Back in December, we posted about the Wallingford playfield closure, a post which spurred a lot of comments from concerned neighbors. In true Wallyhood fashion, most comments were civil, though the off-leash-dogs-at-the-park issue clearly does push our collective buttons.
Reader and community leader Greg, who was the driving force behind the playfield and who still keeps a watchful eye over it, filled readers in on some the history of the park and the challenges posed by rain, cleats and paws:
During our community survey work in 1998 and 1999 leading into the improvement projects, we found that many view Wallingford Playfield as an incredibly valuable resource, the living room of the Wallingford community. The field has been kept as a free-form green space precisely because it allows such a wide variety of uses – youth soccer, Frisbee, kite flying, lounging in the grass, picnicking, playing catch, etc. Natural turf is a renewable resource if allowed to recover in the off-season… but we need to allow it to have an off-season to realize sustainable use. The field is currently in a downward spiral. Parks has taken the first step to intervene and hopefully turn the field around. However, we all need to cooperate.…
A turf field MUST be closed from around November until March/April to allow the turf to recover and the roots to regrow so that the field can support the incredibly high level of use it sees. The turf is incredibly soft in the winter. Cleats and dog claws do an incredible amount of damage, especially in the winter….
The field has not been posted closed at all in the last two winters and use continued until Spring when the field was closed briefly after-the-fact to try to mend the torn up areas. Results were not great. The field is currently in the worst shape I can recall for the 20 years I was active with organizing projects at the park and the 25 years I have lived in Wallingford….
In the winter, off-leash dogs are the number one source of wear on the field, no question. A dog running and turning, or chasing a ball, shreds the soft turf at every change of direction. This is not just simple scuffing of the ground, the turf is incredibly soft and gets ripped out completely, roots and all. One look at the mudhole that was Wallingford Playfield in the winter typically showed the predominant marker in the mud was not cleats, it was dog prints and claw marks. Some folks do not understand the quantity of dogs being run at the park. Some dog owners say, “Oh, it’s just one dog”, but it is not just one dog. It is daily and it is very heavy, all winter long. The roots will never recover under such persistent and damaging use.
There is clearly a large demand in our neighborhood for a nearby, non-muddy place where dogs may be run off-leash. There is also demand in our neighborhood for a multi-use, open, grassy space where we can play, hold organized sports games, have festivals, and let our kids run themselves silly. Evidence points to these needs being incompatible at Wallingford Playfield. The turf may also need some bigger fixes, beyond simply being given time to fallow.
So, what does a neighborhood in this situation do? One potential solution is join together with other like-minded individuals and apply for a grant from the Neighborhood Park and Street Fund (NPSF). There is a February 4th deadline for this grant, which can be used of a multitude of projects including: “playground improvements, trail upgrades, tennis or basketball court repaving, park benches or tables, natural area renovations, and accessibility improvements.” Funds are available for projects up to $90,000 in cost.
I spoke with Colleen Hackett, Parks Operations Crew Chief, who suggested some long term fixes for the turf problems, including drainage, fencing and synthetic turf. Each comes with its own set of pros and cons, including cost and design considerations. However, Colleen has seen citizen-driven parks initiatives be successful in the past, particularly for high-use parks such as the Wallingford Playfield.
Citizens for Off-Leash Areas (COLA) would support the development of a new off-leash area, which also might receive funding from the NPSF. I don’t know the ins and outs of selecting a site for such a park, but that walled-off and underused part of Gasworks in the Northwest corner of the park seems like a good place to begin.
So, Wallingford, what are you willing to do (besides trading comments on our neighborhood blog) in order to preserve our park?
If you’re willing to spearhead a park revitalization program, work on a new off-leash area, form a group of park stewards, talk to your fellow dog owners about responsible park use, you should leave a comment here. We’ll help you connect with your neighbors who are also willing to pitch in.
Until then, please respect the field closure and keep in mind that the ENTIRE field is closed, not just the fenced-off parts. By playing or exercising your dog on the unfenced portion of the field, all you are accomplishing is the destruction of the turf that wasn’t already destroyed.
