What is a park? Is it the grass, some trees, a path, a playground? Is it the tennis courts, and the occasional thwap of bright yellow balls? Is it a wading pool, open two days a week, 10 weeks a year? Is it just a set of amenities? Some fraction of our tax dollars?
These questions are important because on September 19, Seattle Public Schools (SPS), in collaboration with Seattle Parks and Recreation, proposed to turn most of Wallingford Playfield into an athletic complex for Lincoln High and Hamilton schools. You can read the details on the project site</a >.
The flier announcing the community meeting arrived only few days before the meeting. Some residents received it after the meeting or not at all. |
One of the test layouts for Lincoln Field to subsume much of Wallingford Playfield. Existing amenities (playground, bathrooms) would be relocated, but most grass is eliminated. |
SPS pitched the proposal as a “win-win”, but I am conflicted.
On the one hand, I believe Lincoln students deserve and ought to have an athletic field. My own children may one day attend Lincoln and benefit from the new field. Of its 1,600 students, it is estimated that 200+ may have hour-long bus rides on some days to alternative athletic sites. This is unacceptable in a great city such as Seattle and we should do better.
On the other hand, this isn’t a simple “win-win” as SPS calls it. SPS would like us to focus on the number of amenities that (supposedly) stay the same, but that isn’t the whole picture. What about the playfield? Their project is titled “Athletic Field for Lincoln High School”, not “Multi-use Field for Wallingford Neighborhood”. They aren’t asking to share the field, residents are being asked to cede 80-90% of Wallingford’s limited open green space to Seattle Public Schools. This is an enormous request, and our community should carefully consider the how this would actually work.
Under the proposal, SPS would exclusively own the field during school days. For half the year, those hours are the only daylight hours. Afterwards, the field will be managed by Seattle Parks and Recreation’s scheduling system until 9:45 p.m. City speakers emphasized that Lower Woodland fields are overbooked and that demand for city athletic fields is very high. It seems very likely that Lincoln’s new field will also become overbooked. Wallingford residents will have to compete with people from all over Seattle to schedule that small slice of field time. These people will drive in and out of Wallingford during peak traffic to use the field. Meanwhile, Wallingford is becoming more dense, with additional row housing and apartment buildings. So more people will have even less greenspace than we have today.
This is the exact opposite direction we should be going in. We need to be adding more playfields, not taking them away. Seattle’s Office of Sustainability and Environment agrees, as stated in its list of goals</a >. Replacing Wallingford Playfield negatively impacts two of these goals: it decreases equitable access (seniors and young children) and reduces walkability for our entire community.
“as our city continues to grow, protecting and enhancing our […] green spaces remains a key priority.”
– Seattle’s Office of Sustainability and Environment
I spent some time in the park this weekend and was amazed by the variety of activities I observed. Picnics, teens throwing Frisbee, grandparents watching kids chase giant bubbles, an RC car, girls soccer practice, seniors taking a slow walk around the trails. It is literally what the name implies: a playfield. Unscheduled, uncoordinated freedom. A space anyone can enjoy.</strong > But with this proposal, those activities will be pushed aside, made much more constrained by intensely competitive scheduling. The playfield will be no more; the park will become a multi-building athletic complex for the exclusive use of able-bodied athletes and organized sports groups. Excluded groups include: seniors, young children, less abled people, private schoolers, anyone with free time that happens during pre-scheduled field time.
So given the realities of what an athletics field is compared to a playfield, what does the community gain? The proposal doesn’t feel like a “win-win” to me. It feels like a huge loss. It seems like the many are being asked to make way for the few.
How Did We Get Here?
A field will not fit on Lincoln campus because the school was expanded and there is now a parking lot where the field used to be.
Some residents may remember that Lincoln used to have a practice field on-site. What happened to that?
Built in 1907, Lincoln’s westward buildings were designated “historical” by the City of Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board in 2015. That decision would later explode into “significant challenges</a >” threatening the 2017 Lincoln renovation project. Seismic retrofitting, ADA compliance, and the on-site athletic field were all cut due to the costs imposed by the historic designation</strong >.
At the time, the Wallingford neighborhood proposed a public/private partnership in which they would raise funds to support the building of a practice field for Lincoln athletics, but SPS decided to use Lower Woodland fields. The community told them that Woodland was over-scheduled and would be difficult to access, but SPS turned down the offer of funding and decided not to build a practice field.
Let us pause now to ask ourselves: how much daily value do you get out of Lincoln’s historical preservation, compared to Wallingford Playfield?</strong > Personally, I can’t answer this question without a facepalm. This field proposal was a time-bomb manufactured by the City of Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board and represents a bail-out for SPS management amidst a historic budget shortfall and school closures. Together, the results of their management pits Wallingford community and the athletes of Lincoln against one another, forcing us into a mentality of scarcity.
Part of me wants to just move on from the past and let go of the resentment. Give student athletes the quick fix of a practice field just one block away. But what would that acquiescence accomplish, to condone a bad plan with more bad plans? What precedent does it set, to allow the city to so carelessly take from its people something irreplaceable? For that, I have no answer except a hope that we can learn something from the past. Don’t future residents of our neighborhood deserve more? Don’t we?
