Neil Lutsky and David Hvistendahl Northfield Parks and Recreation Board, October 17, 2012

Transcription

1 Recommendations for a Permanent Site for a Northfield Skateboard Park Neil Lutsky and David Hvistendahl Northfield Parks and Recreation Board, October 17, 2012 This past April 19, Nathan Knutson, Chair of the City of Northfield Parks and Recreation Board (PRAB) asked Grace Clark, David Hvistendahl, and Neil Lutsky to serve as a subcommittee charged with making a final recommendation for the location of a permanent Northfield Skateboard Park. Over the past six months, the three members of the subcommittee reviewed relevant background information, met with individuals and groups interested in and/or concerned about the skateboard park location, toured skateboard parks elsewhere, collected relevant data, spoke with users of the temporary park in Riverside Park and nearby residents, visited possible sites in Northfield, consulted with City staff, and held a well- attended open meeting for community members (September 13). What follows first presents some framing observations and then specifies the recommendations and supporting rationale of two members of this subcommittee. One member of the committee, Grace Clark, disagrees with our recommendations and will be voicing her own opinions. Framing Observations: 1. All parties agree that it is past time to find a permanent location for a skateboard park in Northfield. Members of the skateboard community have in good faith encouraged planning for a permanent facility for years (in recent memory, since 2007), and the fact that the temporary facility in Riverside Park was used actively (although not constantly) over the past few months by a wide variety of Northfield residents (and some visitors) reinforces the case for a permanent skateboard park. 2. Despite agreement about the desirability of a permanent location for a skateboard park, there is no widely held consensus about where such a facility should be located. We could not identify a perfect solution to the problem of locating a permanent skateboard park in the sense that all parties in the community and even on our subcommittee could agree on a recommendation. This ought not to be surprising; if there were an obvious perfect solution, the issue would not have lingered on for so long. This also has an important implication: the question about where best to locate a permanent park can only be answered by balancing and comparing the benefits and shortcomings of particular possibilities. There are significant attractions and genuine liabilities associated with every site we considered, and the existence of a positive or negative feature of a location in and of itself cannot resolve the challenge we face as a community of balancing factors and comparing the features of different locations.

2 3. One refrain we have heard about opponents of particular locations is that they held NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitudes. We believe this to be unfair to residents, whose concerns for their local parks and neighborhoods seemed to us to be reasonable ones (even if, ultimately, we did not find that particular concerns trumped the larger weight of the argument in favor of a location). It was our important responsibility to respect the issues raised by members of the community who might be directly affected by the location of a park, and we have tried to do that. We listened carefully to concerns that were raised, considered evidence that reflected on them, and weighed them heavily (but not exclusively) in our consideration of all possibilities. 4. Some community members expressed concern that negative stereotypes about skateboarders might shape concerns raised about particular locations. It s to the credit of the community that we did not see stereotyping to any appreciable degree in the discussions in which we participated. Again, the questions that were raised about siting the skateboard park were reasonable ones, and we wish to commend, in particular, the residents of Village on the Cannon and the skateboard users of the temporary park in Riverside for the responsible manner in which they have interacted and participated in our discussions over the past few months given the actual experiences they shared in Riverside. 5. Two of us, David Hvistendahl and Neil Lutsky, believe that the fact a location may be in park in a residential area should not exclude that site from consideration. Although the norm appears to be that skateboard parks elsewhere are located apart from residential areas, this is not always the case. Most are in parks with good access to community residents; many skateboard parks are located near community swimming pools. We agree that it would be desirable to have a skateboard park located apart from nearby residents and have tried to maximize that distance in our recommendations. However, we cannot redesign Northfield from scratch and, for reasons we discuss, we think the balance of considerations given the options that present themselves favor the locations we recommend. 6. When we began this process, PRAB Chair Nathan Knudson identified 10 steps that would lead to a comprehensive final recommendation for a permanent location for a skateboard park. Reality proved to be messier than this plan, however, and we cannot say with certainty and complete confidence that our primary recommendation is the only one the community could follow. Another way of saying this is to recognize that there are non- trivial unknowns associated with the possible locations we considered. However, we believe a decision process attempting to resolve all of these would be endless, as the extended attempt to identify a location for a permanent skateboard park has seemed to be. We hope our recommendations provide a reasonable resolution. Based on what we know, we believe our primary site is feasible, but all the i s haven t been dotted, and some steps seemed to require first a

