Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDexter Parkw C k F DEXTER PARK: A STUDY AND DESIGN OF THE PARK AREA by Elizabeth A. Lancaster • Landscape Architecture Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the University Undergraduate Fellows Program 1976 - 1977 Approved by: Michael D. Murphy. May9 1977 ABSTRACT The object of this report is to study a neighborhood park and its impact on the neighborhood residents, park users and the City which provides the maintenance and service to the park. The hypothesis established for the report is: Dexter Park is properly designed as it presently exists. Dexter Park has its beginnings in the 1920's as a corporately owned park. Its site characteristics relate to the fact that the park once had a lake on it and was part of a flood plain. The park today exists in a "natural" state for a variety of outdoor activities within its passive and active areas. The park has only two structures on the site--a concrete slab creek channel and a bridge to cross it. Residents, users and the City were ques- tioned to determine the park's impact on each of them. Responses from these interviews disproved the hypothesis, and subsequent program elements were established, including physical design components and a maintenance pro- gram. A final redesign of Dexter Park was completed based on the program elements. The method by which this study was conducted consisted mainly of inter- views and questionnaires, with personal observation also an important key in collecting the data. The final design solution dealt strictly with the park site, even though the emphasis of the interviews was on the park's function as part of the neighborhood. Conclusions derived from this park study. determine that Dexter Park is indeed a part of the neighborhood, and the residents, users and City want it to continue to exist as it is. The problems and concerns pointed out, though, axe personal expressions of how the park relates to each resident and improvements which need to be made. It is the responsibility of the• landscape architect, or any designer, to record in his data-gathering process the ideas of the people who will live with the design once it is complete. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to Mr. Murphy for always being there when I had a question. A special thanks also goes to all the residents in the Dexter Paxk neighborhood who had enough interest in the park and their neighborhood to get involved and enough trust in me to shaxe their thoughts. fi TABLE OF CONTENTS DEXTER PARK: A STUDY AND DESIGN OF THE PARK AREA 3 I . INTRODUCTION . 4 II . HYPOTHESIS . ". 4- III. TASKS 5 A. Collection of Data. 5 1. Historical Background 5 2. Site Inventory. 7 a. Topography. 7 b. Vegetation. 9 c . Soil . 11 d. Climate 11 B . Observation of the Park 12 C. Questionnaires and Interviews 13 1. Needs of the residents . 13 2. Needs of the users. 18 3. Needs of the service and maintenance. 18 IV . DATA ANALYSIS 20 A. Dexter Paxk Meets the Needs of the Near-by Residents 21 B. Dexter Paxk Meets the Needs of the Park Users 27 C. Dexter Park Meets the Needs of Maintenance and ' Service Requirements . . 29 V . HYPOTHESIS CONCLUSIONS . . 30 VI . PROGRAM ELEMENTS . 30 VII. DESIGN CONCEPT. . . . . . . . 31 VIII VIII. REDESIGN OF DEXTER PARK . 33 A. Specified Paxking Areas . 35 B. Prohibit Motorbikes 37 C. Provide Additional Vegetation Plantings . 38 D. Locate Trash Containers . . 40 E. Provide a Picnic Area . . . 4.0 F. Provide Maintenance of the Existing Bridge. 41 G. Redesign the Creek Channel. 4~ H. Provide Additional Access Across the Creek. 46 I. Regrade Drainage Problem Areas. 46 IX. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM. 46 A. Insect and Disease Control 4.6 B . Pruning Program. 46 C . Mowing Schedule . 46 D. Fertilization Program. . 47 X . CONCLUSIONS . 47 LIST OF FIGURES: 1. Original Paxk Design ~ . 2. Topography Map . 3. Vegetation Map .• . . 4. Use Areas Map.. 5. Problem Areas Map. 6. Questionnaire Zone Map . 7. Location of Residents Questioned . 8. Design Concept 9. Design Plan. 10. Parking Area Curbing . 11. Alternative One Parking Solution . 12. Alternative Two Parking Solution . 13. Motorbike Prohibition Solution . 14. Park Signage 15 • Trash Container Design 16. Alternative Trash Containers . 17. Picnic Table Design. 18. Alternative One Picnic Table 19. Alternative Two Picnic Table . 20 . Redesign of Existing Bridge . 21. Redesign of Creek Channel. 22. Alternative One Creek Channel. . 23. Alternative Two Creek Channel. LIST OF TABLES 1. Active Users of the Park . 2. Residents Who Included the Park in Their Neighborhood .. . 3. Suggested Low-growing Underbrush . . 4•. Suggested Special Effect Trees . APPENDIX A. Resident Questionnaire B1. Questionnaire Map 1. . . . . B2. Questionnaire Ma.p 2. C. Resident Questionnaire Responses . D. Resident Questionnaire Responses . E. Resident Questionnaire Responses . F. Resident Questionnaire Responses . G. Resident Questionnaire Responses . 6 8 10 14 15 16 19 32 3~ 35 36 36 37 38 41 41 4.2 42 42 ~3 ~5 ~5 24 26 39 40 4$ 48 4$ 48 4$ 4$ 48 48 a H. Resident Questionnaire Responses ~I$ I. Resident Questionnaire Responses 48 J. Resident Questionnaire Responses 48 LITERATURE CITED 3 r 6 ,. DEXTER PARK: A STUDY & DESIGN OF THE PARK AREA . 4 DEXTER PARK: A STUDY AND DESIGN OF THE PARK AREA I. INTRODUCTION The following report is a study of a neighborhood park and its impact on the neighborhood residents, the park users and the City which provides maintenance and service to the park. Dexter Park is located in southwest College Station in the College Paxk subdivision. It is bordered on the north by Old Jersey Street, on the east by Dexter Drive and on the south and west by West Dexter Street. Whether Dexter Paxk is providing adequate facilities for the people is to be determined by analyzing how those people view the paxk. Analysis of such a public space is important in terms of studying human behavior over a period of time. Seventy years ago, the park area existed as a "wilderness area" within a newly created subdivision--a new landscape con- cept at that time. It must now be determined whether that same paxk axea, which has gone through some physical changes while still existing as a "wilderness" or "natural" area, is meeting the needs of the people--the residents, the users and the City--those who live close to the park and are affected by it in their daily lives. II. HYPOTHESIS The hypothesis established for this research project is: Dexter Park is properly designed as it presently exists. The term "properly designed" is defined as consisting of three elements; 1.) meeting the needs of the near-by residents, 2.) meeting the needs of the users of the park, and 3.) meeting the needs of the City (maintenance). Determining whether the park fulfills each of these needs, therefore, becomes the objective of this research. If any one of the three elements is not fulfilled, the hypothesis is disproved and a subsequent redesign of the park becomes appropriate. k . 5 III. TASKS A. Collection of Data 1. Historical Background The Southside Development Company was formally organized on June 27, 1921. It was agreed that the company would purchase 66 acres for $4000.00 to be developed into a subdivision known as College Paxk.9 Dexter Paxk would be later located within this subdivision. The subdivision was designed by landscape architect F. W. Hensel, and the finished design is shown in Figure 1. Included in the original design was an area of over two.plus acres in size, which was to be left in a natural state with existing vegetation. The suggestion of a lake was fulfilled by the construction of an earth dam in August, 1921 at the south end of the park. The lake measured approximately twelve feet at its deepest point. The land set aside as a natural area was privately owned by the Company, yet everyone who bought lots in College Park Subdivision had an equity in the park. Each property owner had a right to go into court and sue for its retention. Because of this fact, not even the Directors of the Southside Development-Company could legally permit its destruction.l The park was posted against hunt- ing and fishing, and the cutting of shrubs and trees was prohibited unless done under the supervision of the Boaxd of Directors.9 In July, 1939, under orders from Texas A&M College President T. 0. Walton and Civil Engineering Professor G. Gilchrist, the lake was drained to eliminate the growth of an uncontrollable weed which made the control of mosquitoes too expensive. The mosquito control was mandatory because of a malaxia epidemic occuring throughout the United States at this time.1 Likewise, the lake at Hensel Park was drained as well as were any other laxge bodies of water within the Texas A&M College area. In September, 1940, the Works Project Agency (WPA) dug the existing drainage ditch to promote better drainage coming from the campus area, through the park and eventually flowing into Bee Creek, Carter Creek and the Navasota River.5 A PHOTOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION OF THE MAP OF COLLEGE PARK, COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS. BRAZOS COUNTY TEXAS DEED RECORDS, VOL. 38, PAGE 602-OS ~J _ ~ wH y-. II ,g I s~. 4 ~a w a • I cyryM u ~~ k I ~ 0 0 ., h h v w' b'-'- ~ O 11 4 / w a T~ ' ~ 4~ ~ ~~ W 13.9?J_LS' ~Of n w J - cp -- ' a S< T~ ' ~ I ; .CbX3l/ W e ~ ~ ~y h k v . O1, ~o Y, W ~~ ~ ~ d ^ O o h r 0 n ~, J JI (`~ s 1~+7t/1S W rn~NY sor y s•, e k ~ o p M ~ ~ 4 ` M GL f ~ ~. 1Q N N B V Pv S N .