In 1969, using Forward Thrust Bond, Wallingford Playfield was expanded west between Densmore Ave. N and Woodlawn Ave. N. The city demolished 16 houses and a church, proving that greenspace can be added. |
The old playground, we can see a grassless playfield in the background. |
So, What Now?
Personally, my first choice would be that we revisit first principles. Given that this is a problem created by the Landmarks Preservation Board, I think it’s well past time we reevaluate how best to preserve our city’s history without severely damaging broad public interests. A city is not a museum, it is for living people. Treating it like one can have severe consequences, such as our students not having a practice field or our community not having greenspace. I also think SPS should have to reckon with the problems it ignored during Lincoln’s renovation; for example, by using its own land for its own field. Otherwise, I think Seattle ought to do the hard work of expanding greenspace via the legal process of eminent domain. But alas, these ideas are pure fantasy given the glacial pace of responsible government and are probably politically unpopular anyway. So, what now?
A few people have proposed an alternative orientation for the field to spare some of the playfield. This could be a tenable compromise, but still one that comes with many of the negatives mentioned above (loss of free play, loss of walking paths, increased traffic, etc.). And unfortunately, the eastern remnants of the playfield contain a fair amount of sloped area nearly too steep to even sit on. Supposing the field could fit this way, I think the community should at least negotiate that the remaining eastern section of the playfield be regraded level to maximize the playfield remnants.
Another major issue is the schedule. If this new artificial turf is to replace a playfield, it too should primarily be a playfield. Instead of reserving the entire school day, SPS should be contractually limited to only the minimal time required for its athletics programs, in a single predictable block. And the park’s scheduling should be significantly limited, too, in order to make the field maximally available for our community’s free use.
And what about Meridian Park (or Gasworks, or Woodland)? Meridian Park is much bigger than Wallingford Playfield. It has two playfields and enough space to accommodate both an athletic field and free play. It is a 16 minute walk, and student athletes are much more capable of managing that distance than our seniors and young children. I’d bet our top-notch student athletes could run the 0.7 miles in eight minutes or less. So while further away, this site is still better than the current situation, and more fair than subsuming nearly all of Wallingford Playfield.
Gasworks Park has a less utilized grassy area that could accommodate a 120×80 yard field. Paths and parking could be relocated. |
Woodland Park at 50th and Aurora has plenty of space for a field without compromising much. |
And finally, what about “no”? If the proposal has no upsides for our community, we should reject it.
If anything I have written here is inaccurate, or you have anything to add, please respond in the comments. My hope is that we all come together and make the best decision for our community that we can be proud of.
Please consider contacting our City officials to see where they stand and let them know how you feel about the project.
- Maritza Rivera, Councilperson, District 4 • [email protected]
- Joe Mizrahi, SPS School Board, District 4 • [email protected]</a >
- Richard Best, SPS Director of Capital Projects • [email protected]
- AP Diaz, Superintendent of Seattle Parks and Recreation • [email protected]
- Bruce Harrell, Mayor • [email protected]
Discover more from Wallyhood
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wonderful article. Nice job.
I am a big fan of the suggestion of lower woodland. This makes sense on so many levels.
Second choice, much lower, would be the option of turning the proposed turf 90 degrees (north to south) on Wallingford park.
Third would be looking at Meridian park. (Fairly equal option to the second option.)
A combined parking & sports field in the north parking lot of Lincoln is noble, but is likely financially unrealistic. Not to mention the time (years) it would take to negotiate and build.
Our family — which includes seniors and young children — is very excited about the new proposed field. The fact that there is so much demand for field time for youth sports is great and our answer to that demand should not be to push that activity somewhere else but rather to embrace it as a community. We're looking forward to going to games, cheering on our neighbors, and having new life breathed into the space.
We also enjoy picnics, throwing frisbee, chasing bubbles, soccer practice, and walking around, and don't feel that the SPS plan will prevent us from enjoying any of those activities. Maybe we won't be able to throw the frisbee quite as far at all hours of the day, but that seems like a fine tradeoff in exchange for a reconfigured space that will open up new uses for more people. It will also be great to have new restrooms and lighting to expand the functional hours of the space, particularly during the darker months of the year.
Child autonomy is such an important part of growing up, and the more that kids can walk to and from their schools and sports practices, rather than being shuttled all over town adding to congestion and emissions, the better. You noted in your piece that the SPS plan "reduces walkability for our entire community" which may reveal something about how you view the community and who is included and excluded. The SPS plan improves walkability for students and other users of the new proposed field – are they not part of our community? The people who are left out of the status quo deserve to be included in the conversation just as much as those who benefit from it.
Thanks for the comment. I do not disagree, there are some potential upsides. But the point of my article is to illustrate the downsides because SPS has reasons not tell us the cons or details about how practically this would work. The turf field changes the nature of the park from always open to conditionally open. That is a critical distinction. Currently we can simply walk over, any time. Anyone leaving home has reason to think that a fris session is possible. It is very easy to share the field today, many groups can use it simultaneously. Under the proposal, the reservation schedule will mean complete reservation of the field as a indivisible unit. Think about how many times you arrived at the field and someone else was using a part of it too. So drop-in fris sessions when someone else is using the field may often not be possible. The gaps in availability may create enough friction that I doubt many will even consider the field in the first place, and so stay home, getting outdoors less.
