existing system overview
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
) 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.
• 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
• 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.
• From a programmatic level, these parks function as
• They are generally well maintained, and may be
• 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
• 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
, 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
The following map (see
) 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
2.4.1 Facility Ratings
2.4.2 Individual Facilities Analysis