Here’s a news release on how recent dog parks came about:
http://parkways.seattle.gov/2013/01/09/new-dog-off-leash-area-at-magnolia-manor-park-provides-unleashed-fun/
Thanks for the good report, Greg, and for your continued commitment to the Wallingford Playfield. Sad that some dog owners still conduct themselves unlawfully as it’s not only destructive to the turf, as you say, but to public perception as well.
As to future off-leash areas, how about the anticipated, and expanded, public area around the North Transfer Station? That design is underway with the involvement of Wallingford and Fremont Community groups…great opportunity for collaboration!
Thank you for a knowledgeable and informative article, and for your dedication over many years to this park. l too am a long time resident of Wallingford and user of this park. My understanding, however, is that there is an underlying drainage problem that is unique and specific to this park. I believe that the parks department over the years has tried valiantly to correct this problem with little success. I wish I had a simple solution. I don’t believe that artificial turf is a good match for this park as it would most likely need to be fenced off for sanitary/health reasons…not to mention esthetics. Is it possible to obtain a grant to have the issue studied with recommendations for solution options that will work?
Jon, I think this particular grant would cover such studies, and I think if you were interested in spearheading the grant writing, we could put you in touch with Colleen Hackett at Parks and Recs to determine the nature of the study and to help get an approximate cost of such study.
Neighbor2You, are you referencing the city-owned (or maybe SPU-owned) parking lot at 3501 Woodlawn? It does seem like that would be a good location for a dog park. I’d be curious to know what the Wallingford and Fremont community groups are planning for that location.
In a way, as I was remembering the large public area anticipated as part of the North Transfer Station redesign. As best I recall, that public area would span west-to-east from Carr to Woodlawn, and south-to-north from 34th well past 35th. But that was awhile back so I’m also curious what the current planning involves.
I believe this is the most current concept:
http://www.seattle.gov/util/groups/public/@spu/@garbage/documents/webcontent/01_015077.pdf
I let my dog run off leash here periodically. Yeah, an unabashed law breaker. I am glad it is illegal too, keeping the hoards of owners and dog walker away keeps the turf in tact. One look into the Green Lake park testifies to that. You could film a post apocalyptic film in there.
I would gladly pay the fine for being caught with my dog off leash there by the police too.
The law brings balance to our park, even if that is not what it directly intended to do.
-John
Your kidding me-all the problems with the field is dog related?
(I am not a dog owner or dog lover)
Just outlaw the single use groups like soccer and frisbee football groups who use cleats that tear up the field! You can clearly see the damage is rectangular where the soccer boundaries are set. But to outlaw these groups you must convince the paid off parks dept who cater to the soccer federation. I have seen this firsthand when I worked on 60 acres land use in redmond and saw how much money soccer has to get what it wants!
John, all I can say is, “Wow.” I hope you are the one whose dog is running loose the next time my hysterical, dog-afraid 5 year old is perched on my head screaming at the playfield because an off-leash dog has frightened her. I would love to hear you be so callous to her feelings. In person.
John and Obama, the point of this post is to get neighbors to problem-solve together. Perhaps callous John would still run his dog of-leash even if there were a nearby, non-muddy dog park he could use. But I think many others would happily use the dog park. We can either trade vitriolic comments on the blog or figure out how we can preserve the playfield for mixed use by lots of different constituents.
As a point of interest, I talked with Ray of the Woodland Soccer club. They do pay to use the space. The space is used for soccer from September – November by 5-7 year old children. I sincerely doubt they harm the field as much as the dog claws do in the winter and they pay to fix the problems that are caused by the cleats.
I like the most current concept for the green space near the transfer center that Margaret links to. The purpose of the space was to offset the ugliness of the increased size of the transfer center. I don’t think adding a dog park would offset the appearance of the transfer center at all. Off-leach areas with their chain link fences and torn up turf are eye sores.