Even if you are very excited about the field proposal, I implore everyone to petition SPS to keep the field as free-use for a majority of hours, during daylight and night. Getting the scraps doesn't seem great.
But why just focus on the downsides? It's a strange choice. You can push SPS to offer more details while offering a balanced perspective that doesn't exclude the people who will benefit from having more accessible and functional sports facilities. You claim at the start of your article that you are "conflicted" but that doesn't really come through in the substance of your piece.
I hear you on the impromptu frisbee sessions. We also enjoy frisbee throwing in our family and we've been in that situation before when soccer teams were using the playfield, and so we decided to throw the frisbee around at the Hamilton basketball courts just up the steps from the field, which was totally fine. Was it blissful frisbeeing perfection? No, but we brought a basketball too and the kids decided they wanted to do that after a while anyway. Scheduled activities are already part of park life – and kids are adaptable creatures. Adults less so, but we can all work on that!
Why is it a strange choice? I have pushed SPS on details and they have offered none. They said they would meet again in mid-October, provided a date, and then never announced any cancellation — just removed it from the site. SPS has promised in the past to leave WPF alone and then repeated tries to take over WPF for its own use. Why do we bother to have parks if we're just going to slowly cede all that space to SPS?
I focused on some of the downsides because they aren't being represented by SPS. I've heard a lot of Pollyannaish arguments in support of the field, but the platitudes aren't recognizing any concrete realities. We can look at other fields, like Lower Woodlands, and foretell what might happen at Wallingford. I can count the number of hours in the day. I can look at SPS' history, and how well they keep other promises. I can look at budget shortfalls, school closures, teacher strikes etc. etc. etc.
I'd love to be optimistic but I'm having a hard time believing. The people should hold their elected representatives and their appointees to a higher standard. If we don't, well…
I get that you would be frustrated by bureaucracy – we've all been there, it's part of modern life. Sometimes there is too much outreach, sometimes too little. I hope that you don't channel that frustration into disregarding the perspectives of those who would benefit from a new field. Stay open to the perspectives of the 2,500+ students at Lincoln and Hamilton that would gain access to better athletic facilities, in addition to the school teams, rec teams, fans, spectators, and people who will find new impromptu uses for the field that aren't possible with the current field with its numerous limitations. Those benefits seem quite concrete to me, not platitudinal. Clearly there is a lot of demand for this type of outdoor athletic space, and I'm happy to see that city leadership is being responsive to that demand and looking for ways to increase the size of the outdoor athletics and recreation pie in our neighborhood.
It's not 2,500 students, that is total enrollment. The estimate provided by SPS was around 200 students. Meanwhile there are 40,000 residents that use the park. The link between physical and mental health and green space is very well established by research. Why are 200ish students more important than everyone in the community? Also those students can use the park too.
Regardless, SPS can build a fantastic field in many locations that arent WPF.
All 2,500+ students at Hamilton and Lincoln will be able to enjoy the new field as part of their P.E. coursework, so they all stand to benefit from improved facilities, particularly during the wetter months when the current field has limited functionality.
You assume that all "40,000" residents that use the park prefer your alternative (the status quo) which is demonstrably false. To my knowledge no one has done any polling or objective research on where the population of current and potential users of the playfield sits on this issue, but it should be clear from this exchange alone that people in our community hold different views on this issue. The best thing we can do is offer our individual perspectives, listen to others with an open and empathetic mind, and not attempt to speak for a community that you don't speak for.
I really appreciate the time and effort and ATTENTION that you have paid to the details in this very long and winding process (although that word makes it sound more considered than I think it has been). At the end of it, this may be part of SPS's strategy for remodeling or selling the Memorial Stadium. There are not enough athletic fields for all the sports in the north end as it stands, but there's enough of them at SPS now (Ingraham, Roosevelt, Nathan Hale, Eckstein) to make a possible set of schedules work (and don't forget SPS is looking to drop schools because of enrollment/budget woes). Seattle Public Schools and the Parks Department are not the same entity, although it seems many people think they are. And thanks again.
I think the actual people being left out of the conversation are the folks that stand to lose the most – apartment and townhome residents in the Wallingford Urban Village. To John's point, those folks no longer have regular access to a place to play or recreate (unconditionally). You are suggesting then that the needs of the students (some of whom live in the community) trump the needs of the people who live in the community. The city guarantees folks who live in an Urban Village a 5 minute walk shed to open space and walkable access to recreation. If Wallingford Park goes away as an accessible open space for all, the Wallingford Urban Village no longer meets the basic metrics guaranteed to all residents. Why are those needs less important than students' ability to have nearby access to an athletic field. The students will (and have) find a place to play; those neighbors will be left with zero options.
Hi Julie — you make a great point, the senior residents in the Urban Village should absolutely have a voice in this process, particularly those who live closer to Wallingord Playfield than Meridian Playfield. And just to be clear I'm not suggesting that any particular constituency trumps another — but rather that public policy must consider all of the uses and users (both current and future) when deciding on the right path forward. I called out the 2,500 students in my comment because I felt that they were being excluded from the author's definition of our community. I take a broad view on "community" in Wallingford and happily include people who live here, work here, and go to school here — we went all of those people to feel invested and part of our neighborhood's success.