~ ® b 'C M 7JY'~d /V330U36Y ~ V ` f~ ~• 173bJS~StJ7/' ~ ~• ~ ` r Z f I 1j~ s~ r. n •c r / Z l}' - \ - '\0 n a s O ~-~ s s _I r °r : r d j ~`t `~ , „«, = ~~/~ FIGURE 1. Original Park Design ~ =1 °' _ ;_ _ ~ KEEP THIS MAP FOR YOUR GUIDE IN CHOOSING YOUR LOT. 13JHLS u. ' ~ h ~ • °v R a p ~ R w Obi • R 179a/1f rn of ~ i s r r s` ,c3svaiano ` h h e ~ n T `~ " ~ e J v a J ~1 ti ~ • 4 7 On July 15, 197, the park in the College Paxk.Subdivision was sold to the City of College Station for a sum of $20000.9 The deed to the property stated that the park should be used for park purposes only and included several restrictions on future uses and structures which could exist on the park property. Some of these restrictions included the prohibition of barbeque stands, children's play equipment, the use of the park as a camping ground, nor, in general, hould the area contain any unsightly objects or permanent building:, of any kind.6 Some of the restrictions were objection- able to the City Council of College Station; whereupon, a clause was added to the original deed transfer which read, "These restric- tions shall remain in force until such time as they may be changed by a majority vote of the people of the City of College Station."3 This agreement was passed and the park became the property of the City of College Station, later to become known as Dexter Park, named after the two streets surrounding the park which bear the same name. 2. Site Inventory a. Topography Topography varies greatly on the park site, the north end being the high point of the park. As shown on the topography map (see Figure 2), there axe dominant ridges and swales with- in the park. The strongest topographic element runs along the creek's length, where the elevation from bank of the creek to the middle of the creek varies some four feet. The base infor- mation for the topographic map of the park was obtained from an original plat survey of the park. Spot elevations were taken by survey to double-check the contour lines,. and minor adjust- ments were made to produce the most accurate map possible of existing site topography. The benchmark elevations were taken from an engineering map of Dexter Drive, prepared when it was realigned. r c ~ ~, I -----) _ '.15~1'T1:i~ -_ _~ I _ i i I I ~ i - -- ~{ ~'~\\ \ ~~ - -- -- ~ I F\ ~ r- - ------ ~~ r ~c\ \` F r --- I \ i cP\ J - - - ~~ - ~ - -~- - -~ -- i i I I ~ I ~ F..~ _1~--~---t-~-~- ------~-- i~, r~ i R 9 b. Vegetation Vegetation on the site is in fair to poor condition. Types of trees existing on the site vary with proximity to the creek and riparian situations (see Figure 3). The north end of the park, being at a higher elevation, contains Ulmus americana (American Elm), Ulmus crassifolia (Cedar Elm), Ulmus alata (Winged Elm), uercus stellata (Post Oak), Juniperus virginiana (Eastern Redcedar), with a few scattered uercus ni~ra (Water Oak) and-Celtis laevigata (Sugar Hackberry). As the elevation drops, the Elms and Redcedars give way to Carya illinoensis (Pecan), Celtis laevigata (Sugar Hackberry), Celtis occidentalis (Common Hackberry) and uercus ni~ra (Water Oak), especially at the south end of the park along the creek. Underbrush mainly consists of Ilex vomitoria (Yaupon) and Li~ustrum texanum (Texas Privet , with some Smilax varieties. Two flowering trees exist on the site--one Prunus angustifolia (Chickasaw Plum) and one Cercis texana (Texas Red Bud). The underbrush vegetation has been cleared in several areas to allow for easier maintenance and easier viewing into the park for purposes of surveillance. Unfortunately, the trees have not been given any type of maintenance consideration with regard to the erosion of the soil that results from the removal of the underbrush around them. The. Post Oaks at the south end of the park are very susceptible to root damage and are slowly dying as a result of improper care. The Pecan trees are suffer- ing from disease, yet no attempt is being made to remedy the situation. The spaces formed by the vegetation vary from a definite transition of dense vegetation with canopy and understory, to open areas surrounded by strong vegetation groupings, to a scattered, random location of plants with no definite patterns of open meadow areas or closed wooded areas. This transition flows from the north end of the park to the south end, the j ~ ! , ~ ~,~ I 7 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ --- -- ~ - ~~- ~-~ ,,~. C ~ I ~ I 1 I 9M1'L M1 I/ / g^ / I I ~ ~ %/// r ~ ~ /~ ~ ,,, ~ ~ / .,~~~,; ~ ~ ~r, / I ' / ~ ~* : ~ ~ ' T tti ice, i= ~ q, _ __ ~L + ~ 1~4'S~/ - , ..._~~ // ~` ~~ ~\ /, /~ a.~ ~M ~ / ,~ /~ ~ //~ l ~~ x ~' ~~.- ~ ''L _ _~ ~~i~ ~~ „~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ III ~ - ~ ~,~ ~% ~~~ ~~ ; ~ ~ I F -~, -mss ~~ I~ -~ ~~ jam,/ ,~ ---J' J"' ' '` u, ~, .. _~ ~ _ /~ C ~ ~ \ ~~ --,~-_ I ~~ 4~~ i ~+ ~ ~ ` ~ f i I \- - l ~L--- -__L-------L--------- ~ - -----~- -~. --- - - _ - - 1 ~ -T- - _ _- T _ _ _ T.-_ (~ f -_~ ~ --~ I ~ I I i ~ ~ r--- 1 -- ~ -- - - - - -_ 1 - - ' AYIC9NIIC$ 9i'ICL' r - - -- ~ - - - - -_--- - - ~- - - ~ - - - ~+~~ ~~~~ P~K FIGURE 3. Vegetation Map ,,,,~,~ g oL1"tTl 5t'RJ MCA I '11 x 11 north end having the dense vegetation and the south end having the scattered location of plants. c. Soil The type of soil and its characteristics are important with respect to the type of topography and vegetation found on the site. The type of soil is Lufkin Sandy Loam and Fine Sandy Loam. Typical characteristics of this type of soil include a high shrink-swell factor, high errosive factor, very slow water intake rate ( infiltration), originally existing as a flood plain area, acidic (pH 4.8-6.2), shallow surface horizon (4"- 12") with a dense hardpan clay soil below, moderate productiv- ity level, and recreation limitations due to the highly ero- sive nature of the soils ~~' 8 Where extensive clearing of underbrush has occured, especially under the trees, the surface horizon has washed away, exposing tree roots and hardpan clay soil. This loss of top soil from the root zone is detrimental to the tree and will diminish its life expectancy. In conjunction with the drainage within the park area, when there is a heavy rain and the runoff of the surrounding area drains into the park and creek, most of the low points within the park are flooded. Because of the low infiltration rate of the soil, the water does not soak into the ground but runs off as soon as the rain subsides. d. Climate The climatic factors within the Brazos County area usually promote rather than limit park use. The average annual temper- ature range is 50°-80°F, with extremes ranging from 0°F in the winter months to 110°F during the summer. The average annual rainfall is 39 inches and there is a moderately high humidity in the area. On the whole, the climatic conditions encourage outdoor activities; thus, supporting optimum park use conditions.8 12 B. Observation of the Park Personal observation of the park revealed the major use areas within the park (see Figure 4) as well as major problem areas. These problem areas are shown in Figure 5. Both the use areas and the problem areas relate to the site inventory previously discussed. The vegetation masses create major open areas within the park and are used for activities such as football, baseball, frisbee- throwing and kite flying. These areas also relate to relatively level or gently rolling topography. Within the more densely vegetated areas are the location of more passive activities such as studying, sleeping, love-making, nature studying, walking and picnicking. Certain areas of the park have drainage problems where the elevations have created low spots such that water tends to stand for long periods of time. These low spots are gradually expanding and encroaching on some of the major use areas; thus, limiting their use. There are also certain points along the creek where the users have built temporary bridges to cross the creek. There is only one structural bridge in the park now. The temporary bridges are being constructed of the concrete slabs used to line the creek channel. Besides making the creek an eyesore, the soil along the creek is eroding with the removal of the concrete slabs. Access to the park by cars occurs along West Dexter Street, which has no curb. As previously mentioned, the Post Oak trees located along West Dexter Street are very susceptible to root dam- age. .Cars. parked beneath the trees along West Dexter St. are f~_ ther decreasing the life expectancy of the Post Oak trees. Parking also occurs beneath the transformer on the north side of the park, where there is a curb cut on Dexter Drive for maintenance access to the transformer. Pedestrian access to the park occurs along Dexter Drive, mainly as a link from Texas A&M University to the neighborhood around Dex- ter Park. Within the park are several dirt paths which tie the 13 park together. These paths offer topographic and vegetative variety as they flow through the park. There are four residences now located within the original park boundary, not plotted when the College Park area was created (see Figure 1). Three residences occur on Old Jersey Street and West Dexter Street, and one occurs at the corner of Dexter Drive and Old Jersey Street (see Figure 4). A fifth property exists next to the Jersey Street-Dexter Drive corner on Dexter Drive but contains no structure on it and is intended to remain so, according to the owner of the property. C. Questionnaires and Interviews Quc:.l,ionnr~i_.rc;; a,nd interviews were uUed in this project to determine as nearly as possible the three objectives of this proj- ect, which are as follows: - ~ _ 1.) needs of the residents, 2.) needs of the users, and 3.) needs of service and maintenance. Each of these categories will be discussed in detail. 1. Needs of the residents It was deemed necessary that direct contact with as many residents living near the park as possible was important in order to develop a feeling for the park within the neighborhood. The people most influenced by the park are those living direct- ly across from it. The intention was to talk to as many of these residents as possible. The interviews were not to be limited to a one block radius around the park; so, a map was' laid out with concentric circles drawn on it with Dexter Park as the radius point, as shown in Figure 6. Zones were set up at one block intervals and these zones became the focal points of the interviews. Then, a system was designed to establish contact with as many residents as possible. Those residents living directly across from the park were called five times ~~ ---"T iA.. _. _~ ~-» -_ ~ I 1 ``\__~ SN~~ ~x'~'~'~ P~K FIGURE ~. _ Use Areas Map ~NC~ g'11 ~ I oone~ r- --~ 1 I I -,~- 4~~ AYIC9NHC~ 9fK~~T ,.. /,,~ ~ ~~er ~'~'~,~ P~K FIGURE 5. Problem. Areas Map ~ p 5~ NCB I '(~ i 1 1 111 1 1 - J ( r r ~1 X11 11 ~ ~ 1 , ~ ~G~ 111 ` ~ ~ 11 ; - 's ~ ~ ~~ ~ atO ©_ 1 1 1 ~~ r '^ Q • \ . / 1' I'1 t Std ~. t . i ~~ • 11 .1 ~ i i • Q O ~~ 1. .~ - .