Kimberly,
I will be sure and introduce myself if your child-hat screams at my dog. Seriously.
Dog owners need to understand when their dog is frightening to children, and keep them locked up.
I would take my dog to a sanctioned area for sure, in response to your second post- and would happily use it. If many people used the area for throwing a ball to their dog, it becomes a dog park. One just like nearly every other dog park in Seattle. Who wants that!?
John, it would be great if you introduced yourself to my daughter. We have been in child-hat position many times with the dog’s owner either totally oblivious to the distress the dog is causing, or overly reassuring that the dog is friendly without taking any steps to leash the dog. We don’t know why our daughter is so afraid of dogs – even small ones. She’s been that way since she was even tinier than she is now. It’s really hard to help her work through it when so frequently dogs are running around the park and even on the playground equipment off-leash. It’s also not any fun to throw a frisbee with your little one when someone’s off-leash dog also runs after the frisbee and in the process terrorizes your little one.
As a neighbor of the soon to be built park at 35th and Woodlawn, I would NOT welcome a dog park. I am excited to see the already designed park be built.
Obama —
Take a walk by Wallingford field sometime, and check out the current state of wear patterns that have developed since the fence has been erected and signs posted. What I noticed a few days ago is that there is a small rectangle on the south side of the park, outside the fenced-off region, and dog owners are using this area to run their dogs off-leash on a regular basis. You clearly can see that the field is being ripped up in this region in an oblong shape that fits the dog run pattern. I can guarantee that essentially no one is playing soccer in cleats in that small area these days, because it is far too small for a legit game or an organized practice session.
Does this prove that soccer does no damage to the fields? No, of course not. But it’s pretty strong evidence that the claws of off-leash dogs are, on their own, having a significant effect.
No more money for off leash dog parks until the dog owners stop treating every park like an off leash dog park.
When Gas Works was being fixed up ten years or so ago, I petitioned to have the underused walled off area on the north side of the park turned into an off-leash area. Not only would this have the benefit of providing a legal place for the doggies, there was a lot of criminal activity going on in the area at the time and the presence of dog owners throughout the day could have reduced that activity.
The response I got from the Parks representative was that no off-leash area would be built because it was not part of the original design for Gas Works in the 1960s or 1970s. This is a pretty lame response, in my opinion, for at least two reasons: (1) I don’t believe there even were leash laws at the time the plan for Gas Works was developed, so of course an off-leash area wouldn’t be included; and (2) I don’t know why park plans have to be set in stone, particularly when we’re talking about a relatively insignificant portion of the park (from a design/impact perspective). I totally appreciate the significance of Gas Works in the history of urban park design, but at least to me, including an off-leash area in a peripheral portion of the park, that wouldn’t require tearing down the concrete walls or anything like that, hardly would take anything away from the design of Gas Works.
No turf for you!
[applause]
Wallingford Park isn’t big enough to have an off-leash area–it would have to be a huge percentage of the park. I assume we’re talking most or all of the current field.
Also, if there is a persistent underlying drainage problem, this does not seem an ideal placement for a dog park.
The new space further south or trying again for part of Gas Works seems like a better option, if people feel the need for another dog park besides the one in Woodland park.
one problem re. having a dog park at Gasworks (unless the ground has been cleaned up while I wasn’t looking) is that the ground is still pretty toxic from the old gasworks being there….my dogs Vet said he wouldn’t even take his dogs down there….
Thanks
I live close enough to the transfer station to have followed its discussion closely.
Thank you for the link to the docs, #7 above.
As shown there, the new proposal provides an area, shown as a park-like setting. In reality, it is a very small parcel, relative to Wally playfield even. It will be landscaped thoughtfully to scale, and is an improvement on some of the alternatives. But it is not the answer for our neighborhoods’ dogs.
Here’s an idea from villages I’ve seen in Holland, where land for any use is at a premium:
Picture the north side of our transfer station along 34th. In the grassy parking strip where there is a flat stretch, the transfer station would provide a well-maintained rectangular plot, say 8′ by 25′ long, filled with bark or chipped woody matter, for walking dog owners to “curb their dogs”.
