Help Design Kandle Park

8 comments

• J julybug July 2, 2009

  I have told the parks department that they should stop designing FLAT parks. Let’s pile on some dirt. Let’s add some dimension to it. Flatten another park to bring over the soil. Why are we limited to a flat park if it is flat to begin with?

• Y You're Welcome July 3, 2009

  This would be a good, central location for a dog park.

• A Anike July 4, 2009

  julybug, I always liked Jane Clark Park, Vassault Park and Pt. Defiance because of the hills. I wouldn’t say no to building more hills in flat parks.

• K K July 4, 2009

  Julybug- As someone who designs parks and the like for a living, I can shed a little light on this “flat park” issue. The reason is usually that when dealing with smaller parks, the name of the game is versatility of use. Neighborhood pocket parks especially, we have to take into account the many ways people will them- from having a picnic, to tossing around the frisbee, to starting a pickup game of flag football. Steep topography will severely limit these uses.

  However, if the park is large enough to have many use “zones” I say go for it! Like Gasworks Park in Seattle or Wright Park here in T-Town, the topography really does make the area more dynamic and engaging.

  The “cut out” activity is hilarious. It really puts my career on par with making a macaroni necklace or a hand turkey!

• J julybug July 5, 2009

  ok K… but what’s stopping them from building a rock fountain with a ramp that goes up and back down as it circles the fountain? instead, you know that they would just sit a fountain flat on the ground. I think the zoo manages the ups and downs around areas pretty well. and yes, it is a much larger park with MORE usage. Still, why even ask for input on a small park if it will look just about the same as every other small park? oh yeah, the cut out activity gives us a chance to reassemble all the usual elements. LOL!

• J J. Cote July 5, 2009

  Kandle Park is flat for two reasons, I think: 1) It’s been flat since Tacoma was Tacoma. 2) It’ hard to play baseball, soccer and basketball on a hill.
  As for designing the park, I really don’t see the use in it. They haven’t cared for this park in decades. The little baseball field is weeded by volunteers from the teams that play on it, or else it gets overgrown. The grass rarely gets watered. I doubt if it even has sprinklers. The basketball court is a joke. As for making it a dog park, why not. At least then it would get fertilizer and water from the dogs.
  If this is any example of how Metro Parks cares for their facilities, then I say why bother. It will only be dead grass and overgrown weeds in 10 years. Take care of what you have before you go to get more.

• L Liz Payson July 5, 2009

  There was already a meeting to design Kandle Park. The opinions of the citizens who actually decided to get off their computers and show up should have more weight than those who decided after the meeting.
  The people of Tacoma do not pay taxes so that the neighbours of Kandle Park can have a big front yard. Parks are for the entire community.
  Whether we are swimming, skating, gardening, playing- we will make noise, our kids will run around, our dogs will bark- and the neighbours of Kandle Park- you will just have to get used to it!

• K K July 6, 2009

  Junebug..
  You said,”..but what’s stopping them from building a rock fountain with a ramp that goes up and back down as it circles the fountain?”

  A number of things. First of all (and most importantly) budget. What you described sounds cool, but very expensive. Everything has a cost- the rocks, the ramp structure, the fountain (especially the fountain, ka-ching!). Even the fill material that is required to “mound up” the land is costly. Not to mention the design fees of the landscape architect or engineer who has to produce the detailed drawings of those things. These types of parks typically have a ridiculously small budget that barely covers the cost of turf and trees, let alone anything fancy.

  The second issue is accessibility. A site that changes grade all over the place is fun for a portion of the able-bodied among us, but not so accommodating if you’re in a wheelchair. A feature like the one you described must be ADA accessible by code, limiting the elevation you may want to impose on the area.

  And the third issue, well I default to my original response of “variety of uses”. The zoo draws people not because of the site topography, but because it’s a zoo- there are fun animals to see. A small standalone community park that is very hilly really doesn’t provide for many uses (unless you really like reenacting the opening scene to the Sound of Music, hehe).

  In my profession you learn that you can build the most beautiful park in the world, but it really won’t be successful unless people use it.