3 decision to select a particular location for further consideration. This has proved particularly true for cost estimates. City staff need to work with a specific site and can t consider all the possibilities before us. For this reason, we have recommended an ordered list of possible permanent locations, but we have specified why we consider one location better on the whole than another. Recommendations and Rationale: 1. We believe that the permanent location for Northfield s skateboard park should be at the west end (near Highway 3) of Riverside Park. Such a park would probably need to have a smaller footprint than that of the current temporary park (which is located at the east end of Riverside Park); the latter is 10,000 square feet, and we think a park of approximately 8,000 square feet would better fit the available space. It could still accommodate the existing ramps of the skateboard park, and skateboarders indicated a smaller park might be better for maintaining momentum between ramps and obstacles. The pad for a smaller park would also cost less to install, and a smaller footprint would increase the space between the park and nearby residences. We don t envision such a park as a major regional destination skateboard facility but simply as a modest and attractive place for many young and older residents of Northfield to practice and hone their sport. A number of factors gave rise to this recommendation. Riverside Park would offer a central location for Northfield users, allows skateboarders who frequent The Key (as many but certainly not all do) proximate access to that resource, has nearby (but not immediately adjacent) parking, allows skateboard park users to seek food and drink at local businesses (which is what they have done when using the temporary location), and provides a pleasant public setting for the park. A skateboard park in that location would also contribute in a small way to realizing a larger vision of the Cannon River corridor in central Northfield as an attractive hub of community (and visitor) activity. There are shortcomings associated with this option. The foremost one is the impact of user noise on nearby residents. It s easy to exaggerate the noise problem but important not to underestimate its seriousness. In the former regard, it s worth noting that the current temporary skateboard park was not in constant use, that the noise generated by skateboard use, as measured by a sound meter, was in fact lower than that emanating from cars and, especially, trucks on Highway 3, and that the family living on 8 th St. closest to the park reported they were used to the noise and satisfied with the facility. Moreover, residents living close to the temporary skateboard park are not located in a generally quiet area of town. However, the sound of the skates banging on the drums of ramps is loud, sharper than that of vehicular traffic, and more frequent when the park is heavily used. As many (but not all) residents of Village on the Cannon have suggested, these sounds can be disruptive, often so in areas not closest to the park (e.g., the upper floors of the southern side of the building). Although moving the skateboard park site further

4 away from Village on the Cannon should help, it will not eliminate the sound issue or assist homeowners on 8 th Street. The metal ramps could be better oriented to reduce noise generation, and we strongly recommend professional insulation of the ramps and closing off openings with plywood to lower the drum effect that we experienced this summer. (With the kind assistance of T.J. Heinricy, we experimented with carpeting parts of a ramp and using cans of foam insulation; neither worked. However, both T.J. and former PRAB member Dennis Easley suggested that significant noise reductions were likely to be achieved by more systematic efforts to insulate the ramps. We believe that as well but cannot guarantee that these steps will make a major difference.) When the metal ramps are replaced by concrete forms, everything we ve read suggests noise levels will diminish significantly. A second potential issue is the impact of increased activity in Riverside Park on residents, particularly those at Village on the Cannon who may be vulnerable should they fall. Skateboarders who are on boards, like bicyclists riding through Riverside Park (e.g., to the Prowe Bridge and local trails), may prove more problematic than other walkers for older users of the park. This possibility was raised when the temporary park was located in Riverside but, thankfully, has not proven to be a major issue (due, in large part, to the considerate behavior of skateboarders who carried their boards to the park). However, the potential for problems remains and could be heightened by visitor use of the park. Note, the same problem would apply to increased use of the trails in Riverside by cyclists, which has occurred due to the Prowe Bridge and would occur further when an east bank trail to Dundas is completed or the west side Mill Towns Trail is repaved. We recommend that signage be used to address this and that the City attempt to isolate a walking path from a short path for wheeled users headed to the skateboard park or to the Prowe Bridge and bike trails. This does not exhaust the list of shortcomings of the site. Riverside doesn t drain water well, and anything that might affect drainage could cause problems for local residents (although the location we identified would be slightly lower topographically than the residential ones). Riverside occasionally floods. Putting the skateboard park closer to Highway 3 may raise noise and safety issues for skateboarders. And Riverside is used during Defeat of Jesse James Days for the auto show (although the current temporary park did not prove to be a major obstacle to the show). Again, there is no perfect site, but we believe the benefits of the Riverside site outweigh these considerations. 2. If it turns out the Riverside site won t work, we recommend placing a permanent skateboard park in Old Memorial Park. Old Memorial Park is a location favored by many in the community and, prior to skateboarders experience with Riverside this past summer, was preferred by the Skateboard Coalition. However, most but not all of the residents living close to Memorial with whom we ve interacted believe Memorial Park is not a suitable site for the Skateboard Park.