I would support SPS and Parks and Rec gaining an understanding of what specific activities seniors typically engage in at the Playfield (e.g., walking a leashed dog along a trail, having a picnic, watching a sporting event, taking a grandkid to the playground, practicing tai chi, etc.) and at what hours, so that they can incorporate those needs into their design and scheduling as best as possible. I would not support a blanket edict that the park cannot change for any reason (and I am not saying this is your view), as that excludes the users who are being left out of the current configuration. I bet there are creative solutions that can meet the needs of 80%+ of all current and future park users.
I appreciate the sentiment of you wanting to accommodate everyone in this proposal. But, to be clear, I don't just mean "seniors," I mean all residents of the Urban Village for whom the park is their only green space amenity. Families and adults who live in apartment buildings on Stone Way, for example, have only Wallingford Park as their walkable (5 minute walk shed) open space amenity. I approximate (based on SPR GIS walk-shed mapping) that 5,000 people stand to lose access to their only 5 minute walkable park option with this proposal.
Further, I know of no example across the city whereby a turfed, scheduled athletic field is reserved for specific hours for community use. As soon as a field is put in the athletic reservation systems, it becomes scheduable to any team/program that can afford to schedule it (even those outside Seattle). And fields are scheduled 90% of the time. The city has tried to carve out some "free play" hours on a few fields, but it hasn't worked well because they don't have a way to let everyone in the community know when those free play hours are and 1-2 hours a week of having access to a field is not the same as being able to go whenever is best for your schedule.
It's a dramatic loss to a large swath of people to accommodate the needs of the schools. I agree the students need an athletic field, and I believe there are options that are true win-wins, like Woodland Park (50th & Aurora) that gets students what they need and leaves the only green space in the Wallingford Urban Village in tact.
Lastly, I also think there is a legitimate argument for turfing a small portion of Wallingford playfield (West side, running north to south) that could be available for PE and NOT be scheduable the rest of the time but provide a safer, more year-round space for the kind of play that happens there now. If we got BOTH a field at Woodland Park and small turf, unscheduled playfield that would be a win-win-win!
I think it's worth paying particular attention to seniors and individuals with mobility challenges given that they may have more difficulty accessing other nearby parks like Meridian Playfield, but yes, we absolutely agree that all park users deserve a voice.
However, I do think you may be reaching just a tad when you claim that all of these nearby residents "stand to lose access to their only 5 minute walkable park option." If you come to the playfield to play tennis, read a book, picnic, play at the playground, chat with a friend on a bench, play hide and seek, walk your dog on a leash, frolic in the wading pool, or just relax on a blanket with your thoughts, I'm not sure much changes under the SPS plan. Some activities like throwing a frisbee long distances require a bit more space, and that's where the different field placements and configurations start to become more important, alongside the unscheduled hours as you point out. Some people just enjoy being next to an open grassy (or often muddy!) field, and that's also a legitimate want. So whether something is lost really depends on how you engage with the space and we should all be careful not to assume that our own personal preferences are representative of the larger community which none of us speak for. This is why I think it would be great for SPS to gain an understanding of how people use the park today and how they would like to use it in the future so that they can optimize for as many users and use cases as possible. Our family has been to the playfield countless times in the past year and I can't think of a single instance where we would have had a bad experience under the SPS plan, and I can think of many instances when our experience would have been even better with a new pitch there. What are the activities that you enjoy at the playfield that you feel would be impossible or limited with less grassy space?
On scheduling, I think it's great that there is such high demand for youth sports in Seattle, and I also agree that the hours for unstructured/unscheduled play time is a worthwhile point for negotiation. Thanks for your perspectives!
Unfortunately, I think your vision (and the one SPS is selling) for what accessible space there will be under any of the design proposals is not accurate. For example, one of the design proposals keeps the playground where it is, but the field cuts into the playground. Corner kicks would need to be taken from the slide! Not accessible! Further, very few people, especially small children, seniors, and those with mobility challenges will be safe picnicking or reading a book in the vicinity of field with an active game or practice (especially of lacrosse or soccer or even football.) There has to be a significant buffer of space so people don't get hit by flying objects or people. Not accessible! Look at the designs again and imagine the sidelines lined with people and balls coming out of bounds. There is literally no space to do any of the activities you envision. I think you're picturing the current field just turfed over. The design is wholly different from that. It takes about 85% of the footprint of the entirety of the park and when it is activated it will have minimal space for anything else to happen. Take your tape measure out and go see what will actually be left for everyone else.
I wouldn't say I have a vision – just a perspective as a member of the community and frequent user of the Playfield. Rather than take out a tape measure, my preference is to let our Parks & Rec department assess which components they can fit into the available space, as this is their area of expertise. Some parks are spacious and others have many amenities clustered together, and there are a number of design elements that can safely separate a field from a playground. I've seen the mock-ups that you reference and they are quite high level – this is to be expected prior to a full design process. The design process goes from November through next May – I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with and plan to keep an open mind.
The last time the city polled residents on what they would like to see more of in their parks, sports fields was the second highest priority behind pools and waterfront amenities. Clearly this is something that Seattle residents want more of. But that doesn't mean that sports fields should outweigh all other concerns – it's a balancing act that should incorporate the needs and wants of both current and future users of the space.
