Nearly a year has passed since my last update to the story of creation of a new park in my former neighborhood, the Craftsman Village Historic District. The small park will be located on the west side of Orange Avenue just south of Ninth Place, an alley court lined with vintage Spanish Revival cottages. In the first installment of this story, I described the origins of the park and the community’s effort to advocate for the vacant lot’s future. In the second part, I shared the sessions of brainstorming and debate between residents, city staff, and the landscape architect hired to help envision the park’s design. In a future installment, I will examine why it has taken so long for the park to become a reality. Here, however, I discuss the continuing efforts to finalize the park’s design.

Two short months after the initial design meeting between residents, city staff, and the city’s consultant (Melendrez Design Partners), the city sponsored a follow-up meeting. At the meeting, the design team presented two possible designs for the park. The plans were presented as divergent, with each featuring various elements largely absent from the other plan. The themes of the two plans, “Discovery” and “Play,” shared few similarities outside of an overall linear shape (reflecting the relatively narrow shape of the available lot) and the inclusion of California native plants, a resident priority.

The “Discovery” design (rendering below) was based on a series of intertwined, meandering loops walking paths, landscaping, and activity areas. Play areas for children would be created by altering the topography with berms and natural features like boulders and petrified logs. Aqua-misters would be built into the boulders, to shoot water over the play areas on a fixed schedule, like the geyser “Old Faithful” in Yellowstone National Park. The surrounding area of the park would be equipped to accommodate the additional moisture while also enhancing the experience.

Discovery

In contrast, the “Play” design (rendering below) would have featured multiple play zones with various functions, including both formal and informal play. This design was organized along a more formal, angled path on the south side of the park, leaving a maximum amount of open space for active recreation. Opportunities for various kinds of play would be located along the path, including a children’s play structure, a large open grass area, and a half court for basketball.

Play

These two designs were not presented as the only possibilities: the idea was to present a stark contrast so that residents could select aspects of each to incorporate in the final park design. After presenting the two alternatives, city staff and the designer asked residents for their general impressions, followed by an in-depth discussion of specific elements within each design. With this feedback, the design team worked to develop a final proposed design that included elements from each of the two original plans.

Overall, residents tended to prefer the “Discovery” concept: thirteen residents filled out detailed questionnaires and all but one mentioned a preference for this design. Residents clearly sought less rambunctious uses of the park, given its relatively narrow footprint and the fact about a dozen residences will be adjacent to it. The organic nature of the “Discovery” design also met with favor, not least because the weaving patterns in the design recall the free-flowing gardens of the surrounding neighborhood.

However, although only one person preferred the “Play” alternative outright, residents appreciated several aspects of this design. For instance, residents saw value in incorporating the large, open turf area of the “Play” design into the final vision of the park, since it could be used for everything from neighborhood association events to informal children’s play. Indeed, enthusiasm for such open space led to a discussion regarding the dream of someday acquiring the nuisance property south of the plot currently slated for the park. Were that to happen, the park would double in width had have a much more square shape, conducive to many park activities. This dream did not mean residents were ungrateful for the city’s work to create the park with its current footprint: it simply reflected an awareness that even after the new park is built, this community will remain drastically under-served in terms of public open space.

Overall, residents were very positive about the process of designing the park. Drawing ideas from two radically different design concepts worked well to help flesh out how the park might best serve the community. Residents found it useful to see a range of ideas presented as full-fledged design concepts, rather than individual throw-away alternatives. They also valued being treated as part of the design process, not an obstacle to it. This process will continue as the design team eventually returns with a final concept, based on the input from this meeting and from the entire design process thus far.