More on Morgan Junction park: Proposed design options

As promised last night, we have the renderings now of the three design options shown at last night’s city Parks Department public meeting about the Morgan Junction park-to-be. The one above, dubbed “Pianoforte” (because of a piano-type shape), was the most popular with meeting-goers. Here are the other two (and a few more meeting details):

Here’s the second-most popular, “Affodante” (note that all three of these renderings have compass orientation – top is north, right side is California Avenue frontage to the east, bottom faces the new Beveridge Place Pub and its patio.):

And the third, “Terrazze”:

Here’s the complete three-page Parks Department PDF with the concept renderings, if you want to take an even-closer look. Note that it was pointed out last night, the park is too small for restrooms. Send Virginia Hassinger at the Parks Department your thoughts on the design — virginia.hassinger@seattle.gov; other contact info here — as soon as possible, because input including the feedback from last night will be used to come up with one semi-final proposed design next month, to be presented at one last public meeting in March.

atemybuick January 16, 2008 (3:13 pm)

I was hoping the patio for Beveridge Place Pub would be overlook the park, not a parking lot.

CandrewB January 16, 2008 (4:36 pm)

atemybuick, that would require more forethought than the city can produce. The block holds a bar and a neighborhood park, why is there parking in the first place?

sw January 16, 2008 (7:12 pm)

amb… nice Thomas Dolby reference. :-)

6Yr WS Resident January 16, 2008 (9:26 pm)

A park is nice, and I love Beveridge Place-don’t get me wrong. But damn, I sho’ miss Video Vault! When I first moved here I was told to go get an account there, and to bring proof I was a West Seattle resident-they required it! Gone are the independent video stores.

Bob January 16, 2008 (10:37 pm)

It would be good to have a large uninterrupted expanse for a play area, as in the second example (the first example is the second best in this), but made of grass instead of crushed rock.

The retaining walls placed in the interior of all of these designs are just unnecessary elements for kids to trip and fall over when running. It would be better to have a continuous gentle slope over the great bulk of the park grounds (other than the plantings, which can be at any slope or level needed because people won’t be walking there), with any needed vertical concrete walls reserved for placement on the very outside boundary/fence of the park.

I haven’t been over there to eyeball this, but I’d hope they could find a couple of entrance/exit locations around the periphery of the park that would require the very minimum of ramps or steps (preferably none) to enter and exit the park.

JenV January 17, 2008 (7:12 am)

Speaking of independent video stores- anyone else remember Crazy Mike’s Video? It was where Hollywood Video used to be and is now home to a giant hole with a crane in it. That was a great video store!

Melody January 17, 2008 (8:57 am)

Atemybuick and CandrewB have either one of you attended any meetings? These designs are the result of input from 75-100 of us that do attend the meetings. The majoriity (who took the time to attend the meeting)voted on a buffer to block out the PUB. As for the parking comment thank god Gary is providing parking that is a smart business move we have enough cars on the streets and in our neighborhood that aren’t ours!!! Bob the reason we liked the crushed rock is all we saw in the grass was dog crap. Most don’t clean up after their dog in this area. People if you want to have a say in the design attend the meetings. Lastly as a WS resident of 16 years and married to a 5th generation man I too miss the Video Vault. We only have the Monorail folks to blame for that one. So next time you see Joel Horn or Tom Weeks give them a slap on the back and tell them how you feel.

Al January 17, 2008 (11:08 am)

No, we have the city who shut down the monorail by forcing many changes after, let’s see, how many votes in favor of it over how many years? By the end the monorail proposal was nothing like what it began. Anyway, this park is a great idea. Hopefully there will be doggie-do collection bag dispensers like in other areas. Dogs poo on gravel too.

Mike January 17, 2008 (11:19 am)

Atemybuick and candrewB I ask you the same question as Melody. Have you taken the time to attend any of the planning meetings or a you both just couch complainers? As for your comment candrewb about why a neighborhood Pub should have parking. Are you really so narrow minded to think all of the patrons live with in walking distance? I love this Pub, as it is one of the best in WS but I live 3 miles away and find driving more reasonable than walking and I am thankful that there is parking since the street parking is most consumed by abondoned vehicles. Rather than you both being nay sayers to 3 great designs why don’t you spend some quality time fighting the abdonded car problem we have in this area!!! It would make your view much more pleasant.

JW January 17, 2008 (1:09 pm)

Since this forum is here and handy and I can talk about the proposal without rearranging my life to make a meeting, I think I’ll do just that. What did all of you attendees think was going to happen on the comments for this post? This is what the internet was made for!

Anyway…on to the couch complaining (and I am indeed sitting on my couch right now). I’ll echo the first two commenters…parking??? So my car can be a lot closer and convenient after I get done drinking some beers???

Since it appears from the rendering that the parking lot is part of the Bev Place property, sounds like there’s no use complaining about it at the park meeting anyway – it’s the Bev Place people who are building the lot. And I understand, from a business perspective, why they are.

But for crying out loud. This is an “urban village.” It’s going to be a Rapid Ride stop. It’s getting denser by the minute. Meaning that it’s time to SUCK IT UP when urban design doesn’t make it convenient for you to pull your car up right up next to the business you’re visiting.