Thanks for your well-balanced informative article. I attended the Sept 19th meeting (despite getting the notice the following week) and I’ve been on the look-out for this “October meeting date which will be announced later.” Hmm, another stealth meeting? It’s to be the “site announcement meeting.” And thank you for the city officials contact list – though I’ve yet to receive any reply to my letter of October 1st which I sent to the council members. However, I’ll use the link to Richard Best (SPS facilities) to forward my concerns. When I used SPS’ “Let’s Talk” forum provided for this purpose, I got a reply 2 weeks later (a bot?) that SPS received my input, and to continue checking the website for updates, including the next meeting date. So far, I do not see any updates. I’ll forward a link to an article to Mr Best regarding the conundrum of whether or not artificial turf is safer for athletes than natural grass turf. At the September meeting I had asked him what was the deciding factor (assuming ongoing grass turf maintenance costs vs. replacing plastic turf every 8-12 years) – for choosing plastic over grass, and he deferred to the architect to answer, who replied there are fewer injuries on synthetic turf (not exactly true, according to "Turf vs Grass Injuries", an article from Mass Brigham General, 01/30/2024, by Mark Cote). As a homeowner in Wallingford since 1978, and former SPS employee of 15 years whose children attended the public schools, I agree that it should not be on the backs of the entire growing Wallingford community to sacrifice their precious irreplaceable green space to compensate for the poor planning and lack of foresight of SPS, especially when there are definitely alternative (not perfect) solutions to the problem they themselves created.
Chris McPoland
I have been checking the Lincoln site and they changed the October ~15 meeting to "We are planning the next community gathering. Information will be shared as soon as the schedule is set."
I plan to setup a tracker for the site so that I can see edits made to it.
Thanks for your insightful article, John. I have a little nit for you and others trying to find a site for a regulation sized field: you used the dimensions 120×80 yards, and that's not quite right.
The National Federation of High Schools ( NFHS ) specifies high school athletic field requirements. These are the diagrams for football and soccer . Football is larger than the smallest allowable soccer field when including the safety buffer outside the field, so one should use that. A regulation football field is 120 yards long and 53.3 yards wide and requires a minimum five yard safety buffer, so the smallest enclosing rectangle for regulation fields is 130 x 63.3 yards (390 x 190 feet).
Thanks for the details! SPS didn't reveal their dimensions so I had to make a guess. 130 yards length is probably the minimum. And also, the width is probably greater than 80 yards given the plan to add two rows of aluminum bleachers. There is also a plan to add an equipment building.
One infuriating aspect of this plan is how SPS has miscommunicated their needs and intent. Their website and presentation repeatedly call this proposal a practice field. There's no need for bleachers for practice. They mentioned in the meeting that they intend for JV to use this field for games (though the website still makes no mention of this), which then does call for some spectator seating.
Nevertheless a couple rows of bleachers doesn't use 17 yards, bleacher seating is typically 2-2.5' per row An equipment shed can be sited in a small extension of the area and doesn't need to expand the gross dimensions. I believe even the spectator seating needs can be comfortably accommodated with 70 yard width, but the extra 10 yards (5+5) past the end zones are strictly necessary unless one intends to injure some athletes.
I would guess that their uses for the field could grow such that public use of the field approaches zero. Could there eventually be a fence and a lock? They say that this will not happen, but I'm unclear if there is any legal reason why it could not turn into this.
Meridian Park is much more than just a big tract of land. It's used by the school for their recess, and has been used by Stone Soup Theatre in the summer for it's day camps. As another person already noted, it's also the home to our Farmer's Market, which has moved a few times before finally landing there.
Thank you for your comment!
There is plenty of room for both a field and a theater and additional free use playfield. There is much more land at Meridian compared to Wallingford. The farmers market could be held on the turf. It could be held in a closed street similar to Ballard. It could be held in the parking lot similar to University. There are many many options.
Have you interviewed the students who would be asked to commute from Hamilton and Lincoln to Meridian? Why are you excluding their perspective from this? Have you done that that walk from Hamilton to Meridian fields with an 11 year old and watched them content with aggressive traffic?
I'm not actually a journalist, this is an opinion piece. Highly encourage any students to contact the editors to write their own piece. If traffic safety is the issue with a non-WPF proposal, we should contend with the traffic safety specifically. I see high school students out for lunch that seem to do fine crossing 45th st. But I strongly support doing more to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety.
Too often, the people of Seattle settle for poor outcomes and the compounding interest of bad civic decisions. I want the ~200 kids who have athletics classes to have a practice field, but not if it excludes the thousands of other residents who use Wallingford Playfield. The win-win here is to find space for their field that doesn't compromise the very limited greenspace available to all residents.
This is Jack, one of the editors. I'd like to underscore what John is saying here. He contacted us asking to present his view point, not necessarily to research and present all the pros and cons. We welcomed his article. If anyone has anything to add on this topic, we would love to see an article from you as well!
Right On!!!! I previously submitted my comment to the city officials briefly saying that closeness to Lincoln & Hamilton should be a top priority. Along with accommodating multi-use + natural grass if possible. – – – I think the proposed dual-use & limited SPS hours would be a good solution!