There’s probably a grant out there for the underemployed graduate to study the details in the Netherlands!
NW, I know exactly what you’re talking about. I was in Vienna and I saw penned areas for dogs that were about the size you describe (8’x25′). I know it’s not large enough to be a “dog run” per se, but it would still be a place for dogs to be social. I think if folks looked at an off-leash area as more of a daily romp area and less of a place for dogs to run as far as they can, we would be able to come up with several options for space.
Take, for instance, the raised part of the Wallingford Playfield, on the south side of the park. It has a BBQ pit and picnic tables that I very rarely ever see used, except by vagrants sleeping off their hootch during the day. Why couldn’t that space be penned in and used as a dog area? And if people really wanted a picnic area, couldn’t we use the extra space on the north side of the park, adjacent to the playground?
Thanks for the additional info on the transfer station design. That site came to my mind in part because I don’t expect there would be broad-based community support for allocating space in existing parks for off-leash areas. Even COLA acknowledges the lack of credibility for the circa 1995 claim of “if we have more off-leash areas, we won’t run our dogs unlawfully.” I doubt anyone believes that now…if they ever did.
And COLA’s notion of law-abiding dog owners serving as “stewards” hasn’t worked, either. Yes, those of us who abide by the rules can attempt to counsel people like John C. But frankly, I doubt he, and others, are going to change behavior. He’ll run his dog unlawfully. That’s what people in the community see, just as they see dog mess left on the grass where children play, and they’ll probably come to the same conclusion Rusty does above: no more public money.
The more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to suggest we look at private land. Sure, it’s pricey, but with big employers like Amazon (and perhaps Brooks?) settling into our neighborhoods AND being ever-so-supportive of their employees bringing dogs to work, can’t they incorporate some off-leash areas into their plans?
I’m a dog owner. Don’t know why the city doesn’t simply raise the cost of the pet license on a per/lbs basis to better pay for the services that should be rendered in a pet-centric society.
When you buy a car you pay to maintain the roads you drive on. You have a child you pay for immunizations, an education, and other expenses so they are are well integrated into society. A home — insurance & property taxes. So you should with pets.
With some 150k dogs in Seattle, charging a realistic pet license fee of a few hundred a year vs. the lousy ~$30 and we could probably actually pay for the damage our dogs do to their environment. Not to mention pay to actually have officers ticketing off-leash law-breakers. Some of us do understand we inconvience others with our pets in the same way that some parents understand their children inconvience others.
Countingpigs: excellent points! If you choose the responsibility of having a canine friend, where the dog will run and play should be taken into account and subsidized. And, as others have mentioned, a playfield/playground isn’t an ideal place for a dog park.
Surely there is somewhere else in the neighborhood for dogs to run and play. What about Good Shepherd Center? Can wood chips be put down at Gasworks to keep the soil away from the dogs? How about open areas at some of the schools when they are closed? (Though maybe it’s not good for dogs to be running on hard surfaces.)
Reading this thread reminds me why I’m lucky to live in Wallingford. Seeing people use their “indoor voices” to communicate about issues important to our neighborhood is inspiring and hopeFULL.
It can be just as frightening for an on leash dog (and its owner) to have a child run toward it screaming “doggie doggie” as it is for a child to have its frisbee chased by an off leash dog. Dogs need to be taught not to chase children and children need to be taught not to scream at any dog in the vicinity – out of love or fear. We all need to mind our charges.
Are you kidding me? I see more grade 1-4 soccer babysitting – I mean – leagues during the “optimal months to close the field” that I have seen off leash dogs. I’ve heard the back and forth for several years and its time to confront the passive aggressive dbags in our neighborhood! I have a dog. I usually keep him on a leash. If I feel like it I am going to let him off the leash – just like you’re going to let your kid on a closed field. Get over it and get a life – and look someone in tje eye every once in a while Seattle!!!