8 firms express interest in Admiral park project design

New on the Friends and Neighbors of North Admiral website for the proposal to add a “natural playscape” to California Place Park: A report that eight firms have responded to the “Request For Qualifications” to design it (the part of the potential project for which the group received a city $15,000 matching-funds grant). The eight are listed here; next step, the group reviews their applications, schedules interviews, and chooses a landscape architect by mid-month – the RFQ says that architect will facilitate the next public meeting on the project, second week of January. FANNA, by the way, is sponsoring a family event at Hiawatha Community Center/Park on December 13th (details here).

10 Replies to "8 firms express interest in Admiral park project design"

  • NO CHANGE TO PARK December 4, 2008 (8:13 pm)

    SAVE NEIGHBORHOOD GREENSPACES California Place Park and ajacent greenspace(California ave. S.W. & Hill st.) 1.Keep the beautiful green space as grass–grass was the #1 request in surveys during Lafayette Playground Design–individuals and familes already use green space for soccer,football,baseball,tag,relaxing,imaginative play and more.(a group wants to put in a play structure) 2. There is no need for change–it will cost thousands of tax dollars to design and tear up what is now a beautiful green space(ajacent triangle needs curbs and maintenance)–there are many other parks near by with play areas and Alki Beach and the Hamilton Viewpoint are huge natural playscapes that are free! 3. Safety–a play structure next to a busy street?(California ave. S.W.) 4. Up keep and Maintenance–will the city maintain the changes?weed and water?(neighbors currently water the new trees) 5. Litter and loitering–changes may encourange late night loitering and littering–neighbors already pick up litter and do not want more. 6 Waste of money–city could better serve the North Admiral community with traffic revisions,curbs,lights,and more. (ONLY CURBS,MAINTENANCE AND TRAFFIC REVISIONS FOR PARK)****WATCH FOR UPCOMING CALIFORNIA PLACE PARK MEETINGS****VOICE YOU OPINIONS TO:CITY COUNCILMAN tom.rasmussen@seattle.gov DEPT. OF NEIGHBORHOODS stella.chao@seattle.gov DEPT.OF PARKS & REC timothy.gallagher@seattle.gov kellee.jones@seattle.gov ****SAVE OUR GRASS****NO CHANGE TO PARK****

  • What's the Big Idea, Man? December 4, 2008 (9:57 pm)

    BANANA* to YOU, too

    (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)

  • Alvis December 4, 2008 (11:27 pm)

    To meet safety standards, I think the design proposals will need to entail some excavation work to lower the lawn and provide a grade separation between the play equipment and passing traffic. Alternatively, the playground installation might be allowed at street level but it would need to be ringed by wooden or concrete bollard posts set close enough that cars couldn’t pass between them.

  • TWAR December 5, 2008 (7:12 am)

    Excavation work to lower the lawn is not an option as California Place Park has beautiful 50 yr. old Maple trees that need to be protected. Tree aborist for the Seattle Parks Dept. is Mark.Mead@Seattle.gov There is an extensive root system throughtout this very small park. This Park was donated to Seattle in 1910 and has served North Admiral well all these years and should remain as it is. No one has ever wanted to change it because it is beautiful as it is and a beloved place in this community. It will be a shame and great loss to the community if this group is allowed to move forward with this project.

  • Alvis December 5, 2008 (9:40 am)

    Thanks for the arborist contact info, TWAR.

  • homesweethome December 5, 2008 (2:21 pm)

    I’m curious why the play structure keeps coming up? I went to the public meeting and it sounds like that is not part of the proposal.

  • TWAR December 5, 2008 (7:44 pm)

    As per the Webster’s Dictionary: STRUCTURE n. 1. Something built or constructed;building, etc. 2. the arrangement of all the parts of a whole. 3. something composed of parts. There will be a stucture put in California Place Park if FANNA has their way. We just do not know what kind of structure their design team will come up with. That is why it is important to go to the Public Design meetings. According to kellee.jones@seattle.gov play scape, play ground, play field, play structure and play area are all used interchangably within the Parks Dept. having the same meaning. Therefore until we see a design, we will not know what FANNA wants. According to FANNA’S original appliction form to the Dept of Neighborhoods. “We call our committee the Friends and Neighbors of North Admiral(FANNA). Currently we have 6 active members all whom reside in the North Admiral Neighborhood. We’ve banded together with a common interest in CONSTRUCTING a playground in the North Admiral area. Our goal is to work together and with our neighbors to BUILD and enjoy the INSTALLED playground once the project is complete.”

  • No playscape December 23, 2008 (6:16 pm)

    I don’t understand why this project is going forward…the neighborhood made it pretty clear at the last meeting that putting in a “playscape” on the California lot is not something the majority of residents support. Now the architecture firm is being procured anyway? I’m sure whatever firm they select will be determined to put something in the park, since they will be out of a job if they don’t. It is in their interest to build the playscape rather than leave the park alone as the majority of residents prefer.
    I don’t see FANNA as representing the interests of the community here, only the interest of those 6 people and their children. I think most of the community would be happy if the empty lot diagonally behind the California Place lot were used as a playscape, and the tree and grass in California Place preserved as is. This would also keep kids off busy California Ave, and would allow the architecture firm to get paid to plan to dig a recession for the playscape without disturbing root systems, since there is little flora on the second lot. It would make everyone happy…
    There has to be a compromise here, but the architecture firm is not the right intermediary to ensure this happens. The project manager, Kelley, and the city, should continue to lead these sessions so that the community is represented and the city can be held accountable. Otherwise it just seems like another attempt to pass the buck so they won’t have to deal with an unhappy citizens that don’t want to ruin a beautiful existing park to build a “playscape”.

  • TWAR December 24, 2008 (6:55 pm)

    What really irratated me is that the Parks Dept. called the Nov 6th meeting to gather information from the community. Yet, 2 weeks earlier the Dept of Neighborhoods(who was also represented at the Nov 6th meeting)awarded the contract to hire the architect to Friends and Neighbors of North Admiral(FANNA) http/:www.Californiaplacepark.org on Oct 27,2008, FANNA thanks the 40 supporters who contacted the Dept of Neighborhood on their behalf. On the same page FANNA is begging for supporters to attend the Nov. 6th meeting. If the Department of Neighborhoods cared about what the neighborhood felt they should have waited to hear what transpired at the Nov. 6th meeting BEFORE awarding the contract. You can contact the head of the Dept Of Neighborhoods Stella.Chao@seattle.gov

  • twar December 31, 2008 (5:22 pm)

    Friends and Neighbors of North Admiral selected the architect firm and announced it on their web site today. http//www.Californiaplacepark.org I love one of the reasons for picking this particular firm. Because this firm is experienced with dealing with projects with oppostion. In other words FANNA does not want to listen to what the community wants. When is FANNA going to understand that the North Admiral community does not want any changes to California Place Park. No design necessary. Waste of tax dollars.

Sorry, comment time is over.