Thank you for your comment and extra thanks for engaging w/ our elected officials! It wouldn't be my first, or second choice, but having a binding multi-use agreement is at least some assurance that our community won't be shut-out entirely. I fear that if we don't unite as a community and demand this "or else", SPS will simply take the park for itself and leave the scraps for whoever is fast enough to book it when the reservations open. That is a transfer from the community to SPS of $millions in land value, and an invaluable loss to public health. Yes, the ~200 or so kids could walk over to the field with time left over for a cell phone break. But what about young children? Seniors? The 40,000 other community members? How many can walk the 0.7 miles to Meridian? How many will make that walk?
I strongly disagree that closeness is a top priority. I don't agree that the needs of ~200 kids trumps the 40,000 other local residents that use the field.
As someone who moved to Seattle in 2016, I really appreciate the additional context you provided here on this issue in our community. Thank you for sharing your perspective.
I need to point out that this proposal is NOT a joint proposal with Seattle Parks. At the meeting the key parks staff told me that the City had not yet taken a position on this proposal. Conveying concerns to the Parks department will be important as they consider it. Unfortunately, they do have a reputation of not standing up to Seattle Schools.
There is another problem with the author's comments about Historic Preservation. The City Landmark's Board did their job of designating the building shell to be preserved as they did with Garfield and other classic schools. It did result in some increased costs in comparison to tearing the building down and building a new building but it reflected the desires of the community to preserve the building. The School District did blame those costs on not being able to work on the east section until the next levy, which they have now done. But that had nothing to do with putting the parking on top of the prior practice area to the north of the building. Parking is a big deal for the teachers, especially since they faced a neighborhood that had gotten the City to impose restricted parking along the streets near the school. Blaming Historic Preservation for that is just a red herring, fairly typical of the School District. Yes, building an engineered wood structure above the parking to replace the practice field will be expensive but only marginally more expensive than reworking Wallingford Playfield. Surely the Schools will report on an elegant design that has astronomical costs because they don't want to do that but that may be the price of saving the Playfield for casual recreation.
With respect to Meridian Playground, let's not foist our problems off on our neighbors. This is the site of the Wallingford Farmer's Market. If you've ever been over there on a Wednesday afternoon, you would see that nearly all the open space where a field would go is already occupied by the Market and all the neighbors picnics. It is also the site of an historic orchard, which is in the process of being revitalized.
Thanks for the reply and additional context! I had understood that the original renovation plan included a practice field? I wonder how was it that the field became a parking lot?
Mike Ruby points out that teachers for the school need a parking lot. The reason why is that most of them cannot afford to live anywhere near Lincoln Park or in the city and drive from out of the area, farther than any bus of athletes would have to travel (I am wondering about the 'hour long bus ride' – okay traffic is bad but).
I'd be interested to see if the roads around Lincoln could be made one way with slanted parking.
Otherwise, could probably purchase private parking around the area or zone parking around the park and neighborhood.
Would it be possible to still hold the farmer's market on top of a turf field? I don't see why not but curious.
The Meridian Park is also the playfield for the Meridian Elementary School, a private school that is located in the Good Shepherd Center. Also, there's the Tilth Center at the south end, and the orchard that they are tending (those trees are scattered all over the area).
The issue with any "turfed" field is that it becomes "scheduled." So, theoretically the market could "schedule" to have the field every Wednesday 3-7 for the season, but then Lincoln teams (and any other team) would be displaced on that day. I mention this because it's not the "turfing" that makes a field inaccessible for other purposes, it's the fact that it becomes part of the scheduable athletic field inventory.
Meridian Playground doesn't have any schedulable fields. Only the covered picnic shelter can be reserved through Seattle Parks.
I'm a Wallingford resident and hugely supportive of the SPS proposal. It would be a huge win for Hamilton and Lincoln students to be able to walk a short distance to their sports practices. It's safer for them. As members of this community, why would we not want to make our kids safer? Why would we not want to make lives easier for working parents? Why would we not want to support child independence?
I can still use the park – and I'm thrilled to have the opportunity to share my local park with people of all ages! Let's work together to set this next generation up for the successes that previous generations have had!
Why would we want to take away the only green space in an Urban Village and make it so folks without backyards have no place to recreate? As for "sharing" the park, the park will be scheduled 90% of the time, so the only time individual users would be able to enjoy it will be the off-times when it happens not to be scheduled. That's not sharing a park, that's it being monopolized by athletic teams that can afford to schedule it and forsaking the city's guarantee of access to open space for all residents.
"[of the ]1,600 students, it is estimated that 200+" would benefit. Taking aside us geezers, that is still a small slice of just the students. An 'athletic field' – especially artificial turf – is a very narrow use amenity (per my comment, above, much like a golf course). Furthermore, an adjacent athletic field isn't necessary or even that beneficial for adolescent independence. For example, students could take the bus or even walk to another neighborhood, which I did a lot of growing up in Wallingford and other Seattle neighborhoods. Small benefit for a small amount of people; significant cost for the rest of us, including those 1,400 out of 1,600 students (they need multi-use parks too).
Again, I might not be opposed if it was natural grass and minimal or no associated infrastructure (ie not stadium like), which would open up other uses. Turf and adjacent infrastructure really narrows other reasonable uses and negates any benefit.