- I I ~ ~+q4 • '[ ^V, r P t r ,-~S s~ ~~ '~ ~r9. ,_,. t .1 sC ,.. ,,. ;~ _. ~ t ~O N r N .,• 1 ;;t...h - ;ai o,o,N,t \\\PPP---; wc~t t ,, \ q } .~°''~y." - ~ '~u ~r r• ( :{" ~ .• ,chi r 2 • ;\~~ S - ~~!`~ u ~ ~'6, 1" ~~' • •, ' ° y' ~ ~ ` .~ t ^a' '': . ~ u ° Lam" ~`i - • ~~r E; • . ~ :: ,., y ~ `tpw 1 /\ c_ , ~. ~ '.. ~ ] j, _ i r S f v p SF N~ 5 w r r < % ' ~or a • ~ M".M `+ v F ~ w \ q '~ t i '' - ~ ~~•/ ~~p'G ' s `' t r ~; Svc tr\, "o; 1r1. .~ .\~• \,.\"\~~ t • - .1v I 0 t ~ + : i..d i 1 ~+ r ~ ~•'•\ '\\r\rk~- ft'r '•~ r. ~~ `',_ _ ~i ~1~ ~~i [In°I,• i~ lt...• ~ ~•~r-sue ..,1r _' ~~ o`~ _• . ..c ~ t ~ °, -- ~i tit r ~ 5 ~ fit= • ~i ~~ -. rw ~~1p a' ?..~` tv "` \.\ \ u -, • J S~r''i : \Q~ t s iv ~+ ....[' .1~ ~ ~-. i.-v~ ~ .•i`s e~~~• •\,r f~ C •%.~. ~ ~ •_- r. , r ~~ ~~~ ~ - ~ s ~ . • r•lh,~` ~ i - '.•' ~ .~ 1• Pert ~ "r t G~ y 1 ~ ~ ~ ~` . p ~t t~ • • ~ i~% ~ ~ _ Gw t ~{~. ~ ~ o ',,,[~~ ~ o ~ ~ „ col; F \ _ _ ~ r ~~ ~ " . •,r "~'' ~~\~\ b -~ M=w~[ .r ~ tjS, 91. t •~+ . f~.r C. /~- ~ 1`+ v ..• .~'. 5 S ~ r t t 5 ~\r. }' •f •~r\_•,'~._ •- ~[` / F.. ~. ~. ,~~r ~l ~ 7 Pte. ~.- \ rC\y .tJ •\^ .~~+Q,j~..1 ~o\+,.~, rt 1. ~ tC ~ • ]twtd..o.. root r _-\1'~~r ~~il~~..i~( r:..J i ~ r ^ _ t t • 1 Q Y • ` ~ ~ 1 ~ ~s • • ; a O ^ • r r.r • ~ V d~ 'u~ ~.y • 0 •, + • r _ O• L f ~ A~, f ' ~~ c r ~ ~' O ~ 4 ' -r '. rri.1 t'• i ~ •, QS ~ Yi • ; ~[- C [ MwR~[ L T _ ~.L y c a ~ «,~.,ci n r ~~ r 4' j/ ' Y o irY1 ~ t ~ E~ ~ ~~ f F~~ V z~ y L \ r ~~[ ,,,.. b1~~J ~ c ~~~:i'i •t: .` K 8 ti yrr I' ~~ _ y l-_ _ .'1 6 2 r :.1''h~ ~ r . ~ • t i 1r - • ~ III L G r o ~ ~ - +/ . M '~~1 • i•,; V' ~ ~ - ~ - ~ /mar ,/ •, ~ ~~'~+~•~ •I b • 1 \~ 1 .• t • ~ t~ t FIGURE 6 . Questionnaire Zone Map `~, ~,',:M '~ +: ~ ~`;' :~:, ~'\;-~ t. fit' ~ w, Ia • '~ • ) fit ~ ~ ~ Ntle .- i"?J f i'7 before a "No Answer" meant they were crossed from the list; residents one block away were called four times; residents two blocks away were called three times; and residents living three and four blocks away were called two times before being crossed off the list. There were a few people who wished not to become involved in this questionnaire and unfortunately had to be crossed off the list. One resident agreed to conduct the questionnaire and interview over the phone but not in person. A sample of the questionnaire is shown in Appendix A. The questions asked were open-ended questions to generate more of a true response, as was suggested by Dr. Ruth Schaffer, Department of Sociology, Texas A&M University.6 The questions from the sample questionnaire axe listed below: 1.) How long have you lived in this house? 2.) Do you like the way the park is designed now? Why or why not? 3.) What sort of changes would you recommend for the park? 4.) What do you think about the city's maintenance of the park? 5.) To what extent ~o you use the park? 6.) How does the park affect the neighborhood? 7.) Do you think the park has a "function" or "purpose" in the way it exists now? Agree or disagree? The first question establishes location with respect to the park. The next three questions all relate to each other and axe different attempts to draw out what the resident might perceive as problems within the park. The fifth question refers to the resident's active involvement within the park, and the last two questions refer to an overall feeling for the park and its function as a neighborhood focal point. In addition to the questionnaire, a map of the area was given to each resident (family) and they were asked to draw on F 18 the map what they considered their neighborhood as defined by them. A sample map is shown in Appendix B. This question was directed toward the extent of the paxk's influence as deter- mined by the residents of the neighborhood. In all, a total of 29 residents were interviewed within a four block radius. The location of these residents with relation to the park is shown in Figure 7. A tabulation of the responses and how often they occured are-shown in Appendices C-J. Amore detailed analysis of these responses will come later. 2. Needs of the users To determine the needs of the park users, a varied degree of park users had to be interviewed under different circum- stances. Depending on the weather but still gathering informa- tion during different times of the day and different seasons of the year, across-section of responses was gathered. The same questions asked of the residents were asked of the users, the only difference being that the questions were asked more informally than with a resident in his own home. The users were also chosen in different use areas. In one situation, a group of users were questioned together, with the responses being recorded as one group response. In this situa- tion, there was an interaction between the users and they responded to each other's replies to certain questions. 3. Needs of the service and maintenance In a conversation with Mr. Paul Wojciechowski, Director of Parks, City of College Station, the maintenance program for Dexter Park was explained 10 The questions asked are recorded as follows: 1.) How much money is spent maintaining the park? 2.) What sort of maintenance is done? 3.) Is it difficult to maintain? ~.) How often is it mowed? 5.) Where do you store the equipment? • 1 '11 ~ ` I ~ 11 ~ 19 1 ~~/~ ~ ~ ~ 1 +~ t ~ ~'~ a 1 " ' ~ at\ ~ ~ \' w \ I 1 1 ' •, ~` ~• • O O l I qtr - t it OtN • ~;^ ,•i r •~ e~~ w ~I t~ ~ i w' \ r \1 ~A f s4 • t nti •J ~P t n '_r ••r -t e r.~ t t 1 . i\.. ' X43 ~ _~ w !+ r iI 3~~ ` w a3ar ,,c„ • -w t,,t.. ~!..~F _-i, -~. wa-'~ r"" o e• ~ w1L \!`~'~; `+~~ t .• \,\~ ~' r '`~~.' "~ •\ r ~ tl - l _: - ~'~' 1' lC.a. sl r. .+, o ~. ~ ~ta3C ~-~i., c 3 • a` } c t t®~R wrJa`tj~r,•~t{ s /~~~~~ ,f ' n ~ ~ . . \`ir 1\ ~„" ~r r~ t ~ • 1;:" y`^` `'~",`i sa ~" P `\ ,~ ..~ / \- ~~ ~ Ail. .11i r } i~j~ ~~n ~i ~r/1 b r• . 7 ~• ~~,,~ ~ as •e • ~ ~w+- 1 ..•_ l `~ a ,~-t - Fo ..., 1` a ~' tn~~t :. t.i ~. t * [/~~\ "t st~ ~c ~ • • 'r• 'S ~•,•~.r• ~ ~ as ,"~ t. ,, .., ~ p= ~ /r ~. r/~ C a \b +- .~~_.S, w••`'i ~t,\\ rt\~ r f-t ~-...- !• ,~ ~~•I ~. ~ ~~ kC, f/ : ~ ,' ~C.'o~.t ~ • ~• .~ ..r +~~t • \ +. t _ r j - ~ 1 it ' S c /G , {( (~~] r /~1/'~ t ~ ~ w t ~~, : - y ( ~ ~ ` ~. •w •1 \ ~a0•. ` ~\ ~„ r ' S ~P` \ ~ t 3 t `~(`-•cJ ~~ f • o r~ ' i. ~ ' r ~ • C' w• F ~^ i ~ 4 ,. wyC ~~ '~' 1 w ,t ~i ~ ~ • 1`~S• ~ ~~ t~~i: tr`%'~. - ; : \~ ~ y+ `± ~\ `i C a l J ~ w, ;- 1 J ~i ~" ~ ~i ~ t;~' f 'tr ~' g _. ; t ~~ ~:,\ t, ~S4L,-,r1 t M`\-e \• F.. :. .1~ is t r t '~ r.,~-- wv act +,~' ~Mt r ~ ~ ~;~: 3 t . .1 1 tP. ~ \ I1~ \ \ ~ \\~e\\ . : "~ , r r to .~ 'e ~~ 1\~.\~"` -41~ Vr~~Y. ~ ~ "a, t ~ ~/~ •' .r to ',/ • .,..,;'~°~j~~;~\ ~~\ • \.\ \ ~ e,l..Fa :' b •~~ t . gyp)\\fl- j~.. ••~ \ ~ '•'•~ ~\~•1,- _ 1 ..•'r~ r a.N J,i^a y a %~' r •~"•. ~•t.. j.`• y•s• ~\~~~\ t .• •~ J- ~ ~+ • to .~.~.~~ (~~'\ 1'l - t r ~ KQ (~ r~ • /~!•{ i•~ ~'~--ip~r~~r~ o 'Cr\ ~\~'-: ^a~'1 ~ a• 1•J •• r -~•' 1 din • " ~ .~ t . ~J - 4 ~ - • * • r ~ 'h 1 '~OI 7~ I l F • ` • \ A. ' ~ ~ ry`[' -F ~ r`.1~~ .tc \ ~ Ot+ ~ i w ~t ~ -'' 2 w ° ~ it b. ! S its ` : /! r I~t .y./~'' °JJ ~jN : l ~\'~ - t ;L' 0 'b'ti `` ~ .~ \\1\\ 1Vt ,o ci+ M ~ ~.C~.. ~ b, t - 3 ..•t~ti~ • ~~'~~-i 4r• s.. ~ •~~rj\~Jd ~ 1` t C~\ `•. --• L^ w . 'a,_ a~ /a ~ J •• ~ r•~ti~ 6,0~~ yn i"" ~ ~•Op`~C +rb .r, t ., ~. Y+(, r •~ •b '• P~/• ~aCC • ' • wn .t~ p• r • t ~' '~~ ~. f•~- , r~ •; '. rGC ` "~i, _~i • ~ \\ ~ r ' i ~•~' ~ b (' ~ i qtr - - _. yr• .• `Y t'!.i •, _ i ,{S.J= ~~' \ :_11 i1.i ~' ....• ~.., ~ f 1 wa `- • .rl~ • ':. t - ~~ 'qtr ~ .r ,'~~~ •',. ` \t f\~-. •1\.~si~~~:,n -g: (,: ~,, •' 11~ •'• b ~'6~ '~ .'; ~a'~ \`~ • r i t~ a.~a~ -d~~r r \~~ 'r•~~-y ~ k}: b1~ w ~' : ~: ,~ - ;. ,,, •' 1`. ... ` • or •X'~';~~ ~ / ~ - t ( ~,~q~\(y 1 ?'~n~. ~I °~` 'po .\f~`'11f ".« \ ` +~ X333-\ h ~~ •f i •`'f ,"r•I i\ \~r~ ~\'~ ••± ••~ -ct ~ -\\. t'= /~ S. w 1(t~~~gi~«/ ~ ~ 7.~r~-\\r\•\,i1'•v~r yew ~ .i - ••~ r. - •M f ` `- .-- yr ~~t ~ „ lf.~a _ !• rr,. .~ Sri = r ~~ •'• r • \p r r ~ S . ~ 9 ! % ° r 6 y ~ f t ~ `J/\/ • rr , i~' ~ w ( •~ .~ r ~~ ~St' r b't t b ~ J~ • ~ `f riu~~'-,~-q? ~,•\• ,I~ 1 t " •t• ,• n _1•^\ •\r ti--ter-/. O t -~S N t t b .. r~• \5Q ~~s -' • •d it ~`i° ~r• b ~ ,w; i r •to • t"\ ~•n ~' ~' • - t b • a ••'°'°- b • • •• ~'d •• ~ • o L O 3 - , s ' "'-- \~. • =t bbb - • ~' 3 ~ ~ i 1 .N '• ~• . ,. tic r _ ~O a _N •3~: ~ Ce ~? aoaO ,wry~:° SD 'E;' • • • 1 0 ~ Q • w ,• ~ • •, __ CpJN 1 • ~ . w ~, ..,I~ • • ~~ • ~ i • p t C `•rA RI[ 1 air _r ±• _~~ " • -P . 1~ O ~ _~ M•iHC_3 ' ~ ~ j ~ ~~~ 11.0 s -y: .t \wr~ ,.('~~y~^_~~j'y) a w _ ..~• , Fa 6 I ,• \ r 6 iV" Y %• p ~1r~!'3{~~ ~ ° ~ -/' I • -ifs \F ~~' •.1.1 • ~- { iiiYYY a ~ w ~A ter!':` r• ~~ j ~ t+ FIGURE 7 • Location of Residents Questioned \'%~ ~ ~~'!,-= a i~~ C \ W - ll T ~~~r` \Y~ I~o• f 20 6.) Do you receive many complaints about the maintenance of the park? 7.) What can be done with the drainage easement? 8.) What are the closest parks to Dexter Park? From the responses by the City to the maintenance problems within Dexter Park, a few important points should be considered. There is no set amount of money spent on the park maintenance each year, nor is there a maintenance schedule. The concerns of the city lie with the mowing of grass and clearing of under- brush. The only difficult maintenance concern is with the topography, especially along the creek channel, but even the topography is not limiting the ability of the maintenance crew. The underbrush problem is more of a problem in dealing with the public than with the underbrush itself. The problem devel- oped because some people desired the natural state of the park, while others desired the clearance of underbrush for safety reasons. Finall the closest ~~ y parks to the are Fairview Street Park, the Little League Park, located at the corner of Luther Street and Eleanor Street (six blocks away); Lincoln Park, lo- cated at the corner of Holleman Street and Eleanor Street (eight blocks away); and Bee Creek Park, located off of Southwest Park- way on Madison Avenue (one mile away). N . DATA ANALYSIS To analyze all of the data collected and organize it in such a way as to establish the validity of the stated hypothesis--Dexter Park is properly designed as it presently exists--subhypotheses have been established as follows: 1.) Dexter Park meets the needs of the near-by residents, 2.) Dexter Park meets the needs of the users of the park, and 3.) Dexter Park meets the needs of maintenance and service requirements. In order for the hypothesis to be true, each of the subhypotheses must be true. S 21 A. Dexter Park Meets the Needs of the Near-by Residents From Appendices C-E, the problems found in Dexter Park by the near- by residents range in support from only one person stating a particular problem being perceived to eleven of twenty-nine residents (or 38f) stating that a definite problem exists within the park. Some of the problems cited relate to other data gathered; thus, forming definite patterns in the resident's responses. It should be mentioned, here, that the questions asked of the residents were open-ended questions. No direct questions about a particular problem were asked. The responses recorded, therefore, axe responses generated entirely by the resident. 