://hdl.handle.net/1813/22952</link>
      <description>Title: The Effect of NSP on HUD and its Grantees
Authors: Decker, Nathaniel
Abstract: This report examines how suburban characteristics may have hampered grantees’ administration of the first round of Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP1) funding. The report focuses on NSP1’s “set-aside” requirement which was designed to preserve housing (either rental or owner) affordable to very-low income families. This report reviews available literature and uses interviews with HUD (who administered the program), nonprofit partners, and two Florida grantees to examine the effect of four community characteristics: goals that are contrary to the creation of affordable housing, limited capacity to administer NSP, a dearth of NSP-eligible multifamily properties, and limited capacity in the jurisdiction’s nonprofit community. This report finds that many grantees struggled with the fast pace of this crisis-response program. However, this fast pace directed HUD’s attention to grantees that were chronic under-performers under other block grant programs such as CDBG, and may have improved grantee capacity as well as their relationship with HUD.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://hdl.handle.net/1813/22952</guid>
      <dc:date>2011-06-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

