HomeMy WebLinkAboutBrison Park 12/16/04
- .-
DEXTER PARK: A STUDY AND DESIGN OF THE PARK AREA
by
Elizabeth A. Lancaster
Lahdscape Architecture
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements-of the
University Undergraduate Fellows Program
1976 - 1977
Approved by:
May, 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, are 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-gatfiering 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
Park neighborhood who had enough interest in the
park and their neighborhood to get involved and
enough trust in me to share their thoughts.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEXTER PARK:
A STUDY AND DESIGN OF THE PARK AREA .
3
I. INTRODUCTION.
4
II . HYroTHESIS .
4
III. TASKS.
A. Collection of Data.
1. Historical Background .
2. Site Inventory.
a. Topography .
b. Vegetation.
c . Soil.
d. Climate.
B. Observation of the Park .
C. Questionnaires and Interviews .
1. Needs of the residents.
2. Needs of the users.
3. Needs of the service and maintenance.
5
5
5
7
7
9
.11
.11
. 12
. 13
. 13
. 18
. 18
IV. DATA ANALYSIS .
A. Dexter Park Meets the Needs of the Near-by
Residents .
B. Dexter Park Meets the Needs of the Park Users .
C. Dexter Park Meets the Needs of Maintenance and
Service Requirements.
V. HYroTHESIS CONCLUSIONS.
VI. PROGRAM ELEMENTS.
. 20
. 21
. 27
. 29
. 30
. 30
VII.
VIII
VIII.
DESIGN CONCEPT.
. 31
REDESIGN OF DEXTER PARK .
A. Specified Parking Areas .
B. Prohibit Motorbikes .
C. Provide Additional Vegetation Plantings .
D. Locate Trash Containers .
E. Provide a Picnic Area.
F. Provide Maintenance of the Existing Bridge.
G. Redesign the Creek Channel.
H. Provide Additional Access Across the Creek.
I. Regrade Drainage Problem Areas.
· 33
. 35
'0 37
. 38
.40
.40
. 41
.44
.46
.46
IX. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM.
A. Insect and Disease Control ,
B, Pruning Program,
C. Mowing Schedule.
D. Fertilization Program.
X. CONCLUSIONS.
LIST OF FIGURES:
1. Original Park 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
Neighborhood .
3. Suggested Low-growing Underbrush.
4. Suggested Special Effect Trees
APPENDIX
A. Resident Questionnaire .
Bl. Questionnaire Map 1.
B2. Questionnaire Map 2.
C. Resident Questionnaire
D. Resident Questionnaire
E. Resident Questionnaire
F. Resident Questionnaire
G. Resident Questionnaire
Responses .
Responses .
Responses .
Responses .
Responses .
. ..
46
46
46
46
47
4?
6
8
10
14
15
16
19
32
J4
35
36
36
37
38
41
41
42
42
42
43
44
45
45
24
Their
26
39
. . . 40
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
.,
H.
I.
J.
Resident Questionnaire Responses .
Resident Questionnaire Responses .
Resident Questionnaire Responses .
LITERATURE CITED
........ II
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
48
48
48
3
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 Park 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 Park is providing adequate facilities for the people is
to be determined by analyzing how those people view the park. 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 park area,
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 ~ 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 anyone of the three elements
is not fulfilled, the hypothesis is disproved and a subsequent redesign of
the park becomes appropriate.
\
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 park.9 Dexter Park 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 Souths ide Development-Company could
legally permit its destruction.l The park was posted against hunt-
ing and fishin~,and the CQtting of shrubs and trees was prohibited
unless done under the supervision of the Board of Director~9
In July, 1939, under orders from Texas A&M College President
T. O. 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 malaria epidemic occuring throughout 0
the United States at this time~~ Likewise, the lake at Hensel Park
was drained as well as were any other large 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
~
6
COLLEGE PARI(
A PHOTOGRAPHIC REPRODUCTION OF THE MAP OF COLLEGE PARK,
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS.
BRAZOS COUNTY TEXAS DEED RECORDS, VOL. 3B, PAGE 602-05
...
r.>
-.j
~
~
~
'\
~
.---.