1. Parking within the park The parking problem was mentioned by eleven of the twenty-nine residents interviewed. Cars are allowed into the park along West Dexter Street because there is no curb; consequently, cars are some- times found parked at the creek's edge, disrupting the function and activity within the park as well as disrupting the natural state in which the park exists. Of these eleven residents, eight live on West Dexter Street. The parking problem, therefore, can be directly related in seriousness and concern to the residents who live closest and observe the parking most frequently. 2. Motorbikes in the park Of the five residents who cited the problem of motorcyclists riding through the park, four live immediately adjacent to the park. Again, the motorbike problem is a function of no barrier or curb on West Dexter as well as the curb cut on Dexter Drive for service to the transformer there. 3. Lack of trashcans A third major problem, the lack of trashcans,was cited by eight residents. Four of these residents live immediately surrounding the park and have lived there for five to ten years; while, three of the remaining four live only one block away from the park. The fact that there are no trashcans or trash pick-up furnished by the City 22 has made it necessary for these same residents to take it~upon them- selves to pick, up the trash. The trash problem is definitely one which affecty the residents who live closest to the park. 4. Place for children to play The debate between those residents who do not want play equip- ment in the park and those residents who would like to have some equipment for the children to play on was the most argumentative subject brought up by the residents. The total count. shows nine people who stated they definitely would like to see some type of play equipment for children, while nine residents definitely stated "No equipment" in the park. Of the nine who do want the play equip- ment, four have children now of an age who would use it. Of the nine who said "No equipment," three have children of an age who would use it. The remaining families with young children who said nothing either way numbered five. 5. Bridge in need of repair The five residents who cited this problem all have lived in the neighborhood over ten years--three from ten to twenty years, one from twenty to thirty years and one over thirty years. This problem definitely relates to those residents who are directly affected by activities within the paxk and have lived in the area for a long period of time. 6. More plantings Seven residents cited this problem as an item which could be added to the present facilities within the park. All seven live within one block of the park. Included in this category from Appen- dix E axe the planting of flowering trees, seeding wildflowers and planting special bulb plants . 7• Reconstruction of the creek channel The present maintenance of the creek was cited by residents living in an even spread distance from the paxk. Otherwise stated, this problem is one which concerns a broad group of residents, both x 23 where they live and how long they have lived there: 8. Keep underbrush cleared as it is now . Of the seven residents who stated this problem as a major con- cern, four have young children. Four of the seven residents live adjacent to the park and the remaining three live one block away. By keeping the underbrush clear, especially along the streets, the residents can view into the park and not feel threatened by their inability to see what may be happening across the street from their house. The lack of underbrush or keeping it cleared back gives a feeling of security to the residents. 9. Keep grass cut Again, relating to those residents who live closest to the park, of the five residents who cited the lack of grass mowing as a con- cern, three live immediately surrounding the park and two live one block away. 10. Lighting Three residents discussed the lack of proper lighting within the park as a problem. These three people have all lived around the park between ten and thirty years, were all three widowed women and two out of the three live adjacent to the park. 11. Speeding traffic problem on West Dexter Two residents living on West Dexter cited a vehicular traffic problem with fast-moving cars coming from Hereford Street onto West Dexter and merging onto Dexter Drive. To alleviate the problem, both residents suggested closing West Dexter at Dexter Drive and rerouting the traffic along Welch Street. 12. Need for another bridge at the north end of the park Two residents mentioned this problem as one which needs some attention. The location of the existing bridge does not relate to those residents living on the north end of the park. One resident who cited the problem lives next to the park, and the other lives one block away. 13. Leave park as is 24~ To thoroughly study the near-by residents and their needs, this final category should be analyzed as fax as the problems with the paxk and changes which could be made. Four residents stated the opinion that the park is fine the way it presently exists. Three of those residents live two blocks away from the park and one lives one block away. No one immediately adjacent to the park said they felt the park should be left alone, indicating either that the residents immediately adjacent to the park know more about the con- ditions and problems within the park or the residents further away are not as concerned with little problems and accept the park as it is. 14. Uses of the park by the near-by residents To understand the relation between residents who actively use the park and those who use the park mainly as a. viewing element, the residents were broken down according to their relation to the paxk and analyzed according to their active use of the park. The results are shown as follows in Table 1: No. Actively Total No. Distance from Park Use Park Interviewed Surounding Paxk 6 11 One Block Away 2 9 Two Blocks Away 2 Three Blocks Away 1 2 Four Blocks Away 0 1 TOTAL 11 29 TABLE 1. Active Users of the Park Eleven of the twenty-nine total residents interviewed actively use the park during different times of the year. This analysis indicates that of the eleven residents who live adjacent to the park, six actively use it, representing the highest percentage of residents who use the park. Consequently, their responses to the question- f 25 naire should weigh more than the other responses,~just as their answers should carry more weight because of their location to the park. 15. Park's affect on the neighborhood Dexter Park is a definite attribute to the neighborhood, based on the data collected, as shown in Appendices I and J. The follow- ing information helps to develop a feeling for the park axed its relation to the residents. a. Increases property value Four of the six residents citing this fact as an attribute live directly across from the park. The increase in property value is a viable consideration for those living in the area and should be a definite consideration for any redesign of the park. b. Makes the neighborhood more attractive Again, the majority response came from residents directly across from the park, those being seven of the ten who stated that the neighborhood is more attractive because of the park. c. Recreation area Of the twelve who replied to this question by saying Dexter Park functions as a recreation area, seven of the residents live adjacent to the park. Six of these seven actively use the park. The indications are that the park is a strong recreation element for the immediate neighbors as it presently exists, without any equipment. This information may be combined with the data concerning the addition of or lack of play equipment as part of a design decision. d. Identifying element Four people indicated that the park is a strong identifying element for the neighborhood, and three of the four live adja- cent to the park. For these residents to bring up the point indicates a strong tie between the residents adjacent to the park and the park itself. fi e. No Function 26 Only one resident responded that the park has no function as it exists. This one resident lives four blocks away and has no real ties between himself and the park. This information indicates the limits of the park's immediate affects on near-by residents as being approximately four blocks. 