Parks and Public Landscaping Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2019 11 07

Home Browse Search

on the map actually offers a very limited set of options. It seems to me that these will only engage children of a certain age range and inclination -- and then only for a limited time. I do not think that a climbing net, a tree trunk, and a few rocks will keep even the most active kids engaged for very long. The reason that I'm advocating for a single traditional play structure is that it provides a greater variety of activities for a greater range of children. Just the other day, I was at Keith Helart Park with three other families. Seven children ranging in age from 10 months to 9 years old were all happily playing together on the existing play structure. The older, more adventurous kids were climbing and cavorting on the higher levels; the smaller children were content with the stairs, tunnel, and short slide. Yet they were all able to play together in the same place. I am very concerned that either of the two existing proposals that were discussed at the meeting would be a step backward from what we have now. The traditional proposal would install two smaller play structures that unnecessarily segregate children by age and actually provide fewer opportunities for older children. The nature play proposal would create a playground with even fewer activities, and only serve a certain type of child. Because the pictures shown on the edges of that proposal suggest a much more elaborate playground, I believe even the proponents of the nature play concept would be surprised and disappointed by that modest outcome. I agree that the information that has been gathered is useful. It provides a window into the community's preferences, yet personally I don't believe the available information is sufficient to conclude that any of the proposals are favored as they currently stand. Even the committee's liaison to the city council, Susan Yoo, pointed out that data is being gathered in a manner that is highly subjective and doesn't offer significant, scientific, statistical conclusions. Before any decision is made on how to spend the money, I would love to see proposals put forward for feedback that show only what the city actually proposes to do. I am anxious that we will end up with something like the compromise proposed at the meeting for Elephant Park, where the fans of a traditional playground end up only with a very small play structure for toddlers and the fans of nature play end up with only a single net to climb on. This actually provides fewer options for all ages, and seems like the worst of both worlds. I know that this is a small neighborhood playground that will only obtain limited funding. For that very reason, I strongly advocate for a simple update of what we currently have. It seems clear that the city can't spend sufficient funds to fully implement a new grand vision for the playground, so please don't give us half a loaf. If I can be of any assistance to you as this process proceeds, please let me know. As we discussed, Brad Pugh and I organize a neighborhood party in the park every year and have contact information for dozens of our neighbors. I'd be more than happy to help with outreach, data gathering, or anything else. Thank you again for all of your work and your ongoing service to our community. Sincerely yours, Terence Keane 2437 N Franklin Ave, Louisville