There are over 2,500 students at Lincoln and Hamilton, and they all take P.E. and will benefit from the new field. The other users who are shut out of the status quo include the Hamilton and Lincoln sports teams, other rec teams and club teams, parents and fans, and impromptu users during unscheduled hours who want to play a sport that the current field doesn't support, either because of field conditions which are often terrible in the winter and/or lack of lighting.
I'm not sure your golf course analogy works — I can't think of another sport you can play on a golf course other than golf. On an athletic field you can play soccer, football, ultimate, lacrosse, field hockey, rugby, and more, and you can configure the field to play for different pitch sizes for different ages. And it will be functional for more months of the year and more hours of the day because of superior drainage and added lighting.
As for adolescent independence, sadly the roaming ranges of kids in America have shrunk significantly in the past several decades for a whole range of reasons that deserve their own article. The trends are moving in the wrong direction, and from a policy perspective we should endeavor to make child mobility and independence more easy and straightforward rather than more challenging. Wallingford is arguably one of the neighborhoods in Seattle that facilitates child autonomy reasonably well, and it's one of the reasons why we chose to raise our kids here. Thanks for offering your perspectives!
Yes, you can use athletic fields for activities other than large-scale, organized sports – but it's neither pleasant nor ideal. It's like using a stroad/strip mall for your daily walk. The Playfield, as simple as it may be, is infinitely more bucolic than a 2-dimentional turf athletic field. The Playfield is a nice place just 'to be.' It's more enjoyable for more uses.
I don't deny the benefits you cite but – like the benefits of stroads/strip malls – on balance it doesn't make sense. The more I reconsider the more I think this is a horrible idea. We've paved, flattened, and uglified enough. The kids can walk or bus to Lower Woodland or maybe they can just play in the wonderfully uneven grass and mud.
I agree that aesthetics is a legitimate consideration, though it's an especially tricky one for policy makers to incorporate into their decision making, as so much is in the eye of the beholder. Some people don't find the winter mud pit to be terribly attractive either!
And that's why urban planning after WWII gave us stroads – places that are universally regarded as depressingly ugly (because they're efficient for cars!). Imagine strolling through Old Town Ballard vs. a strip mall in Renton bisected by a busy 5-lane road.
For finer points, yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; at the extremes we are discussing here it is not. For example, we may disagree on whether Prague or Venice is more beautiful, but if you think SeaTac is more beautiful than either you need your head examined.
Of course it is hard to quantify the value of aesthetics because it varies between individuals (obviously I place more value on aesthetics than others here). So I will admit there is no quantifiably 'wrong' decision here. That said, we can agree this will make the park objectively uglier (if you can still call it a park). We need to at least make that admission before we forge ahead.
*There is an objective science behind beauty – or what humans find beautiful. For example, we can never agree on what faces are the most attractive, but across our species we prefer symmetry, averageness and a particular amount of sexual dimorphism. Same carries over to architecture – that's why literally everyone thinks stroads, brutalism, SeaTac et al are ugly and the Amalfi Coast and Nantucket are pretty. This also applies to parks and green spaces – eg certain features in landscape paintings are universally desirable across cultures. We are not blank slates; we are animals.
I am 100% with you on the colossal errors of post-war urban planning. And agreed on the science of aesthetics, which is fascinating. We Americans love to vacation to dense, walkable, aesthetically engaging, and human-centric places but have trouble creating those urban environments at home.
I would support this if multiple sports at Lincoln could benefit. However, the proposal is specifically for a football field, which means it will primarily serve the football teams—likely just the boys' team—for most of the year. Other teams will still need to travel for practice.
Not according to SPS: "It would give Lincoln High School students a state-of-the-art, full -size turf field for soccer, football and other sports, restrooms, and storage for athletic equipment." and "This field will be for all of Lincoln HS Athletics Program. The football program will not have priority." https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/capital-projects-and-planning/school-construction/projects/lincoln-field/
Why do you take SPS word for it? Do they have credibility given all the issues w/ budget shortfalls, closures, teacher strikes, etc. etc.? These words they print are not legally binding. Administrators can make promises now and do whatever they want later. The park will be theirs during school hours once the takeover of the field is complete. Even if they have signed deal w/ Seattle Parks, those terms may never be enforced unless Parks decides to (and they rarely do).
John, you obviously don't trust SPS but here's the good news: for this particular comment thread you don't have to, as restricting use of the new field to the boy's football team would be an obvious and enormous legal risk to the district under Title IX, a risk that they are clearly fully aware of.
Title IX is neither followed nor enforced.
When Lincoln reopened, most of the sports equipment budget was allocated to purchasing boys' football uniforms, leaving other sports to wait.
It is a tug of war for sure. The SPS presentation has both a soccer pitch and football field clearly marked in their visuals. Seattle is a soccer town after all, and as a sport probably generates the greatest demand for outdoor athletic facilities in the Parks and Rec system, making it unlikely that Parks and Rec would green light a plan that excludes soccer. Claiming that multiple sports won't benefit seems like a stretch to me, Ben.
"And what about Meridian Park (or Gasworks, or Woodland)? Meridian Park is much bigger than Wallingford Playfield. "
You just answered the question about people's continued access to unstructured, unreserved green space if SPS builds the field. Problem solved. Let's add the field for the kids.