16. Park functioning as a "neighborhood park Residents using maps to determine what each family considers a "neighborhood".were unable to fully respond to this statement. Depending on the personal definition of a "neighborhood," a family (resident) either considered the people they know or the places they go. Because of this discrepancy, the impact of the maps is questionable. It can be determined, however, that the park's effect does extend at least the four blocks originally perceived as the park's effective limits in all directions, and further in some cases where access is good or where a specific need to go to the park is mandatory. It seems the extent of the park's impact does stay within the College Park and Oakwood subdivisions in College Station. Data gathered from the map exercise may be broken down and analyzed as shown in Table 2: No. Who Included Total No. Distance from Park Park in Neighborhood Interviewed Surrounding the Park 10 it One Block Away 5 9 Two Blocks Away 5 6 Three Blocks Away 1 2 Four Blocks Away 1 1 TOTAL 22 29 TABLE 2. Residents Who Included Park in Their Neighborhood F 27 The one resident living adjacent to the park who left the park out of her neighborhood strictly related her neighborhood to the people she knew--not place. Those leaving the park out of their neighbor- hood living one block away related to people they knew and not the area as a whole. One family has only lived in their present house two years, which may indicate another reason for not including the paxk as part of the neighborhood. The impact of these data relate to where people axe going and what people ..they know within the neighborhood. Many people use the park as a transition zone from their house to their destination, either on foot or bicycle. The park not only is a place to go to but a place to go through. Based on the questionnaire responses and subsequent analysis of these responses, there are many concerns expressed by the resi- dents which are not solved by the present state of the park. Be- cause of the presence of these problem areas, the first subhypothe- sis--Dexter Park meets the needs of the near-by residents--is FALSE. B. Dexter Park Meets the Needs of the Park Users Users of the park are not necessarily from the surrounding area. The majority of users of the park coming from outside the park axea heard about the park from persons living near-by. These users coming from outside areas either came to the park on their own or in conjunc- tion with a group of people. It was found, however, that users com- ing from outside the neighborhood do not have as strong of a feeling about the. park as a neighborhood feature as those who live within the neighborhood. Those users from outside the neighborhood see the park as a nice place to go to and enjoy. The park existing within the neighborhood is not considered. The main concerns of the users of Dexter Park in order of their importance are as follows: ° 1.) Additional bridge, 2.) Access to the park, f 28 3.) More level areas, 4.) Too much tall underbrush in major use areas, 5.) Poor creek conditions, and 6.) Red ants. 1. Additional bridge A main concern of park users is the fact that only one bridge is located in the park and is away from the major active areas of the park. Either the users go out of their way to use the bridge or they have to make the effort to jump across the creek, which measures five feet from bank to bank. 2. Access to the paxk Access problems to the park exist in the form of parking. A majority of the users axe concerned about the decision of where to park their cars when coming to the park so they will not harm the vegetation, or axe concerned about other user's decision to park where they do. The concern seems to be stemming from a broader environmental awareness. 3. More level areas The rough terrain is a concern of active area users. As shown in Figure 4, the main axea of concern is a laxge open area which has too much of a topographic variance for it to be used as a play field, yet it is an open meadow, free of trees and shrubs. 4. Too much tall underbrush An overall impression given by the users is that there is an over-abundance of understory and some should be cleared out. The understory hampers active sports as well as prevents good viewing into the park. 5. Creek maintenance Still a major concern is the maintenance of the creek. Most users expressed an opinion that the present state of the creek is unsightly. Also, the creek poses as a threat of danger with the broken pieces of concrete slab. Many users noted the erosion A z9 problems where the concrete slabs have been removed. 6. Red ants A small problem, but one with a great impact is the red ant population. The ants are especially detrimental in areas of high activity or high pedestrian use. Because users perceive the existance of these six main problems within the park, based on interviews with them, the subhypothesis-- Dexter Paxk meets the needs of the users--is FALSE. C. Pextc.r T'c.i~i: Mc~c t.~ the Needs of Maintenance and Service Requirements T The main conclusions that can be made here is there is no mainten- ance program to follow for the park. Minimal work is done on the park and no replacement program is in operation at this time to keep the park in its present natural state for future users. The three main areas of concern are the creek, the underbrush and the grass. 1. Creek channel The first maintenance problem of the park is the creek channel. There is a problem with slabs being removed and the City having to replace or rearrange the slabs periodically. The removal of slabs causes erosion next to the creek,' which in some places creates poor drainage areas which axe shown in Figure 5. In other places, serious root damage due to exposure of the roots, is causing decline in the health of those trees most susceptible to this erosion. Another maintenance concern of the City with the creek channel involves the mandatory application of weed killer next to the creek to cut back the mowing problem, where the tractor cannot reach. The ground is too steep next to the creek to use the mower. 2. Underbrush The second maintenance problem is the underbrush, because it has to be kept low in certain areas, cleaxed out in others and the City hears complaints from people who want it left as it is. Clear- ing of underbrush takes time,; so, any alternative to the present problem of keeping certain areas free of understory or kept low would be an asset. 3. Grass mowing 30 The third maintenance problem is of concern because of the rough topography and the tractor-mower used to~mow the grass in the park has some maneuvering problems. These three problem areas--creek, underbrush and grass mowing-- create enough concern to be considered major problems; thus, the sub- hypothesis--Dexter Park meets the needs of maintenance and service requirements--is FALSE. V. HYPOTHESIS CONCLUSIONS Based on the analysis of the three subhypothesis statements and the sub- sequent disproof of all three subhypothes,~s, the following three statements may be made: 1.) Dexter Park does not meet the needs of the near-by residents. 2.) Dexter Park does not meet the needs of the users. 3.) Dexter Park does not meet the needs of maintenance and service to the park. e From the analysis of the data under each of these subhypothes~s and the conclusions derived, the hypothesis of this project--Dexter Park is properly designed as it presently exists--has been disproved. VI. PROGRAM ELEMENTS To respond to the inadequacies previously discussed, two areas need to be addressed. First, the park needs to be designed (redesigned) to elimin- ate those problems relating to physical park components and their arrange- ment. Second, there must be the development of a maintenance program to address the upkeep problems of the park. The physical design components are listed as follows: A. Provide specified parking areas, B: Prohibit motorbi~~: C. Provide additional vegetation plantings, D. Locate trash containers E. Provide picnic area K 31 F. Redesign the existing bridge, G. Provide additional access across the creek, H. Redesign the .creek channel, and I. Regrade drainage problem areas. The maintenance program elements will involve the following: A. Insect and disease control, B. Pruning schedule C. Mowing schedule D. Surveillance program VII. DESIGN CONCEPT Based on the program elements established for Dexter Park, the following discussion is an explanation of the design concept for a subsequent design (redesign) of Dexter Park (see Figure 8). A. Specified Parkin~'Areas Parking will be provided along West Dexter Street to take advantage of the nonexistent curb. The parking areas will be off the road and will be designed in such a way that it is compatible with the park elements. B. Prohibit Motorbikes Motorbikes will be prohibited from the park, both legally and by physical design elements which will reduce the likelihood of motorbikes entering the park. C. Provide Additional Vegetation Plantings To replace old trees, a program must be initiated now to begin growth of new trees. In addition, special effect trees should be introduced to add color and variety to the park. A replacement also is needed for the underbrush which has been cleared or pruned severely. Newly planted underbrush will take into account low maintenance and assured surveillance of the park. D. Locate Trash Containers Trash containers will be located along paths, in major active use areas and in the picnic axea. 1 I~ , i-_ i ----T-- - --_-- ~ ~ / ~4 ~ I e~7 ~~ ~ ,, I ~ j1 / ~~ •:.~ ~.= ~,. i ,, .. i ~ ~ i / ~ 1 i / ~ f ~ ~ / I ~~ .tee ~ ~ .:, - `' ~ ~~, ' ,~~'"~c. `~ - ~ 1 - ~'~~~ ` ,n` '~~ _ ¢,,j~ ~ ~ - _ F Y~`~\`1, N ~q Qom. '//~~//~~/+ ,._ j~ `_ '~"~/,~ 1 }' / r ~E~ITt~ANc.~ f ~~ ,,, ~~,~ // j~ ~.. l~, r~ ,,, ' _____T / -+ ~~JIL _- _ __~ -'"' - - ~~ -- --- ;o --~ -- ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ \~ ~xo ' ~ \ ~ '~ ~ ~ '~ ~ f Y ~-- 41.