-=-='~ ""-\,
t' ~ ~ &; ~ ~
':: I
~ ~
'! ,
~ '/
~
I
I
I
..
o
r~'--.-~._:;;-._---~_._.::-.
. ... (). <.J ,:, ._~., ,~ ~
. ... ... ~ . .. ...I( ......0
0- ,. oJ. ...
~
>
~ J.:I.:iId.J.S ~!/l~
-' ......,
____""'t;~ lIDP
--
~ ~
h. ~: fH-
..
'. i~~-
~
..
~
..
i'. '1-'
,.tf.~
(;fJ"
~
Po
I ."
i-~-
I t~~., It
I.~ ~
i l(
I ~,. 101
I 1(J Cl
,. ~
iii
,
~.
, .
..
s
"
/
~c\......
/
...'
i ,.
. ., 'Il
.
~ \)
.. 0
-J
~
: ,
#tI,.
I
I
I
I
,- R .... : -,
..L3..~-LS" ~ ^J:::I~:i1; . . i"" (
~ ~..: :,::,,;",.-~.~~!
v' fit o..~ ...~ ,.. "..
~ ~. ~ ~
i6 ':/.1, .. ~ ~ ....' ~ I
I.M.... ~ ' J~
..~ '.. ~ '$. , ~ ~
;:. , Q: ....
. Q: ~~ ~
~.. I( ,
.. C) !" ~
~.. -r' I~ Ill..
(O~.~ '
J.:33UJ$ ~ ",,:iSU:3r
~
,
:t
It)
~
I.J
~ ~
~ '
"
~ ~
"
:!
~
!!
~ ~ {.
~ ~
~ c z ,
FIGURE 1. Original Park
KEEP THIS MAP FOR YOUR GUIDE IN CHOOSING YOUR lOT,
7
On July 15, 1947, the park in the College Park. Subdivision was
sold to the City of College Station for a sum of $20~00.9 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
~eneral, should the area contain any unsightly objects or permanent
buildinGS 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 are 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 take~.
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.
....
tt
~j
P<
ell
::E:
>,
. .c
NP<
ell
ggtb
~ 0
0P<
H 0
~E-<
}/.
~
I
0'"
.(i
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), Quercus st~llata (Post Oak), Juniperus virginiana
(Eastern Redcedar), with a few scattered Quercus nigra (Water
Oak) and Celtis ~aevigata. (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 Quercus nigra (Water Oak), especially at
the south end of the park along the creek. Underbrush mainly
consists of Ilex vomitoria (Yaupon) and Ligustrum texanUffi
(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 veTy 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
r--T ---r---T-- :
I I i "10
I I I \' _
i : I i I ~ r
r j I I {
i I r I~'
. I I ~
-- - .l___L-__-L-.c__ Q
I
~ ta;;(j~ i '!
1
--n____n i
- __ - ----I
~
~j
~
::.::
s::
. 0
C""\or-i
+>
rzl rn
gs~
o till
H Q)
P<.>
~
~
I
o
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 e~-
sive nature of the soils.4., 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 50o-80oF, with extremes ranging from OOF in the
winter.months to 1100F 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 pa~sive 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 tre~s along West Dexter St. are fur-
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
nQ structure on it and is intended to remain so, according to the
owner of the property.
C. Questionnaires and Interviews
Q,uf):.;tionnairen and interviews were used 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
..__ ___L
.
..
'"
~)
\1
~
____I
,-1---
I I d)
~ ~ ~ ~
6~~~~~~
-1 ~~~~~~f
I G~tt
~
'Jc., ~oo !
~1.
P<
CIl
::;:::
. en
..::T CIl
g@~
~
t!J Q)
H en
rx.~
___n_j
- - --- - __---.J
~
~
~
~
o
~j
p.
CIl
::<::
rn
CIl
<ll
.~
. <:/
\t\~
fi1~
:::>,0
~ 0
~~
~
~
~
o
\\
II
I"
1\
r\ -rt'~\A
/,\,
,/ 'I
1/ '\
I II
~-;I :'j
~ ,U
~ -9~
, -.::-
I
,
I
"I
I I
, \
, I
I,
1\
I I
II
II
I,
II
II
II
II.
