MEMO BLOG Memo Calendar Memo Pad Business Memos Loaves & Fishes Letters Home
FEATURE ARTICLES
Giusto Farms: a family tradition
Streetcar supporters, foes battle it out
SLOW down, you won’t move too fast
East Portland Action Plan near completion
School districts to Portland Development Commission: What about us?
Giusto Farms: A story of Italian immigration to America
Park proposals plan something for everyone
Carothers’ patient appreciation picnic held at Oaks Park
Correction

About the MEMO
MEMO Archives
MEMO Advertising
MEMO Country (Map)
MEMO Web Neighbors
MEMO Staff
MEMO BLOG

© 2008 Mid-county MEMO
Terms & Conditions
Park proposals plan something for everyone

HEATHER HILL
THE MIDCOUNTY MEMO

Parking? Essential. Soccer field? In demand. Dog park? Definitely — with restrictions.

The July 16 meeting of the Beech Park Project Advisory Committee discussed and debated multiple proposed park features presented by design consultants Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. The committee, comprised mostly of residents, co-mingled with school and park representatives and scrutinized the best use alternatives for the 15.71-acre site surrounding Shaver Elementary School at 3701 N.E. 131st Place. Held at Parkrose High School on a weekday afternoon, the open meeting also attracted other interested parties eager for an early glimpse at the designs and a chance to weigh in with their opinions for the park.

Leading the discussion with color-coded diagrams of three potential options, MIG designers Sally McIntyre and Tara Byler started with a quick synopsis of the planning process thus far. McIntyre praised the input gathered from the community open house held at Shaver Elementary School on May 19, which welcomed children, parents and community members. “Our public involvement work to date and our work with kids reconfirmed how important this park is to parks and recreation in east Portland and this neighborhood,” she said. MIG compiled community feedback to draft a proposed vision statement: “Beech Park will celebrate the east Portland Community, reflecting its history and diverse cultures while providing a healthy and sustainable environment for future generations.” The three speculative designs all sought to meet stated community goals to provide a safe, clean, accessible and flexible recreation space that enhances the use of the outdoors in an ecologically sensitive manner, while satisfying otherwise unanswered community needs.

To this end, all three proposals shared certain universal characteristics: a circulation path, border buffering, shelters, restrooms, open spaces, view preservation, community gardens, a gathering/performing space, a children’s play area, a spray ground for water play, picnic areas and sports facilities. However, each proposal varied in permanence, placement, multiplicity and size.

Walking attendees through each option, Byler encouraged them to conceptualize the park’s identity. Option #1 represented the most passive approach, with plenty of natural areas and less active-use space. While neighbors appreciated the design’s consideration for nearby residents, Option #1 also garnered the most criticism, particularly regarding its lack of parking, nonreservable sports field and omission of a dog park, all of which were present in the other options. All agreed that by not providing for these uses, the park would invite later complications and find the neighboring streets and informal play fields dominated for those purposes.

In response to farmer Garre’s voiced concerns regarding disturbances to his neighboring field, the design team proposed orchard tree buffers on Option #1. While planting an agricultural note, the orchard trees will have insufficient height to block views. A bioswale — described by Byler as a naturally filtering storm water ditch — and other vegetation would collect park runoff and also discourage an otherwise porous border.

Options #2 and #3 exponentially intensified the human uses of the park, demanding more definite buffering devices like a low berm and a stone wall along certain segments. Gateways placed along preferable entrance points will attempt to channel pedestrians and cyclists onto the perimeter circulation path. However, with traffic studies yet to be conducted, residents remained skeptical about how a popular park would impact the outlying neighborhood.

Option #2 presented a compromise between passive and active uses for the park. Karen Gray, superintendent of Parkrose schools, praised this option as “such a nice combination of all of these things. It has so many elements in it, I find it difficult not to meet the needs of a variety of people.”


Though they all fulfill community goals, the three park plans differ in placement and multiplicity of amenities. Option #1 represents the most passive approach to human activity.
Option #2 was the most popular of three proposals unveiled at last month’s Beech Park Public Advisory Committee meeting.
From Option #1 to Option #3, Beech Park proposals progress from the most passive to the most active uses. Option #3 is the design representing the most human activity.
Prepared by design consultants Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc., for the planning meetings for Beech Park.


>>continued
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | About the MEMO
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home