~ ~~~r ~~-~ P~QK FIGURE 8. Design Concept - - -- -- - - AYlC9NIICB 9f1C~L^T g o 5~11~G I "11 r-- - - -~ i f 33 E. Provide Picnic Area A picnicking area will be provided in a shaded, level to gently rolling area near_West Dexter Street, to be located in close proximity to the parking area. F. Redesign Existing Bride Restructure existing bridge where it is now located to provide a safer structure and one which is more visually pleasing. G. Redesign Creek Channel Existing concrete slabs should be removed and a redesign of the creek accomplished to reduce vandalism problems, provide ease of main- tenance and be aesthetically pleasing. H. Provide Additional Access Across Creek Additional access is needed towards the north end of the park to tie major use areas together. I. Re~rade Drainage Problem Areas Those areas near the creek which collect standing water need to be filled and graded in order to prevent continued deepening of these low spots. J. Maintenance Program A maintenance program should be introduced by the City to include insect and disease control, pruning schedule, mowing schedule and a surveillance program to insure safety within the paxk, both day and night. This maintenance program should be on a yearly basis, with a set schedule for all seasons of the yeax to insure proper care of the ~~ park . VIII. REDESIGN OF DEXTER PARK The basis for the following redesign elements for Dexter Park was dis- cussed under the previous conceptual analysis of the report. The design elements will be discussed following the same order as the concept elements. A preferred solution will be compared with alternatives. Refer to Figure 9 for the overall design plan of the park. ~,~ /~' // '~~/ ~ / ~~ 1 /~ ~' \~,/~~ ~ j l'~ ~~~ 1 ~' . / l-.fit ~I ~ _ - .. - . ~)R ~ _~ II \ _ _ _ ~--~--J i `\ f ~++~~" p~,K FIGURE 9. ~ Design Plan AYI(9HIIC~ SfK~f 5 o~n 5fi'KI NCB I 'i1 35 A. Specified Paxkin~ Areas The design solution to this conceptual element is shown in Figure 10. It consists of railroad ties placed lengthwise along the ground with a second railroad tie bolted to it and buried in the ground for additional support and strength against movement upon impact. The placement of the railroad ties will~be ten feet back of the road edge along West Dexter Street to allow for pull-in parallel parking. The parking area will begin at the Kerry Street intersection with West Dexter Street and extend to Hereford Street (see Figure 9, design plan). ~~ ~OI~T ~It~tgE '~~ TIC FIGURE 10. Parking Area Curbing Alternative one would be to place telephone poles upright in the ground every two feet, extending two feet above the finish grade. Again, the placement of these telephone poles would be ten feet from the edge of West Dexter. This solution is shown in Figure 11. The advantage of the prefered solution to this alternative is one of desired effect. The railroad ties laid lengthwise provides more of a curblike element which can be used as a guide in parking the car. Aesthetically, the ties laid lengthwise are less obtrusive than the telephone poles standing upright, and blend in better with the chaxac- ter of the park. F 36 Z'0"OG• ~toN~ rot.r~-~ ouRi~,D 2'd' iNn7 GROUND ~1Nt~ ~ l,~i ,` ` ( ~ I; i~ r; ~~ ~' ~. FIGURE 11. Alternative One Parking Solution Alternative two would be to widen West Dexter Street into atwo- lane road with a curb and gutter system similar to Dexter Drive, with an additional ten feet along the park side for parking, as shown in Figure 12. This solution would provide a better road surface for West Dexter Street,.. and the runoff water from the surrounding area could be collec- ted and channeled through the gutter-drainage system and emptied into the creek channel. The proposed solution, though, is more compatible with the intentions and desires of those residents living along West Dexter Street, who consider the park an extension of their front yard. The proposed solution also does not take away as much park land as the widened street, curb and gutter alternative. The railroad ties are less expensive than the complete upgrading of West Dexter Street, also. ~r~oG ~co~t,E: Y~ ~ t'o" FIGURE 12. Alternative Two Parking Solution 37 B. Prohibit Motorbikes Legally, motorbikes should be prohibited from the park with more strict enforcement .by local law officers. The legal action would be a system of punishing persons who seem to be purposefully abusing the paxk by using it as a motorbike trail. The proposed design element solution is in conjunction with the proposed railroad ties laid lengthwise for parking along West Dexter Street. These railroad ties would also function as design elements to discourage access to the paxk by motorbikes. At the transformer location along Dexter Drive, where the curb cut is located, two upright poles would be set on each side of the curb cut, with a heavy duty galvanized steel chain and lock. The lock would be unlocked when service to the transformer is necessary (see Figure 13).~ It should be pointed out at this time that there is no way to completeybar motorbike,'from entering the park. The intention of this design solution is to discourage the motorcyclist. In addition to the upright poles at the transformer as well as along ' the parking area on West Dexter Street, a sign would be provided stating NO MOTOR VEHICLES. This sign, in conjunction with park signs announcing this is Dexter Park, would be similax to the existing sign located on Dexter Drive and be visually pleasing (see Figure 14). Ip' '~ ~~ ~~NMIgED g~~.t6~ i ~tNtSN C~lCAct~ --~ -% FIGURE 13. Motorbike Prohibition Solution A ~f~1-~ffioN~ CS1'~'~ ~t°~t~ 38 FIGURE 14. Park Signage Alternatives to the prohibition of motorcycles would coincide with alternatives for the parking solution. An: additional reason for not choosing the upright poles two feet apart would be that a motorcycle could pass through the poles without much difficulty. C. Provide Additional Vegetation Plantings The introduction of additional vegetation, both trees and understory, is another design element with only one general solution. A replacement program for the underbrush which is cleaxed or pruned severely is needed, especially near the creek in the areas shown in Figure 9, where the underbrush is serving as a protection against erosion. Low growing shrubs should be introduced to keep the maintenance costs low and reduce the concern of residents being able to view activities occuring in the park. Suggested low-growing underbrush which could be irtx•cc'tced are shown in Table 3. The shrubs chos~:iifrom this list which axe best suited as low-growing understory include: Ilex vomitoria cv. Dwarf (Dwarf Yaupon), Rubus trivialis (Southern Dewberry), Lonicera japonica chinensis (Purple A 39 Japanese Honeysuckle), Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Virginia Creeper), Hypericum frondosum (Golden St.Johnswort), and S.ymphoricarpos orbiculatus (Indiancurrant Coralberry). All of these shrubs are native to the area and may be either purchased from a nursery specializing in native plants or may be obtained from other sites that the city owns and transplanted on the park site. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HEIGHT Baccharis halimifolia Eastern Baccharis 4 ft. Ceanothus americanus Jerseytea Ceanothus 2-4 ft. Gelsium sempervirens Carolina Jessamine 2?-4 ft. Hypericum frondosum Golden St.Johnswort 4 ft. Itea virginica Virginia Sweetspire 3 ft. Lonicera japonica chinensis Purple Japanese Honeysuckle 3-4 ft. Mahonia trifoliolata Laredo Mahonia 4 ft. Myrica pusilla Dwarf Waxmyrtle 22 ft. Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper 1-2 ft. Rubus trivialus Southern Dewberry 12-2 ft. Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Indiancurrent Coralberry 2-5 ft. Viburnum acerifolium Mapleleaf Viburnum 2-6 ft. TABLE 3. Suggested Low-growing Underbrush Additional trees are needed to begin a replacement program for old, disease-ridden or damaged trees to help preserve the existing natural state of Dexter Park. The least expensive method of introducing new trees into the paxk is to plant the proposed low-growing understory beneath the existing trees to promote self-propagation of these trees. Possible sites to concentrate on are shown in Figure 9. An alternative would be to purchase the trees from a nursery and transplant the trees in the designated locations, but this solution would be more expensive. If new trees are to be introduced, suggested species would include: Bumelia lan~uinosa (Woollybucket Bumelia), Diospyros texana (Texas Per- simmon), Fraxinus americana (White Ash), Juniperus vir~iniana (Eastern Redcedar), Morus rubra (Red Mulberry), uercus ni~ra (Water Oak) and Ulmus americana (American Elm). 40 Another consideration of introduced trees is to provide special effect trees for color and variety. The proposed locations of these special effect trees are shown in Figure °J. These locations axe related to major use areas and areas or design elements that should be emphasized. A list of suggested special effect trees is shown in Table 4. Considering the desired effect, the trees chosen from this list to be planted in the park include: Cercis texana (Texas Redbud) and Malus an~ustifolia (Southern Crabapple).. SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HEIGHT EFFECTS Cercis texana Chionanthus virginicus Malus angustifolia Prunus angustifolia Prunus mexicana Sophora affinis Texas Redbud White Fringetree Southern Crabapple Chickasaw Plum Mexican Plum Texas Sophora 4~0 ft. Pink flwrs. 35 ft. White flwrs. 35 ft. White pink flwrs. 25 ft. White pink flwrs. 25 ft. Pink flwrs. 25 ft. White pink flwrs. TABLE 4. Suggested Special Effect Trees D. Locate Trash Containers Based on observation and interview information, permanent trash con- tainers will be located in major use areas--picnic area, open play areas-- as well as along pedestrian paths. Prefered design of the trash containers is shown in Figure 1.5. The design is nonobtrusive, simple and provides an easily accesible struc- ture for maintenance service to collect the trash. Alternative designs are shown in Figure 16. Because of the nature of their design and appearance, these two alternatives were not chosen as the final design solution. E. Provide a Picnic Area The location of the picnicking axea is shown in Figure 9. Consist- ing of a level axea for the siting of each of the six picnic tables pro- posed, the picnicking area also is protected by shade from the existing Post Oaks as well as proposed additional trees. The table design solution F 4~1 2`0 ~~ ' 2X 2 f~lt~ rv~ n~~iiiuiiuunininn~n~i .. FIGURE 15. Trash Container Design ?1CJ'~ t FIGURE 16. Alternative Trash Containers is shown in Figure 17. The tables will be permanently fixed to the site for reduction of vandalism. This design was chosen for its simplicity and compatibility with the naturalness of the park. Two alternatives are shown in Figures 18 and 19. The concrete table and slab were not chosen because of their harshness and added expense. The portable table was not chosen for vandalism reasons, even though the possibility of loss of the table could be reduced by chaining it to the ground. F. Provide `•laintenance of the Flxistin~ Bride "Billy Goat Bridge" as it is called is in need of a complete repair of-its structure. The bridge decking needs to be replaced because of excessive splintering of the existing wood decking, as well as thorough treatment of the new lumber to reduce future decay, rot and splintering. ~rx..v^ ~ w~ ~ rw.r.