5 We believe that while Memorial has significant attractions as a potential site for a permanent skateboard park, it isn t the best location for a permanent skateboard park. It is not as central in the town as Riverside and isn t as close to downtown. What it does have is (a) proximity to the swimming pool, which could promote use by members of families using the pool (although skateboarders were concerned about swimmers getting ramps wet), (b) access to the facilities already at the pool (during pool hours, which, possibly, could be the specified hours for skateboard park use), and (c) adjacent parking. In addition, pool personnel would be available in an emergency. Here, again, noise is likely to be a significant issue. Noise could affect pool users even though pool activity itself generates considerable noise. Noise could certainly bother local residents, which is a primary concern. Again, we recommend the use of noise mitigation strategies, thoughtful placement of the skateboard park (and ramps), and movement to concrete forms as quickly as possible. Still, skateboard parks generate noise. One local resident reminded us that Memorial Park was once a major activity park in Northfield. It hosted football games, daily football practices, little league baseball games, and other events. It s a bit of a historical oddity that the park has come to be as quiet as it now is, but that doesn t mean we ought not to be exceedingly sensitive to the noise issue. One possible compromise is to limit skateboard park use to the hours of pool use during the summer and to narrow times otherwise. Another objection raised about Memorial Park, which stems from its location, is that it would be unsafe for skateboarders who travel by board to the park. We do not agree that this is a problem specific to locating a skateboard park in Memorial; after all, the community swimming pool is there and scores of residents, most of them young, ride bikes to the pool every day during the summer. We believe it is the case that access to the pool and to a potential skateboard park could be made safer for community residents with better street markings and signage, and recommend addressing this whether or not a skateboard park is located in Memorial. Still, we do not find this to be a sufficient reason to reject locating a skateboard park there. The possible location of a skateboard park within Memorial merits careful consideration. There are at least three possible locations: in the major open area to the west of the pool, replacing the solar panels immediately west of the pool, or just east of the entrance to the pool. The first of these would significantly alter the look and feel of Memorial Park and places a skateboard park closer to residences. To the best of our analysis (and there isn t much to go on), the one solar panel field to the west of the pool doesn t add much if anything to energy savings at the pool (despite the ungrounded claims of Johnson Controls that their work saved the City an estimated and impossible $20,000 in pool energy expenses), but it does add an ugly sight to the pool area. If the one solar panel field were removed, this would provide a fine site for a skateboard park that it is maximally distant from residences. The

6 site to the east of the entrance is close to the long backyards of homes on Prairie Street but has its attractions. One argument we heard at the beginning of our work was that Memorial Park was heavily used and that locating a skateboard park there would disrupt those uses. However, one of us (Neil) bikes by Memorial regularly and had the distinct impression that the park was not used all that much, something a few local residents also suggested. In order to evaluate the extent and nature of park use, Lutsky began recording observations of park activity in June. He collected over 200 observations of park use at times throughout the day and evening (from as early as 6:45AM until 8:45PM) over 50 days. He made a special effort to visit the park during days and evenings that were, in the notations of his spreadsheet, DDG (drop dead gorgeous), that is, more likely to invite activity. (A spreadsheet listing his observations can be obtained via e- mail at nlutsky@charter.net.) What he found was that about 25% of the time someone was using the park. The most common use was walking a dog (about 12% of the time or half of the observations of park use) followed by walking on a path. Group activity in the park (e.g., a few people tossing a Frisbee or ball, kids playing soccer) was infrequent (observed 7 out of 222 times). This does not mean that the park was used only 7 times all summer for something other than walking or dog walking (because the observations represent a sample, albeit one biased toward finding activity), but it does suggest activity in the park other than walking a dog through it was rare. These data suggest the rather large space available in Old Memorial is underused (which is not to devalue in any way current uses of the park such as dog walking). Planting trees in the park may not help the matter (and, possibly, could inhibit group use of the space), and it is worth rethinking what could be done at Old Memorial (e.g., the addition of a dog run, installing playground equipment, a community garden) that would make the park more popular with area residents and the community as a whole. Certainly, in our view, adding a skateboard park to Old Memorial would not disrupt a pattern of active use, because we didn t find evidence of such use of this community and neighborhood resource. Another way of saying this is to observe that there is plenty of available and unused green space in the current Old Memorial Park. 3. We do not recommend placing the skateboard park in Babcock Park. A previous temporary skateboard park in Northfield was located in Babcock just north of Culver s. One of us identified a second potential site north of the current dog park in Babcock, a site that would probably require some reconfiguring of the dog park. Despite initial enthusiasm for the latter, we don t believe either Babcock site is suitable for the permanent location of Northfield s skateboard park. First, the skateboard community views neither site in Babcock favorably. As is the case with other constituencies, the skateboarders views deserve respect and are thoughtfully grounded. Both sites in Babcock raise access ease and safety issues. They are physically unpleasant places to be in given the character of Babcock and the highway. They are distant from amenities. They are exposed and attract mosquitoes. The more attractive of the sites, the northern one, sits in an area through which the Cannon River flows in floods. Although this site avoids the noise

7 problem for residents, a highly attractive feature, nothing else recommends it, and its shortcomings cannot be wished away. To summarize, we believe the weight of the argument and evidence favors placement of a permanent skateboard park on the west side of Riverside Park. As a back- up, we favor placement in Old Memorial Park (preferably replacing the solar panel field there). We believe the Babcock locations are inappropriate. We thank everyone who participated in our efforts to evaluate possible locations. Even though many citizens may not agree with our recommendations, we have tried to weigh the options discussed above with open minds, with respectful concern for the genuine issues that were raised, and with an appreciation of the responsibilities we have to each other and to the larger good in an interdependent living space like Northfield.