Friends of Clark Park

Clark 'A' Park Update
Presented at the General Membership Meeting
March 12, 2008

I. Background.

A. Park Partners Program.
- Friends of Clark Park representatives meet regularly with other organizations that have an interest in Clark Park.
- This a Pennsylvania Horticulture Society initiative to help parks work better.
- Other participants in the Clark Park Parteners include reps from Dept of Rec, PWD, Councilwoman Blackwell, USP.

B. Two years ago the FoCP asked for professional studies of A-Park - specifically focusing on lighting and paths.
C. In response, the UCD has contracted a landscape architect for an Improvement Plan.
D. In response to the Landscape Architect's presentation Nov 2006, FoCP has tried to get a plan that responds better to the Park's needs.
    We think we are finally getting close to a concept diagram that does this.

E. We (FoCP) are pursuing a two prong strategy:
 Part 1. Is to do the best we can right now in getting general layout that will serve as a framework for the future.
 Part 2:  To focus on early action items along the perimeter for further design development. These would then be ready for construction when the funding is available.


II. Review of Proposals to Date (March 12, 2008)
to view images full size, right click 'view image'

A. The Revitalization Master Plan calls for a redesign to improve 'A' Park.
B. Nov. 12 '06 Peter Simone of Simone-Collins, presented a design at an FoCP community meeting.

C. FoCP responded to suggestions and comments with some recommendations primarily regarding the paths - but reflecting practical concerns about trees, usage and maint.


D. Unfortunately the architect responded with this puzzling path diagram.
.

E. We held a workshop forum and set up a website to clarify the many needs - often competing, between uses, maintainability and environment.
 The end result of this was a set of Principles and Guidelines for design adopted by the FoCP Board.






F. In June and August we recieved path diagrams that suggested progress.  We had questions, but thought the differences were things that would be worked out.

 G. Late in 2007 PlanCom had enough information to evaluate how well the design met the Pricicples and Guidelines. In general it did not, although we realized that our goals for the Plaza required further discussion. The Committee felt the plan as executed was unlikely to be well recieved by the community and the Board agreed.
H. We suggested that if the UCD and the architect were interested in trying again, we were willing to meet.

I. As a result, Simone made a path diagram and tree removal proposal that is again based on the existing path structure. (below)

Electricians at work.
Realistic planning is needed
for care and repair issues.

J. A delegation then met again with Simone and made some specific suggestions that we feel will make a stronger framework. Its pretty clear, at least to us, that we are not that confident about how it might be executed - especially in the center.


1. First we suggested some changes in the path layout.


 		 Goals were to save trees, better flow, views and useful spaces.


 Alternate route for path.
2. One of those spaces is for market/fair uses.
 
 This needs to be designed as an area that..

 ..really supports that type of use.
 

J3. We also agreed this could be a good location to partner with PWD for reducing the amount of storm water from the street going into the sewer system.Phila Water Department Example from Portland
J4. We tried to explain the types of use we saw for other locations, and asked for further defination of the plaza -which as drawn accomodates no uses.
5. We identified a number of trees that were important to save or at least further evaluate.
This diagram reflects the FoCP markup of the Tree Removal Diagram.
( C = Choose between competing trees.)

Lawn activities
Handle runoff
Drainage and Buffers
6. We agreed that the HMS border, and Baltimore and Chester were potentially other areas that could be focused on.