~ ~w~ -~ gCAcL~i~ 3/8 ~~tip~~ F D ~~ / _~~ 10~u 2' 3 ~~ 2° tbi° ~~ ~,W~ ~W~ ~. I ,~i ~ ~ r ~~ ~ pq `;; o ap `,; a ` b- , d d ° ~~ ~. ~ \ " e A d A~ .na !a a A d Q ri- ~~ ^~^,,~G~ ` '~~,~{Ac7'1 Q~ FIGURE 17. Picnic Table Design iC,+ SCI ON GL~JJ A~CI O2~ ~~ ~g`~l'0" SC~tI,~~ ~'e'~ I~o,~ FIGURE 18. Alternative One Picnic Table ~,o~~ a• b~ ~.. o a A • ~' - o a• o.. s~-~or~, SC~~ S'J~~bn FIGURE 19. Alternative Two Picnic Table R ~3 The substructure of the bridge also will be replaced because of the age of the bridge (approximately 35 years old, to insure the long life of the new bridge. The existing galvanized steel pipe will be replaced in lieu of a wood rail. The wood rail will be more aesthetically pleasing than the pipe rail. An additional design element for the bridge will be a sign affixed to the bridge denoting its name, "Billy Goat Bridge." The sign will relate the bridge and the park with their historical past, especially important'to the residents and users who grew up in the neigh- borhood. The proposed bridge structure is shown in Figure 20~.. ~~~~~~A ~~: ~'~~ ~~ ~dn FIGURE 20. Redesign of Existing Bridge 1 G. Redesign the Creek Channel The creek will be redesigned with the reduction of maintenance and vandalism in mind. The main consideration is to preserve the character of the drainage creek channel flowing through the park. The design solution for the creek is shown in Figure 21 along with existing conditions. This solution has many advantages over the exist- ing structure as well as the proposed alternatives. First, it will carry the maximum flow of grater through the park with greater efficiency than the existing structure. The volume of the ditch through which the water flows has been increased, still maintaining adequate side slope to con- tain the water within the creek channel. Second, the reduced percent slope along the creek channel will allow for easier maintenance of the grass. A mower will be able to cut the grass up to the existing half culvert, which will remain in the design. Third, erosion problems will be reduced because of the reduced steep- ness of the ditch side slope; thus,-protecting soil wash and exposure of tree roots. Fourth, the concrete slabs will not be needed, which will reduce vandalism. The only structure will be the existing half culvert. Leo ~,v~ ~lSTI~IC~ c©Mc. ~~ -ro ~ ~tovr~ ~5T1 ~~ 2' ~" ~tk CLII-V~R~" ~O iZ~11-{ "11 `O~~ FIGURE 21. Redesign of Creek Channel x ~5 Two alternatives are shown in Figures 22 and Zj.. Concreting the existing slopes would prevent erosion but would not maintain or preserve the character of the park. The walk along the creek in the second alter- native is feasible and aesthetically pleasing, yet it is too structured for the park, would split the park into two distinct park axeas~ and most importantly, would be more of a maintenance problem than the existing structure. f~f.~,P~-gyp k)/60uD ~ C4NG~ ~ k1D~ 'Cb t2~Mpd t~ ~, n ~ ~~~- ~q~.~ ~ 8 FIGURE 22. Alternative One Creek Channel 2' i~~i~iN~ WA~.1. ~~~ ~8r - l `O'` FIGURE 23. Alternative T<ao Creelc Channel Gt-N,-V~•K~1' 7D K~It~ 6 46 H. Provide Additional Access Across the Creek Because of the proposed creek redesign, an additional structure will not be needed (see. Figure ~1). The park user will have only the two and one-half foot culvert to cross and can be done with ease. Presently, the combination of steep slope next to the creek channel and the concrete slabs makes crossing the creek difficult. The added advantage of the proposed redesign of the creek eliminating a needed additional structure or br:Id~e on the north end of the park further supports its implementation. I. Re~rade Drainage Problem Areas This design recommendation consists of no major design decisions other than filling and grading as is necessary. Those drainage areas needing immediate attention are shown in Figure 5. IX. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Separate from the design components of the redesign of Dexter Park, yet still necessary in recommendations for park improvement, a scheduled mainte- nance program for Dexter Park should be introduced. Specific implementation plans will depend on the City of College Station, but the elements needing immediate attention include the following: A. Insect and Disease Control As previously stated, the Pecan trees are in need of immediate disease control. A spray program for all the trees should be considered to pre- vent further decline of the vegetation. Also included under this category is an insect control program to reduce the ant population. B. Pruning Program The trees within Dexter Paxk axe in need of pruning. A time schedule needs to be established to insure an annual pruning of all trees within the park to remove dead wood and produce well-shaped trees. C. Mowing Schedule A time schedule for mowing should be utilized by the City, especially in the spring and summer for proper care of the grass. Special attention should be made in the spring when native and introduced wildflowers are in bloom in the park. The City should be sensitive to the time of mowing F ~7 and allow these wildflowers to bloom and be enjoyed to their fullest before commencement of the grass mowing schedule. D. Fertilization Program To insure healthy growth of the plants within the park, an annual fertilizer application should be made. X. CONCLUSION A thorough investigation, analysis and subsequent redesign of Dexter Park has been presented. The basis for the report was to test the deter- mined hypothesis--Dexter Park is properly designed as it presently exists. This hypothesis was disproved and an alternative to present conditions was presented in the form of a redesign of the park. Dexter Park, relating to the residents in the area, is a part of the neighborhood, and the residents want it to continue to exist as it is. Yet, the problems and concerns pointed out by each resident were personal expres- sions of how the park relates to that individual person or family-=how to make the park that much better. One objective of this study was to deter- mine those areas in need of attention and address the needs in the redesign of the park. The same attitude is held with regard to the users and City maintainers of the park. These people are the ones affected most by the park and their needs become of prime importance to the redesign of the park. A designer can relate to a site only to a certain extent, unless he moves to the area and lives there for a period of time, and even then his feelings would not be the same as another person. It is the responsibility of the landscape architect, or any designer, to record into his data-gathering process the ideas of the people who will live with the design once it is com- plete. This community-oriented involvement will produce a design sensitive to the needs and desires of that community. 48 A P P E N D I X A. Resident Questionnaire B~. Questionnaire Map 1 Bz. Questionnaire Map 2 C. Resident Questionnaire Responses D. Resident Questionnaire Responses E. Resident Questionnaire Responses F. Resident Questionnaire Responses G. Resident Questionnaire Responses H. Resident Questionnaire Responses I. Resident Questionnaire Responses J. Resident Questionnaire Responses Family: Ages: Members: Address: How long have you lived here? Do you like the way the park is designed now? Why or why not? What sort of changes would you recommend for the park? What do you think about the city's maintenance of the park? To what extent do you use the park? How does the park affect the neighborhood? Do you think the park has a "function" or "purpose" in the way it exists now? Agree or disagree? APPENDIX A. Resident Questionnaire U u t irk .., ,r ... , ~~ a ~~ r . •„'. u~~ , .. `,..rte .,ii . r ~' .', ~ ~~ ~ t ~', ;` '`s ' t ~ ~ ,~ _ ~.~~Ci' +~ _~1 e ah~ ~~\\~.,~._~ ~j ia. ~ `\\>r;~~y v•~ 4 ~ ~ r, ~~,t' i~' ~ti•~ ~'~ ~f - _~ v +• ~'{',.~ ter ~ \ '~ twt ~>• t`~,~ ~~~,1 ~hfi~~ ~~Y\'^~ L i r~~~' ~ :. t S' .4 rti•_.:.+:`=~~''~ ,~.:;~ .~ ~, ~ t" p ~- ,(,•.~~ ,r`. ~;, c\ x- ~1--....-.., e~ ~.. :t ~~"' x1 ~aa ~~'`~ ,;;.mot .a ,~il '~d \ b yx' r C:r ~ V. 11•^~ ~- ~•;C~~ ~7 ~ .~ ;! i ` xs-~ .:i.r 1 ~~.- .` 'y N ~~ .y `\ .t ~ ~ \+.~'-tom ~ ( ~~~ ~ ~• ,ty 1'~' l y '`. \ ~ Y i t S a ~/. i I L - ~ ;,~ ~ ,,,..~, ~,'~~ .+~, a ~ N ~ ? ~ , ~ ~' - iV , ~ S -- ~ . - - , ~ off ~'~ ! ~ ~:~ it ~, r~\ ~ ~~! ~ +~ r • ~ ~ \ ~~ ~ '.~ Via,: ~t'. / .- 'E •I -- ~'`ry L 1~~ y fF 1 : .y~,.1 j.~,~y+! \t { ~ •. vy °c ~, J.J• ,,~~f/,\'=~ \ "s l.gix A~ ~ ~ i ~ jl7~~i l/s •Nx ~ }yt~~ ~~ ~ T ~~!~ 1 ~ ' ~~•'"° ~ C --i ~ . ~ I c<` J~ .S'~~ ~~~ ~/ lei /1, l f. i `~ I ~; ~~ j '1 ifll ,, \~ `\ ' APPEN~ ' ~` -_ -1- ~__..__.......~y". ..a t, .r_ ~ - - .~-- 11 111 /~~' ~ Y , 1 ~ •^ ~~ 211 111 // i 111 ~ 1121 ~' E~ PI V~ j - \. I1 '~ ' •. Q • \/1 it ~ i~~1 { 21 ~ ~Lp3ir ~ a ~ ,rte. .:-- ~ eo ~> ~~ ~ ~ ~/ S •ei.~ a ~ ~l i ice' • ,~;~~ J ll ~~ ~t ^r~:~ /~Y,`, ~ 7 1 !~ / •••• O' \ ~ o ~~j 1 'o i Vi r,P ~r~ u~`- ' ` C .. ~5 .mot 'a ' r ~r\. \,.~ ~ t E • ~1 -~" ~ ~.rf r- j~_-~,Cp \ ~ E " ~,~ , •~ L / .r ~pt ~ " r \~i 'Lp ` ".-~f` :. FFF, y ',,`~ , ~..+ ~." 111 •. ~ o'~ . ,.Yx c'"~;, `~ ~~~~~~',%~ \ ~ • ~ ` _ i• 0.,a Cf .~.~ E T,V N• ~ o \i .1\i \ * '.. v o 7 '~~iv ~ /•/~i+ "~ ,~: ; ~t'` • L 'L z ~ - •- ~s S • 4 `\ •w ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ • ~.e~l. `\ qr j~ ~ • 6 ' ~ } ~ ~[~ r~~'/ y{y t • ~ r • ry F • 7- t 'ri ti ~ ' ~ '1 ~ ~ c t ' ~ ~~~ ~ ~ t. ~ ~ r ~ . Y • ~ ~ ~~ 7, b ~' :~: ~ ^` ~ r~ E'e i. • e o ~ t. -\``J L~ ~ ~~x s<~ ~~ ,\/'y • \t' i~ '6 li F+.. •-` Dr. ,\(~•\ t i~ •i~pr a.J`/}~i y'~\S ~ '-\• L^ ,.(OV~a(. ~a '~ 1~~r ~V~ '6 ~ 'o~~\~~ ~.~ ~~ •'o(S .•T1D T ~.~ i> > ~ h p _ E ;' ~(\` .t 5• E ~ ~ w ~% ~ `i~ ~~ ~~.. C,r } \" ~''~~. r •",' :.,•~ ~ o~G " it '~C ~`sl~F ~ 6 s~ ~ E ~ y \ ///~~~ N ^ ~~a ~ ~ ~~ ~ oo ~ ~ Pr. T \ ° r• € r' "' `- ~ T'O`,.•.• s \ f\~i' :.PNSLry t s E " ~ \ s ^ ° ~„j4 '~ r~^%\ ~~ : n- a~`~ _- ~1 \ ~~~b.~ T_f~--, t\ N• M ~~~~ (pp~~ '` ~, r~ 6 ~ ~ ~~E~ ~ ! ~~_~u'S ~~ i t~~ 5 Ort ~t F. -''{ • \ _ O ~ T f e~ • \ ~ ~ \., 1. ~rHf . ~ Y~)~ rri ' o6w \ \ \i \ ~ \ `'\ y("yy r • SP V E P~~ ~ ~S/ { 1 -.~~. \r n i `~J s ~jF ~\ ~\ \ ! t . ` \~•\• \ r\t, .. ~ ~...~ Z1 N ` \,wu•~~ ,\ ~ ( ~ ~ ..., r ~ jr E '`, Mp Qo ~i°~ ~y ice, 't. ~ ~ 1\,•\" ~ ~,Y- 1, i ~ - ~ •~ e(~ ~rr e. r `t•• N r ,~ „ r f lla7• c i ~yy oo,~~'(~\~ .a ,. ~. ~3 =~\• \ r\t~ b p, ~ p - _ ^ • 1. t,,"SO t 2 (\ ~ y" !~ IT A.u1 r 1 ..