The Successful Design of Small Parks and Results of Public Feedback - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Successful Design of Small Parks and Results of Public Feedback (so far) regarding Jenkintown’s Cedar Street Property May 17, 2017 Je nkinto wn E nviro nme ntal Adviso ry Co mmitte e Me e ting Pre pare d by L uc inda Bartle y

De sig n Pro c e ss Inventory and Analysis (where we are) Concept Designs Final Design Construction, Financing, etc.

Purpo se o f Re se arc h Examine the design of successful pocket parks, particularly as those design goals can be applied to a new open space in Jenkintown Suc c e ssful = so c iable + e c o lo g ic ally sustainable Phipps Center for Sustainable Landscapes, Pittsburgh, PA Central Park, NYC

T o inve stig ate • Use : Who? and How? • Design, construction, and care : What design elements are vital to a park’s success? • Ecology : How can “green” design elements enhance the ecological health of the neighborhood?

Bac kg ro und • History of Philadelphia‐area parks, from Penn’s squares to pocket parks • Theory: Whyte’s “people attract people” and Warner’s “current environmental crisis” • Five design elements of “good” design for small public parks (Currie)

Je nkinto wn Co nte xt 433 and 435 Cedar Street

Site Analysis Jenkintown Borough: • Fully built‐out first‐ring suburb with historic buildings • Fourth most dense municipality in Montgomery County • Existing public open space: Town Square and school playground & fields Property: • 0.36 acres with two houses, garages, and driveway • Mid‐block property in denser residential area near commercial district • No ESA Phase I environmental contamination concerns

Oppo rtunitie s and Co nstraints fo r Je nkinto wn's Ce dar Stre e t Ope n Spac e Opportunities : Constraints : • Limited public open space • Mid‐block location could reduce visibility and access • Grants to assist in developing new open space • Property is fairly small at 0.36 acres • Enthusiasm about new open space among majority of • Nearby residents concerned about noise, traffic, participating residents disturbance • Increase permeable cover and habitat for birds and • Borough does not have a large budget for construction pollinators or maintenance • Property is half a block from “uptown” Jenkintown • Previous land use as garages might have left contamination • Property in a dense residential section of Jenkintown • Existing buildings (433 Cedar, 435 Cedar, and the where residences tend to have smaller personal yards garages) will need to be upgraded and maintained, or • Local organizations could use the garages for storage demolished and removed • Larger house is in acceptable condition and could be brought up to appropriate standards for reuse

Case Studie s o f Co mparable Parks Jefferson Market Park, Manhattan: green oasis in dense urban area Three Bears Park, Philadelphia: well‐established playground and open space Linwood Park, Ardmore: sustainably designed, mixed‐use space in suburbs Jefferson Market Park Three Bears Park Linwood Park

F amo us po c ke t parks John Collins Park , Center City, Philadelphia: 0.1 acre

F amo us po c ke t parks Paley Park , New York

Childre n’ s play spac e - mo re natural Billy Johnson Playground , Central Park, New York

Childre n’ s play spac e - mo re manic ure d/ simple Wee Walers , North Wales One residential lot

Passive re c re atio n Jefferson Market Park , New York 0.4 acres

Passive re c re atio n Linwood Park , Ardmore 1 acre

Mixe d use Cobble Hill Park , Brooklyn 0.58 acres

Mixe d use Three Bears (Delancey) Park , Philadelphia 0.4 acres

eedbac k: Visio ning Me e ting Public F 2/ 15/ 2017 • Intro • Slideshow presentation • General discussion • Small‐group workshop

Visioning Meeting General Conclusions • A combination of a natural, green space for passive enjoyment with some limited space for active recreation or children’s play. • Site furnishings such as seating and play equipment made from natural or recycled materials, i.e., logs or boulders. • Many people value the presence of birds in the neighborhood and would like for a park to enhance bird habitat, including installing native plants and trees. • Because the location of the property may be out of the way, people want to attract users to the site, through programming (events, talks, parties) and furnishings (comfortable seating, picnic tables, play equipment, water features). • Neighbors are concerned about disruptive use, including excessive noise from park visitors or their dogs, loud or inappropriate use by older children or teenagers, excessive light at night, and increased demand for parking. There is also concern about safety in the park.