\.- -
16
.D
~ !
~ ,I ,
...~
::=j
~,a
; I;;
. '.
.
!
~
r
~
..
"
~
---
.,.,- -
1..-'" #
~#
.. ....
-----
FIGURE 6.
Questionnaire Zone Map
~
..---.. -
.
'.
".
.
, I
"
I'
I
.........
17
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 are 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?
d
5.) To what extent "0 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
are 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
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 park'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. A more 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, a cross-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!O 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?
4.) How often is it mowed1
5.) Where do you store the equipment?
\\
\\
\,
\\
r\ -rrJ'^"^
\ \
, .
, ,
\..
~
\ ,
II
,I
I'
, ,
/ I
//
/ /
c::::J
o
C:::1
'c,.
"at.
il
:1
I
I
;:i"
. ,I
'.
~q
.
~Ii
n
I..
i'l
"'
Ii
, I
~: I
J !
tl I 4. \,., .1 .\
~ ~~.' .~.'~'~.~
I'~. "\~~ --~"- .
.' .
" .' . '"
. f''..'\'~V1>~ .,..'
!
~
r
-;.
..
"
~
~-
. ...--.
-----..
~' .
-"""," ,....
of Residents Questioned
.."'--
.
..
l.
.,.
,
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. Finally, the closest parks to t~~are Fairview Street
Park, the .Little League Park, located a~ 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).
IV. 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.
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 38%)
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, are responses generated entirely by the resident.
1 . Parking wi thin 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 i~ upon them-
selves to pick up the trash. The trash problem is definitely one
which affect~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 park 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 are 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 park. Otherwise stated,
this problem is one which concerns a broad group of residents, both
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
inabili ty 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.
24
13. Leave park as is
To thoroughly study the near-by residents and their needs, this
final category should be analyzed as far. as the problems with the
park 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 fr~m 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 park
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 Park 6 11
One Block Away 2 9
Two Blocks Away 2 6
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-
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 and 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.
26
e. No Function
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-Qy
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:
Distance from Park
No. Who Included
Park in Neighborhood
Total No.
Interviewed
Surrounding the Park
One Block Away
Two Blocks Away
Three Blocks Away
Four Blocks Away
10
5>
5
1
1
11
9
6
2
1
TOTAL
22
29
TABLE 2. Residents Who Included Park
in Their Neighborhood
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
park as part of the neighborhood.
The impact of these data relate to where people are 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 area
heard about the park from persons living near-Qy. 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,
28
3. ) More level areas,
4.) Too much tall underbrush in major use areas,
5.) Poor creek conditions, and
6.) Red ants.
1 . Addi tional 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 park
Access problems to the park exist in the form of parking. A
majority of the users are concerned about the decision of where to
park their cars when coming to the park so,they will not harm the
vegetation, or are 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 area of concern is a large 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
29
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 Park meets the needs of the users--is FALSE.
C. Dexter r.1.rk Mccb the Needs of Maintenance and Service Requirements
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 are' 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, cleared 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.
30
3. Grass mowing
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
requi~ements--is FALSE.
V. HYPOTHESIS CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis of the threesubhypothesis 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 subhypothesls 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 motorbikes
C. Provide additional vegetation plantings,
D. Locate trash containers
E. Provide picnic area
31
F. Redesign.the existing bridge,
G. Provide additional access across the creek,
H.Redesign the creek channel, and
I. Regrade dr9inage 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 CONCEPl'
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 Parking 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 area.
'):; j}l[l;l I
.--'-----.......
: I
1 ... 1
,
i
~ H;1a::l~ I
------__ n ]
~ - -._ __----.J
~j
+>
Pi
(])
<:)
s::
. 0
COo
P:l s::
P=:bD
~.r-l
o en
H (])
r:<.~
'.tL
~
~
~
~
o
33
E. Provide Picnic Area
A picnicking area will be provided ina shaded, level to gently
rolling area near West Dexter Street, to be located in close proximity
to the parking area.
F. Redesign Existing Bridge
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. Regrade 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 park, both day and
night. This maintenance program should be on a yearly basis, with a
set schedule for all seasons of the year 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 solutio~ will be compared with alternatives. Refer to Figure
9 for the overall design plan of the park.
