At Tuesday night’s Seattle Parks and Recreation park acquisition meeting, no one was more surprised than the department representatives about the packed auditorium at Lowell Elementary School.
“There’s only as far as we can go as officials without broader public support,” said property and acquisitions services manager Donald Harris. “We’re here mostly to get your feedback.”
The topic at hand was a proposed new park on the corner of Federal Avenue East and East Republican Street. Right now it’s a vacant lot, about a quarter of an acre of land with good sun exposure in the middle of a busy neighborhood. Even though Harris said the lot is going into foreclosure, the current owner is driving a hard bargain with the Parks Department and is reluctant to sell. The owners are also pursuing housing development options for the space.
“In this economy, market values just aren’t what they used to be,” said Harris. “The owner wants to hold out until the [property] values go back up.”
Two other park opportunities on Capitol Hill have already been squashed quashed, said acquisitions planner Chip Nevins. The owners of a lot off Bellevue Ave. E. between E. Denny Way and E. Thomas Street decided not to sell after bargaining with the Parks department. Same goes for a parking lot area near Group Health on 15th Ave.
Construction on the park that will replace the Diamond Parking lot north of the Olive St. Starbucks, however, will begin in April. That park — the almost-was-named-Perugia Park — will feature “passive seating areas and p-patches.” Seven Hills Park, the other park under construction on the Hill at 16th and Howell was slated to be done this spring but CHS hasn’t heard much about progress on starting that work and last we visited, the space was still a fenced-off, paved lot.
If Fedrep Investors, LLC, the company that now owns the land that was once planned for a townhome project, decides to continue holding out for a higher price, Seattle Parks could use its authority to force a sale on the owner. But first, representatives said, they want to make sure they’re making the right decision with community backing and support. to take the property owner to court and force a sale.
Right now, the purchase price for the quarter acre lot hovers at just about $1.3 million.
The Parks Department has the money to acquire the property, but no funds to maintain or build on it, they said. That would become a matter of public fund-raising and a lot of work in the years to come.
To support efforts to build the park, community members may need to raise $500,000. The entire cost of the project is about $2 million. Once land is purchased by the Seattle Parks Department, the law is that it will always be allocated for public use.
Harris called it a “miracle” that “59 percent of voters gave more money to park acquisition.” Now it’s important for the public to voice their opinions on it, especially in the middle of a recession.
“You’re going to see a budget crisis in Parks and Recreation in the upcoming years,” said Harris. “And unfortunately that could mean some Draconian changes for a while.”
Many meeting attendants agree that the park would benefit the community exponentially and that it is a “gorgeous” piece of property. Some cited the number of apartment buildings and housing development in the area and that it would get a lot of use and is a central place for many surrounding residents. Having a park between Cal Anderson and Volunteer parks would, as one audience member said, create a “boulevard of Seattle Parks.” P-patches, child jungle gyms and sports fields were all mentioned as viable suggestions for the space.
Some, however, had their doubts.
One woman stated that she worked on a community garden that had no security, which created a safety and security hazard for the community. Volunteers had to pick up used syringes, clean up human excrement and had a hard time keeping transients out. With no money allocated in city budget for site surveillance, security is an issue.
Taking care of the land the Parks Department already owns is already a challenge, others in attendance stated. Why buy more when there are already maintenance and security issues in Seattle parks? For example, what about opening up spaces like Lowell Elementary’s playground for public use?
Tuesday, the Parks Department gave the City Council their recommendation to move forward acquiring the lot for park development. Nevins and Harris assured the crowd that their thoughts at the meeting would be included in further conversations on the subject, but they need more community outreach and support.
The City Council meeting to approve the project should come at the end of March or early April. When that meeting schedule is released, Harris and Nevin encouraged community members to show their support at the meeting, either through writing e-mails to Nevin or by attending the meeting to voice their thoughts in person. CHS will update as we learn more about when the meeting will take place.
It’s likely Chip Nevins did not say that park plans have been “squashed.”
True, he didn’t. That’s why I didn’t use quotation marks around the comment. I used the word “squashed” to emphasize the point.
~Lauren (CHS reporter)
Forgive me, but I’m not feeling too bad for this area of Capitol Hill. Seeing as how it is the most tree/landscape lined area of the Hill and within 10 mins walk to Volunteer Park and 5 mins walk to Cal Anderson, why spend park money there? I think that Parks map that has been posted on CHS a few times showing the richest part of Cap Hill as park deprived needs to be updated. Mini-parks have a draw of only an eighth to quarter mile. Large parks like Volunteer and Cal Anderson have draws greater than a half a mile, which would dramatically change the look of that map. Not to mention the role that quiet, tree-lined streets can play as active open space.
Let’s tell Parks to focus their efforts on putting pocket parks, Bell Street like projects, and simply planting some trees in the more urban/concrete jungle areas of the neighborhood like Madison, Pike/Pine, etc. Just a thought.
btw: the park just off Olive is exactly what I’m referring to. A little break from the urbanity we all love, but can be mentally draining at times.
Bidding opens up today on the 16th and Howell project.
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/proparks/projects/7_hills_devel
But the parks that those properties were being pursued for are the two that you mention in the article are currently being developed. The Bellevue St. location is a city owned substation, not a hard bargaining property owner, and Parks found the better John and Summit location for a park in that area.
The Group Health parking lot was the preferred location for a park, but the 16th and Howell location works just as well and is currently in bidding.