Thanks for the great article here, John! This one tears me apart as a parent who has used the playfield at its fullest when my kids were toddlers for many legal (RC racing, drone and kite flying, cricket, flag football..) and some questionable activities (launching fireworks), and they are just about ready to go to Hamilton and Lincoln and i would love them to have something similar to Roosevelt for the athletic activities.
I love the balanced perspective here where the history of decisions has led us to this false choice now – give up green space in the context of growing density to the benefit of student athletics and as well as an alternate proposal (orientation) that could be workable compromise.
The comments got me thinking and penning my thoughts here directed at those comments…
1. So we as a community prioritized parking over playfield. Fine, i think this maybe right as the parking situation for the teachers should be a top consideration. Seems like the public was willing to invest here in alternate solutions (underground parking with a field on top could have give us both?) and SPS shot it down. And we should consider the past here because it gives us a good sense of the incompetence involved that will likely continue into the future…
2. It seems there is more angst towards considering Meridian as an option (even though it was an official alternate proposal) – to say 12-18 year old will have a hard time with the aggressive traffic makes me wonder what that would mean for the 3-12 year olds who want to walk there when we don't have green space in Wallingford playfied?. There would still be athletes who would need to deal with even more aggressive traffic along the worst intersection in all of Seattle to get to the track field? I have heard that the apple trees at Meridian have historic designation (eyeroll!). I have seen the teaacademy using the wallingford playfield for their activities as well. Are we truly considering choices or the reality is that it was a Hobson's choice to begin with?
3) Reconfigured space to allow for more options – I am still scratching what those options are that is going to be for the rest of community as the existing field allows for everything from the unorganized and organized (rec sports use) except what is needed for student athletic needs. And let us be honest, 2500+ students are not going to benefit – primarily a small percentage that are athletically oriented/gifted towards Football and Soccer.
4) How about we take out the existing tennis courts on the west side of the track in lower woodland? That should make for a spectacular space for a football field that is also adjacent to the track field? Plenty of tennis court options exist in upper woodland and Greenlake to make up the shortfall. How about using some parts of the upper+lower woodland to find an alternate spots?
I would love to have an athletic field for my kids as they get to Middle and High school, but in the wake of a 100M dollar shortfall that SPS is facing for getting basics right – this is way lower in my list of priorities.
I am also conflicted, having kids that are set to attend both schools but also having fond childhood memories of the Playfield. Weighing everything, I would prefer to keep the Playfield. Athletic fields are very specific use 'parks', much like golf courses. They don't accommodate the diverse use cases/opportunities offered by a traditional park and grass field. This only benefits a narrow group of students and users at the expense of everyone else, including people of all ages (again, like a golf course). I could be swayed if they promised a grass field, but I don't see that as likely.
*Totally unrelated, but how about some articles on ways to preserve (what remains of) Wallingford's (and Seattle's) beautiful turn-of-the-Century aesthetic. Overall I believe this has an even bigger impact than all of the park changes, but I digress.
"Athletic fields are very specific use 'parks', much like golf courses. They don't accommodate the diverse use cases/opportunities offered by a traditional park and grass field."
Unlike a golf course turf field affords 100% of the same sports use cases offered by a grass field. And safely year round because it won't turn into a muddy rutted mess every winter.
I'll just repeat my same surreply to a similar response:
…you can use athletic fields for activities other than large-scale, organized sports – but it's neither pleasant nor ideal. It's like using a stroad/strip mall for your daily walk. The Playfield, as simple as it may be, is infinitely more bucolic than a 2-dimentional turf athletic field. The Playfield is a nice place just 'to be'
I completely concede all the advantages you and others cite in support of the athletic field. But – and this is a value judgement – I don't think it's worth it to ruin a perfectly good park for everyone else by making it ugly. Plus it's spending money I don't think the district has.
It doesn't really support the same activities as a play field. The field will become a scheduled resource in the Seattle Park system. The activities that happen there will be those that can be booked. That conditional use is a huge difference in how people approach even going to the park in the first place.
I think the children who live in the neighborhood and attend Hamilton and Lincoln could greatly benefit from the play fields and it is a lot more reasonable to ask the adults to go to these other play fields mentioned than the children.
I don't love plastic turf, but the field is currently a muddy mess much of the year. And it's being used as a unsanctioned off lease dog park. The kids during PE class sometimes slip in the mud or worse on dog poo and then have to go through the rest of the school day like that.
I think it's reasonable to ask, if these other field options are so accessible why don't the adults go there?
Susanna – what about the children who have only one walkable recreational amenity in their neighborhood – Wallingford Playfield – and don't play organized sports? Where do you suggest those young people go? Especially those whose families may not have money for organized sports or may not own cars in our increasingly dense neighborhood? You're advocating for stripping away a public asset from the most vulnerable in Wallingford to make sure those who play organized sports get their needs met first and foremost. Does that seem just? And something the City should facilitate happening?
If we think from generic student needs, we definitely can think of tons of sporting activities that students can carry out on the existing playfield. Isn't the problem created by forcing everybody to subsidize for a specific few organized team sports that most of the student body don't participate? Why? If the school can't have easier way to handle certain athletic programs, maybe just cancel those programs and create ones existing facilities can support.