Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  48 / 210 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 48 / 210 Next Page
Page Background

Chapter Two

existing system overview

48

Each park observed was assigned a score based on how

well it met the aforementioned criteria at the time of

observation. Once all scores were assigned, a matrix was

created (see

Table 12

) that allowed system-wide trends to

become visible. It is important to note that there is no “one

size fits all” set of criteria that can accurately evaluate every

type of park. However, seeing each individual park’s score

helps to generate a general idea if that park is exceeding,

meeting or not meeting expectations.

Exceeding Expectations:

• These parks are functioning as intended and are also

exceptionally well maintained, aesthetically pleasing, safe

and often demonstrate sustainable techniques.

• The park accommodates a wide variety of uses and

maintains a consistently high level of activity while still

maintaining flexibility.

• The park shows clear evidence of good design standards

and embraces heritage resources (if applicable).

• There are many ways for users to access the park including

via mass transit, walking, and biking.

• Multi-purpose fields or lawn surfaces are well maintained

and could be considered tournament/competition grade.

• Sports fields may contain premium amenities such as

score boards, enclosed dugouts, bleachers and lighting.

• These parks score in the 100-75 range.

Meeting Expectations:

• From a programmatic level, these parks function as

intended.

• They are generally well maintained, and may be

aesthetically pleasing.

• The park can accommodate several different activities and

has a moderate level of activity.

• This park may or may not have a transit stop nearby and

has reasonable sidewalk connectivity.

• This park is generally compatible with the surrounding

land uses and provides the user with a feeling of safety.

• Field surfaces are well maintained and playable, but

typically do not include the premium features that may be

present in parks that “exceed expectations.”

• These types of parks score in the 74-50 range.

Not Meeting Expectations:

• These parks are not currently performing as intended.

• Although they can still be well maintained and/or

aesthetically pleasing, they typically are not.

• These types of parks may have a consistently low level

of activity, few accommodated uses, and may not be

compatible with the surrounding land uses.

• These parks may not be perceived as safe by their users.

• It is common for these parks to be difficult to access either

by public transit, bicycle, or on foot.

• Field surfaces are not typically well maintained, or the

fields are so over-programmed that adequate maintenance

is impossible.

• These types of parks score in the 49-0 range.

The following are the results of the individual site

observations. A sampling of 81 parks and facilities were

evaluated by the consultant team over a two week period in

October, 2012. Parks and facilities are listed alphabetically

in

Table 12

, with identifying scores for each category,

weighted overall scores and category score summaries on

the last page.

Each park’s observation provides a summary of all four

criteria subjects along with site-specific observational

notes. It should be noted that these are based on the team’s

observations during a limited time period and do not

necessarily reflect the recommendations produced during

the Needs Assessment portion of this report that includes

public engagement.

The following map (see

Map C

) identifies parks visited

by the System Plan team. In addition to a geographic

mix, the team visited an array of parks from each of the

Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department’s

current classifications; mini parks, neighborhood parks,

community parks, metro parks, nature preserves and

special parks.

2.4.1 Facility Ratings

2.4.2 Individual Facilities Analysis