eedbac k: Online Surve y Public F 3/ 31 thro ug h 4/ 11/ 2017 Survey covered: • Demographics • Use and users • Design to support use • Sustainable/“green” elements Ended with invitation to participate

11. Please describe your vision for the use of green open space at the Cedar Street property. What use do you think would best serve the neighborhood and residents of the Borough? “A gathering place for families and older residents to play, rest, find natural beauty and connect with each other.” “A small playground for younger children, open lawn to run around, seating area for eating, reading.” “Native plantings and creation of habitat. Play place for teens and natural seating and play equipment.” “Splash pad, picnic tables and covered pavilion‐type space.” “There aren't many spaces for my 10 & 7yr olds to walk with his friends and hang out in safe space. I would also like to be able to walk there with my small kids and have them be able to run around while I sit and chat with friends”

Design Style: Other 12. What design style appeals to you most for the Cedar Street site? Short Answers (examples) 120 50.00% 103 45.00% 46.19% “I generally prefer natural landscapes, 100 92 40.00% 41.26% but in a dense neighborhood it will look better to have a neat, managed 35.00% Percent of respondents (n=223) 80 Number of respondents appearance.” 30.00% “Controlled lushness” 60 25.00% 20.00% “Natural gets overgrown very quickly 40 and manicures requires too much 28 15.00% 12.56% maintenance so something in 10.00% 20 between.” 5.00% 0 0.00% Natural and lush Neat and manicured Other

13. What built elements do you feel are important to include in the design? (check all that apply) 171 180 90.00% 79.91% 160 80.00% 140 70.00% Percent of respondents (n=214) Number of respondents 120 60.00% 105 49.07% 93 89 100 50.00% 86 43.46% 41.59% 77 40.19% 35.98% 80 40.00% 60 30.00% 47 37 21.96% 32 17.29% 40 20.00% 14.95% 20 10.00% 0 0.00% Installed benches Picnic tables Paved pathways Public art Pavilion or Decorative water Movable tables Stage, Other covered area features and chairs performance, or (fountains) meeting space Built Elements: Other Quantification of Short Answers Number of respondents (n=47) 9 10 8 6 4 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 Respondent answers to "Other"

14. What planting elements do you feel are important to include in the design? (check all that apply) 180 80.00% 156 160 71.23% 70.00% Percent of respondents (n=219) 140 60.00% Number of respondents 112 109 120 51.14% 49.77% 50.00% 100 77 40.00% 80 35.16% 62 30.00% 28.31% 51 60 23.29% 20.00% 40 17 10.00% 7.76% 20 0 0.00% Large shade trees Open lawn Natural plant areas Flower or planting beds Meadow/pollinator Community garden Other (shrubs, perennials, garden etc.) Planting Elements: Other Short Answers (examples) “DON'T do community garden without phase 2 environ study ‐ former use raises concerns about growing food there. Likewise, please look into this before installing any stormwater infiltration.” “Trees, natural plants...no community garden...ugly, weeds, upkeep...not a good idea.” “is it too small for community garden? stormwater retention (rain garden) should be done.”

Active Elements: Other 15. What active use elements do you feel are important to include in Short Answers (examples) the design? (check all that apply) 120 60.00% “None” 96 100 50.00% 90 “VERY IMPORTANT: playground 49.48% 46.39% Percent of respondents (n=194) equipment for children with special Number of respondents 80 40.00% needs” 60 30.00% “gaga court” 47 41 24.23% 21.13% “bocce court(s)” 33 40 20.00% 17.01% “Boulders or other natural materials 20 10.00% for kids to climb” 0 0.00% “Park swing. Book exchange.” Playground Water features for Exercise equipment Small sports field Other equipment for playing (splash pads, or stations children spray or misters) “walking paths, tree house/bridge and/or nature‐based play area”