~iv+ u :~\i ~\•r r. ~ - t ~- t ~ `~rE~ ~ ", •° ~+ " ~, ,~a/b~~ C' 1- ~. ~r ..... Z w b .s+ L r • a \ ~,C "l' c :J~ C V i T Q~ \ \,,`• •• °i' Jr S -~' 1~ _/ 1 ~ `Nj~ `S~~~ /~,~ • '(~' 0.0 ~~i~7/~/y~ 1 / 1 J i t l O~P •.r=~~~•~ +?' --( S'• ~ a '~.'t\°jt P~F\ ./ r,V '1•\~,rf•y \g~~ ~',XR r 1T~-~~P` p~±~+ ~~~- ~~~~ v\Y'r !V\`' • - ~ "f.~t t-p(,'i~ ..~a~ \I •l~ p\:\'~ •E_•~r"v ~•,~.~ ~~r .^' y.~r~~1~Q./\`~.~' + ~,) ,,~,ti, M.1r `_ \ •b ;~.~! ~ "sa Ewa ~ ! .~ ~'~~OJ~`~• ~ s'\\i.~f-~ -~~^'•• y ~ ~ ~ ,_ b -+ ~ • •i; •,.E S ~ 4 ~ _ p r ~.. • \d`~" ~ 6°.,~~_G\ r, i"' (1 r •~ ....~ ~r•D- "i ` "yt Et"" ~1... * " 7E' ~ i 'u :l ~ ~.~ '~...~ .\p ~LS~1 \.\~\v';~'`~\ ~~ +'a 'w. ;~ •s p~. ~` \~ r _ - t• . ^ -" ,r.L ... h ~ ~ /'' y u u ?y~ ~~\~ rO "•• ~~~"fl ~ir •V r~ 'M l \i\\ e 2 THOMAS d `/,(,•. ~ , v+ E 7. ~~'. b"R - • r•; 'r, irr mot: l r -l i r i 1 ~ " ~ wt ~ • D Y~. O ' `'c •~r` r 'r X" •* ~ t ~m •. 2 r frt. J Oi~! . K• .\~ ~.~ r=~ - ' • E ~.ib,iT'.fy) ~ '" S P 1, b r~d .S~ 00 ~ ~ d . • b '• j r C • r ~ "r • I u ~ ".gyp-try'{ p%"~°,O g . i ~~ 'p rr • • ~ ri t. • SY r,r ~ `• o~Q-,A q;~y,~ _ s ~r L ~ ~.. -~~ + ~• o~ i a• ti ~ -~ j ..-~ TY . i~ ~ : ~ i~~TT ~ oiNi ~it~ 4 i~ = O t. ~~I`Q ~ •.. 't y • - ~ ~ P T G t 4 RI[ ~~ • ~ ' r +1IM t'• t` ~ ~ 7 d G.' MA,wCS I -1 a 1, q ~ o~ - -~ ~~T-- -, T • ; •l ~, B to ~ a 1; o o. ~r,. k. I r i i ~ - ' . • `. t,i K±` ,y,~:~Milr~"wt^ ~:,~» p \,. .s.--.~t+`p9tir"\•.; . a:% lam'` ~~ C~yY~ y _ ~ ~ r/ • ~a~ ~~\ • ~s`,1 c {r - -'~ ~~ °;•• 2' 1 APPENDIX B2. Questionnaire Map 2 = ~,. _,-, - ,~, •• tti,. . A\At, +f' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j '"~ttM \t • ~. ' `Za '~~~t ~ 1 r •~' ~ ~~ w \ ,.gyp, \ o rW ' i ... ;• ~ ~~1Yti '' ~, _ ~ \, f • `ice ~3 (%a A M ~_ w ~, 0 0 ~ 0 .~ d ~, ~, m ~ ~ a, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o • ~ ~ O - O •d ~ O O N b O N U~ O U ~ U) O 3 4-I O N •r-I -f-~ +-~ ~ -F~ ct3 .~ ~-I .o O ~ N -f~ .~ N ~ •rl U +~ ct3 ~ ~d m ~ ~ ~ .o , ~ o i ~ a~ ~ ~ rd '~ ~ v°i ~ x ~ ~ o o 7 a~ r~ +~ v ~ •~ ~ v~ m ~ m a~ ~ o a~ ° •~ ~ ' o ~ ~ m +~ o ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ o ~ x ~ m ~ c 0 o x x z ~ o zn z ~ ~ z cz c~ a A + t of- ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 00 0 +- o ^ ^o ~ SURROUNDING THE PAR oo°o n ^ o ^a a ^ ^ ~ ^o ^ a ^o o a pa ^ ONE BLOCK AWAY t oa • ^ • [] TWO BLOCKS AWAY ^ ^ THREE BLOCKS AWAY a a FOUR BLOCKS AWAY TOTAL 3 5 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 10 2 1 24~ i APPENDIX C. Resident Questionnaire Responses; LEGEND: Years Lived in the Neighborhood Do you like the way the park is designed ~ - 0-2 ^ - 5-10 ~- 20-30 now? Affirmatives O - 2-5 ^ - 10-20 ~}-- 30 + ~ ~~ a~ x ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ A a U] ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ +' U1 c d .~ U] ~ a, ~ a~ x N U1 U N .n b ~ ~ +~ ~ ~ 3 b O ~ ~ ~ N ~I U ~-I N N ~ ~ t7D ~I cH ~~ " -I '~" N U ' ~ ~ ' C •rl r -N ~ ~ ~-I c!Z ~ U2 Ja -N ~" i~ cd ~ rl - I c4 r -1 'Ci ,~ U1 ~ (d rl O ~I O cd O O O ~ ~ U] ° U] ° ~ .~ cd ~~rl ~ -I~ x cd ~, a H w ~ w z ~ H z z ~ U rn ~O ~ A ,L ~}- } ^ II A O } } ~ SURROUNDING THE PARK ^ !~ a^ NE BLOCK AWAY 0 0 0 0 0 BLOCKS AWAY EE BLOCKS AWAY t Q d OUR BLOCKS AWAY TAL 5 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX D. Resident Questionnaire Do you like the way the now? Negatives Responses; park is designed LEGEND ~ - 0-2 o - 2-5 Years Lived ~ - o - in the Neighborhood 5-io ~ - 20-30 10-2o t - 30 + ~ ' a x 'a w o 'ti ~ .o m ~ ~ cn aki A ~ ' ~ ~' a~ Q ~ Q' ~ +~ ~ t .~ v ~ o 4 0 ~ ~ ~ O ~ -~ cad ~+ U •~ ' ~ ,~ ~ ~ P ~ a~ p a~ ~ o P ~ ~ a 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ a ~ ~ .,. , ~ . i a x xx ~ r s a~ '~ r i a i ~ c d R~ P-~ ~ -+~ m 4 i rd -+~ 2s •~I ~ A r-I ~ o ~ ~ 0 ~ o ~ a~ 3 rd r-I v .~ a~ r-I v •rl v •a ~ N a i A .k ' ,~ ~ d ~ ~ •rl ,-~ ~O •~ P~ -N ~ ~ ~ +~ ~ +~ ~ .o ho a~ N ~ ~ ~ o P ~ W +~ ~ a~ ~ o ~ 4 o m ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .n 3 a~ ~ v p ~ ,a -N P -N a ~ P o ~ cd -a • • • m +~ ~ a •~ •~ .~ a ~f ~ 4o •d a~ ~ a cd P ~ ~ > b ~ ~ zt a~ rd rd > m o ~ ~ ~ y ~' ~ o ~n ~ ~ i ~ ~ o ~ o ~ m z w a a o z > x 0 z 0 z 0 ~ 0 ~ 2i •~ 3 +~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o ' •~ c d z a ~ ~ ~ A Q ~ ~ ~ ~ a SURROUNDING THE PARK oo~ ^ ~.D •d w ~n • ~ opt ~ ~- o^ •a ~. ~ to w ^r ~^ •a o p o+- o • r • o t ^r s r w~ an ^c +}- w ^~ ao ~t o ^^ ^ o ~+ ~ ~ ONE BLOCK AWAY + TWO BLOCKS AWAY w A OD t• pQ O O ~ n ~~ p ~ a~ t o ^ ^+ ~ THREE BLOCKS AWAY D 0 D FOUR BLOCKS AWAY TOTAL 6 2 8 9 6 1 2 2 8 1 2 1 9 1 1 1 2 2 7 tirr~;ivlil.~ ~. xesiaent questionnaire Responses; What sort of changes would you recommend for the, park? LEGEND: Years Lived in the Neighborhood • - 0-2 ' - 5-10 ~- - 20-30 o' - 2-5 0 - io-zo -~ - 30 + a~ ~ a~ o ~ o ~ t,~ V ~ ~ a~ ~ b 3 o ~ 1 ~i U d ~ ~ •r N C ~ ~ ~ 'rj ~ cd ~ rd ~ ~ ~ ~ O • U] ~ I ~d a ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ c~ x ~ SURROUNDING THE PARK o~~ et '• i~ po + D ONE BLOCK AWAY O A ^ i-D TWO BLOCKS AWAY A }~ THREE BLOCKS AWAY D FOUR BLOCKS AWAY TOTAL 1 7 3 1 5 13 --, APPENDIX F. Resident Questionnaire Responses; LEGEND: Years Lived in the Neighborhood What do you think about the city's • - 0-2 * - 5-10 ~ - 20-30 maintenance of the paxk? Affirmative o - 2-5 n - 10-20 -~- - 30 + a~ .~ ~ ° ~ ~ N - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ S-i ~ a, ~ rl s ri i-~ ,~ ~ ~ , ~-I '.r.' U Ul ~D ~ ~ U 9 N ~ ~ +' ~ ~ ~ ~ 9) •~ zt I " ~ .~ ~ ~ a~ a~ ~ -~ ~ ~ o •~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ai ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~i rd m b ~ ~ ~d. •d a~ - ~ o Tt •~ > ~ ~ ~ cd a~ o 0 .~ 0 0 3 N m ~ o .~ ~ o o •~ ~ ~ a~ .o .o o ..0 0 SURROUNDING THE PARK o a ~ +^ t oa s a +- ^s + o ^ ao ^+ a a ^t o ^ a ^ q^ +o ONE BLOCK AWAY + ^ v a ^ TWO BIACKS AWAY f i- + ~ THREE BLOCKS AWAY UR BLOCKS AWAY OTAL 5 ~ 3 2 2 3 3 i 2 3 ~ 3 ~ 1 1 2 APPENDIX G. Resident Questionnaire Responses; LEGEND: Years Lived in the Neighborhood What do you think about the city's • - 0-2 ^ - 5-10 I, - 20-30 maintenance of the park? Negatives p - 2~5 O - 10-20 -+- - 30 + .,~ o ~ -~ ~' .~ .~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ b ~ . a~ s~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ rl ri N + •ri ~ N d S;"y r-I r I r-I ri 3 O l r-i P-i 4-i O P ` .`~ ~ !!2 U P, cd ,~ U 3 U FAD ~I .~ F-i ~ +~ c3 f f] O ~ -N P U~ rd - N 1 N ~ N U (~ f'-I +~ r 4-~I rd U] b =1 , ~ O l I O 3 VI r-I +~ S-I t,.^. O ~-1 ~ r-I N ~d O ~ -1 •r-I Ul ~ ' ' f-I U O O •r-I ~ I ~ O '~' l rd -I ~-I -N ~ ~ I f-I cd f- ' ri l • rl ti' f O • l r rl O O t3p O ~ -1~ f~ O U ' 4-I ~ S~ rl ~ ,.C h0 A -f U7 ~, O cd 4--I - 4-i r P r ,~". - t3U H . O r 3 ~ r U~ 9 +~ ''d U f~ •r-I -I U .k .~ •rl N ~ ~ ~ h0 ~ H 3 W ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ W ~ 3 ~ 3 3 U ~ P ~ ~ U ~ x ~ ~ ~ 3 P -i W P W -~ P -i V ] G + s d ~ s® b o os o t + t- t- +D o r •r ^ a o r ~ ~r p i o n SURROUNDING THE PARK ~o ~o ~ I Q~ /t ^ • + ^ ao ~ ~ •~ D ONE BLOCK AWAY D ~- O / ^ ^ TWO BLOCKS AWAY ~ a THREE BLOCKS AWAY FOUR BLOCKS AWAY TOTAL 8 1 1 3 2 4 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 APPENDIX H. Resident Questionnaire Responses; To what extend to you use the paxk? LEGEND: Yeaxs Lived in the Neighborhood ~ - o-z w - 5-io ,- - 20-30 o - z-5 a - to-zo + - 30 + 'sr b 0 ~ ~ ~ a '~ . an ~ a, t0 cd (d ~-I V] p -N U p U P~ ~ cd ~ Q ~ O ~ O ~+ ~ •~ O ~ (d ~ N p N O •r i N ~ ~-I ~ ~-I ~ ~ ~ •O cd ~ '~ N +~ ~ r -I -N • R3 U ] ~ -I W ~d O 4-~ ~ N N U] ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ cd O U rd 4 -i +~ 43 Q -1 ~ u] O r -I a O ~-I N +~ +~ N ~-I N 4i ~ •r-I O O O O U] -+~ ~ a ~ a~ a~ ~ .~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ a ~ b ~ -~ m m a, ~ ~ ~ ~ +~ -~ ~ a~ ~ a~ v ~, +~ a~ m ~ a ~ '~ ~ a~ i ~ m O ~ o ~ m o v o + . ~ a~ ~ + x cd ~ H ~ v •~ 0 0 o .o x ~ H Z ~ U] L5 U] ~ x Cz. U W P-~ ~ Z x +~ SURROUNDING THE PARK ^ ~ i0O ~ ^ • tt -~ ^ o 0 0 ~ o o ~ a ~+• pro ^ o O X• 00 ONE BLOCK AWAY o ^ +~ oo ^ ^ o 0 TWO BLOCKS AWAY a THREE BLOCKS AWAY b FOUR BLOCKS AWAY TOTAL 5 3 6 10 7 ~ 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 5 2 ~ APPENDIX I. Resident Questionnaire Responses; LEGEND: Yeaxs Lived in the Neighborhood How does the paxk affect the neighborhood? • - 0-2 w - 5-10 ~- - 20-30 o - 2-5 0 - io-zo + - 30 + a~ 0 a~ l ~ N rd U ~ ' O r N ~ cd ~ CB P-i ri N ~ +~ ~ ~ Ul E10 b -N O F-I + .O ya U O N ~ U ~ U] ~ •rl «cadd •rl •~-I U1 rd •~-I O -+~ cd +~ ,O O y-~ O ~ a+ a ~ o a ~ ~, +~ ~d •~ ~ -+~ ~ .~ m ~ ~ ca +~ o •~ +~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a~ v ca ~ •~ a~ o a ~ a~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ .~ o .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ o a~ ~ ~ ~ a~ a~ ~ m ~ o - a~ ~ b ~ +~ v •~ o ~ ~ a~ o ~ ~ +~ o ~ ~ a~ o ~ +~ m R .~ 4p ~ +~ a~ ~a ~ ~ m ~ 4 +~ ~ a~ no rd ~ v ~ a~ . N •~ +~ ~ a~ v c~ O a~ 5 ~ 3 o P~ o +~ ~ •,~ ~ ~a ~ N ~ m a~ ~ o o ~ ~ 4i LY 'Z. LU3 H P~-~ O ~ ~ ~ PN-I Z ~" O Li •r-I f-I ..O r-I O O SURROUNDING THE PARK •~ : o 4 00 t f~ {- 00 .~ ^ ^O O O A N^ } O O O O w 0 .rp +o p t no ~r D r r~ to of D ONE BLOCK AWAY ~o D D w D{- OD ~ TWO BLOCKS AWAY + a wt t r THREE BLOCKS AWAY FOUR BLOCKS AWAY TOTAL 12 1 7 4 4 4 7 1 2 1 5 2 2 5 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 APPENDIX J. Resident Questionnaire Responses; Do you think the park has a "function" or "purpose" in the way it exists now? LEGEND: Yeaxs Lived in the Neighborhood - 0-z ^ - 5-io • - 20-30 o - 2-5 n - io-zo + - 30 + 8 1 LITERATURE CITED 1. Bryan Eagle, The, "Paving in College Park...," Nov. 21, 1939. 2. Burchard, Mrs. C. W. Private Interview. September 18, 1976. 3. College Station City Council. Minutes of Regular Meeting, July 15, 1947. 4. Garner, Dwayne. Private Soil Conservation Service. Private Interview. 5. Langford, Ernest. Private Interview. September 7, 1976. 6. Park Lake, Transfer of Deed. Brazos County, Texas. July 15, 1947. 7. Schaffer, Ruth, Dr. Department of Sociology, Texas A&M Uni- versity. Private Interview. November 3, 1976. 8. Soil Conservation Service. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey, Brazos County Texas. Washington D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Off ice, June, 1958. 9. 'Southside Development Company. Minutes of all meetings. June 27, 1921 - July 15, 1947. 10. Wojciechowski, Paul, Director. Parks and Recreation Depart- ment, College Station, Texas. Telephone Interview, December 14, 1976.