People go to Europe and come back saying, “Why aren’t our cities beautiful like that?” Simple. They didn’t build with the car in mind.

I wish the Beveridge Place well, and I know I’ll be going there occasionally to enjoy it. However, I’ll be sitting on that patio cursing the view of the back end of someone’s Escalade instead of the front of the “pianoforte,” cursing the scent of car exhaust served up with my beer, and kind of wondering…Why aren’t our cities beautiful like that?

Aaron Goss January 17, 2008 (2:52 pm)

I ride my bike or walk to the pub! I think a park is great next to the pub. As for parking, just look at Google Earth to see how much of America is taken over by cars. We need less parking, not more. Get out of your cars folks. That way you can have one more for the road because you will be walking or riding a bike. That will make Gary happy!

PS. It is not illegal to ride a bike home. Went to the supreme court. Apparently they agree you would be better off drunk on a bike than in a car.

PPS. Gary, please have the city install 2 or 3 bike racks in front of your new place. The city will install them for free! But only if the public wants it and the business owner agrees. http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikeracks.htm I have 2 in front of my shop (Aaron’s Bicycle Repair). The best kind are the “staple” type.

PPPS. 2 new trees would also be nice and the sidewalk needs repair.

PPPPS. Finally, no motorcycles on the sidewalk! They block the bike rack and pedestrian access and it is illegal.

Oh, yeah, I like all 3 versions of the park, I will be happy with any. Good job folks!

Mark Schultz January 18, 2008 (5:48 pm)

Some great designs! My preference is the second one but would like to see even less concrete. We need more natural drainage and less runoff. It would be nice if the trees could be either conifers or broadleafs with persistent leaves for year round greenery. Kudos to all who worked on this, I salute you.

Gary - BPP January 18, 2008 (5:59 pm)

BPP here: A little background on what the pub is “required” to do versus what we “want” to do.
The city (DPD) required us to have parking, six spaces to be exact. If they hadn’t, we would have sold more of the property for the Park. We had multiple meeting trying to come up with a design that worked out best for us AND Parks and thats what we have. (FYI, when we have special events, people do drive, from as far away as Bothell and Tacoma)
If you look at the Affodante design, you can see the pub patio doesn’t look directly at cars, rather it looks across a 12′ driveway (required) to some landscaping on our property (not required, we just like greenery) which transitions to the park.
We will get bike racks out front like we currently do, and we will try to add a couple of motorcycle spots as well (because we want to, not required).
SDOT will be repairing the sidewalk next week. We will talk to them about tree wells, but there may be issues with water lines (we had to put in a new four-inch line for the sprinkler system).
Also, BPP will be “adopting” the park, since I know there will be the ubiquitous Starbucks and McDonalds leftovers to clean up (yes, and the doggie doo, too).
Cheers!

been there January 19, 2008 (5:39 am)

congrats to those involved in getting this park built! Having been involved in one of these projects I offer my sympathy to those of you who have worked hard to improve our community yet have to deal with second guessing, un-involved, ignorant clowns who will find some way to criticize and/or insist on changes after the planning is done (oh, I know… you are far to busy to attend a meeting or 2). I found it interesting in our project that the most vocal opponents (again, all after the fact) insisted they didn’t have time to be involved. In my experience these types of projects are all spearheaded by very busy, successful people that use their energy to be productive vs. sitting on a couch complaining about things. BRAVO to community volunteers!

Carol January 21, 2008 (4:53 pm)

Congratulations to all who have worked so hard to establish this park and come up with designs! And Gary thanks for all of your extra effort to increase ammenities and transition to the park with landscaping, etc.

I prefer 1 or 2. My preference is for as much permeable ground as possible as it seems West Seattle is becoming more and more covered with concrete and asphalt. Besides the ascetics all that water running down our hills needs to filter through the soil before reaching the Sound.

Grass takes more upkeep but hopefully if we could put up a dog bag dispenser people would get the hint. Green is such a refreshing break. I also hope some of the vegetation and trees will be natives. They take less water, up keep and help out the local bird population that is losing habititat with the increased density.

Great Job – and Thanks for all the hard Work and Patience!

Betty January 24, 2008 (11:45 am)

Many good point. I would like to echo the ones I liked best. I was unable to attend this meeting. Thank you for this format. I have been to many urban parks in Europe and in the US that I have liked and found successful. Not just for the homeless. May I recommend the parking lot for the pub be a permeable gravel, No black asphalt with white lines. A seemless extension to to park. Makes the pub look bigger makes park look bigger too. Helps with water runoff. No walls, no fences. If one must, a fence that allows sunlight thru. Use swells, or terrrace to break horizontal lines. Try do away with as much concrete as possible. No one ever said, “Boy, that was a nice piece of concrete.” Cal Anderson Park on Capital Hill uses as nice grade gravel for walking. Winter interest plants, there are many. Arbor for a rain break. Doggie bags, recyle garbage cans. Absolutely bike racks. Even though it is small, it can still be beautiful. Thanks.

Sorry, comment time is over.