So neither opportunity was squashed, just modified.
Also, the term is P-Patch, not pea patch.
Squashed vs. quashed aside (let ye who speaks w/o malaprop, speak first), the locations mentioned by parks as being, um, canned are the same ones they told me about when I called about possible future park locations. So, while, yes, they originally sought those properties and then modified plans, parks does continue to bring them up as examples where landowners said ‘no’ and as examples of potential future park spaces that aren’t available. You’ll have to ask Nevins why they’re continued to be positioned that way.
I wasn’t familiar with the term “P-Patch” so I have updated the post, thank you. Pea patches kind of make sense too though, right?
And, ok, I’ll admit… squashed wasn’t the proper word. I was going for clever and fell flat on my face with that one. Thanks for taking the time to read and let us know.
@lauren It’s a common mistake. I know the ‘P’ stands for the person that started the program, but I can never remember who it was. (I just looked it up and it’s Picardo.)
@jseattle That is strange. I have a feeling it’s Parks not updating the maps until the two parks are actually built. Cause once they are built, the other properties will be too close to parks for them to be considered in the future.
Walksheds:
While volunteer park and cal anderson do indeed draw further (and so does miller playfield), they do so at the cost of requiring a parking lot/spaces. No thank you. The Federal/Repub park is like tashkent and thomas st mini: ped-oriented and locals-oriented.
As far as true ped-friendly/family friendly walkshed, the map is fairly accurate.
The money is being spent not for today, but as chip and donald explained, forever (once a park is bought it cannot be sold – it’s in the park system forever). Myopic scope isn’t helpful is park choice.
Capitol Hill’s density cannot be denied. The density will not reduce, it will intensify. Likewise it’s foolish not to see the hundreds of strollers in the neighborhood and not see that there will be future needs in the neighborhood. This park could address those needs in a timely and culturally rich fashion.
There’s some 14 million dollars available -as voted by the people- to purchase new parks, right?
Sparing 1 of those million for a neighborhood/urbanvillage of 20,ooo+ people seems like an okay way to spent that city money.
Show me a better return on investment elsewhere… I’ll be happy to vote for/support a better value.
a. the worries about security : couple things that keep people from turning a park into a campsite/open air pub/unauthorised needle exchange: intelligent lighting design & near-round the clock use possibilities being encouraged. Tashkent & certain p-patches get a bad rap because they’re a) shadowy & b) offering perhaps too few uses.
b. I understand it’s an “open space” map, but considering all the buzz, I harbor one map complaint: why aren’t the pea/P-patches included on the map??
And I wouldn’t mind users/site visitors being able to note open hardscape space (I guess I’m thinking along lines like SCCC’s bricks or the slide behind GroupHealth?). My photoshop computer died otherwise I’d send you one myself….
Here’s the seattle.gov ppatch map to compare: http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/ppatch/locations.htm
Anyone know the story about why the potential park is now inaccessible thanks to quickly erectly cyclone fence about 9am this morning???
optimistic guess: considering they surrounded it with a HONEY BUCKET fence, they must be trying to lower the land value and give the parks dept a better price.
pessimistic guess: the land owner was quietly at the mtg and heard about current uses and is playing keep-away with their ball.
Since this is pretty much a dog bathroom now…we could really use a dog park in this area. It is too small for many of the suggested ideas (sports fields?? please). But a dog park would be perfect!
Given its location in a dense urban area, its distance from existing parks, and the fact that it occupies a south facing (i.e. sunny) corner, the proposed park location is nothing short of ideal. It would clearly be a great addition to the neighborhood.
A recent study by UC Berkeley indicates that properties within 300 feet of a park in dense urban areas experience an average 16% value appreciation. Propeties from 300 to 500 feet experience a lesser but still significant value increase. This alone would justify the investment in a new park, and the choice of this site, based on the return generated in incremental property taxes.
At $1.3M the city’s offer is over $100 per square foot. This is well in excess of market for L3 land. The owners would be wise to sell. If they fail to do so and the property is foreclosed, it will fetch considerbly less on the open market.
Let’s hope this all comes together quickly and favorably.
I think the reeking history of this lot aside, we’ve got no real strong need for dog commodes here: Canines have it pretty good, off-leash area -wise.
Please see: sam smith/Blue dog park, columnade park, plymouth pillars, Jose Rizal park, and regrade park – all off-leash areas within a reasonable walk away. In the central city we have more options than any other part of the city for free-willy dog areas already.
If anyone needs to be thrown a bone, as it were, it would be the Alki/Admiral area or Magnolia/Interbay.
see also http://www.seattle.gov/parks/offleash.asp
Yes, a soccer field or baseball field wouldn’t be practical. Bocce ball and tennis would do fine though, as would a single basketball hoop. How bout a climbing wall? Skate park??
Personally I’d love to see a new park that has a little ‘brass ones’ factor – some sense of gravitas and a distinct lack of modesty:
Something that combined this:
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?ID=345
with this:
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/arts/alkiart.htm
and a new park on Capitol Hill when the Hill needs some love is pointless without a lot of this:
http://www.seattle.gov/html/visitor/icons.htm
Given your stats about land value and locale, the FEDREP Investors should sell the southern two lots and keep the northern lot (of the original three house footprints): they can make a killing on the north lot building a simple house there AFTER the parks dept builds a sweetass playground / community space / statue park / doofenschmirtz cupstacking stadium.
Win-Win!