..
;-
'"
t .
I
I
I
-,
; I
,
- I
11 . .--
I, '
I ~-------'
i I I
lit
I f-- - - I
I ---~
I' I
, I
I '
, I
- __--.J
~
~1
..
@
~~
~~
:::> .r-!
o (J)
H Q)
rx.~
ro
35
A. Specified Parking 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).
P\H\'jJ1
~. 'I- I~u ~~ WL:f
e-)(8" Mll..Wt.><O l1e
~ 1"""'\'0"
FIGURE 10. Parking Area Curbing
Alternative one would be to place telephone po~es 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 charac-
ter of the park.
36
f z.' 011 O,G:r-
I I
f1N\~ 0f<Wt,
., ,
~OHf, rOLe0 ttV<1f,O
z..'Q' U41Q ~OUND
'j' I
.0' ;//
'!'
! /
i \{
:
~
1~lIc
~:~"~IIOII
FIGURE 11. Alternative One
Parking Solution
Alternative two would be to widen West Dexter Street into a two-
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 lan~ as the
widened street, curb and gutter alternative. The railroad ties are
less expensive than the complete upgrading of West Dexter Street, also.
~1110"
~~ Y0'Pl'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 legai action would be a
system of punishing persons who seem to be purposefully abusing the
park 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 park 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 comPletJ1 bar motorbikJ- 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 similar to the existing sign located on
Dexter Drive and be visually pleasing (see Figure 14).
10'0" t-
~P~Le
~w-lltfO 'Oreel-
cti\IN ..
f1Ha\ ~
I
==11\f:;11
XAL..e~ ~1I.......lloA
FIGURE 13. Motorbike Prohibition Solution
38
~He fDLf,
i
I
~r;" o.c,.
t-
I
C(fRe,OO ~,~
'I /
(;II(-~ t?~J(:m~_~~ I
\\ . _~-=--=:_~~_f~K--=:-::::-=.-
\ -- --. ----- ---
, \
.~ -MOW",:\""UovJ ~ ,,-.
~.. -,,,,.~,
'. " \
=-
\)
~
Ol'~ 'Olet4
~l'e1H
~~ y~ ~)'o'\
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 repfacement
program for the underbrush which is cleared 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 inh'G(~1.".Ced are
shown in Table 3. The shrubs chos81l from this list. which are best suited
as low-growing understory include: Ilex vomitoria cv. Dwarf (Dwarf Yaupon),
Rubus trivialis (Southern Dewberry), Lonicera japonica chinensis (Purple
.39
Japanese Honeysuckle), Parthenocissus QuinQuefolia (Virginia Creeper),
Hypericum frondosum (Golden St.Johnswort), and Symphoricarpos 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
Ceanothus americanus
Gelsium sempervirens
Hypericum frondosum
Itea virginica
Lonicera japonica chinensis
Mahonia trifoliolata
Myrica pus ilIa
Parthenocissus quinquefolia
Rubus trivialus ,
Symphoricarpos orbiculatus
Viburnum acerifolium
Eastern Baccharis
Jersey tea Ceanothus
Carolina Jessamine
Golden St. Johnswort.
Virginia Sweetspire
Purple Japanese Honeysuckle
Laredo Mahonia
Dwarf Waxmyrtle
Virginia Creeper
Southern Dewberry
Indiancurrent Coralberry
Mapleleaf Viburnum
I
4 ft.
2-4 ft.
2t-4 ft.
4 ft.
3 ft.
3-4 ft.
4 ft.
2t ft.
1-2 ft.
It-2 ft.
2-5 ft.
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 park 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 languinosa (Woollybucket Bumelia), Diospyros texana (Texas Per-
simmon), Fraxinus affiericana (White Ash), Juniperus virginiana (Eastern
Redcedar), Morus rubra (Red Mulberry), Quercus nigra (Water Oak) and
Ulmus affiericana (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'.' These locations are 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 ~ist to be planted in the
park include: Cercis texana (Texas Redbud) and Malus angustifolia
(Southern Crabapple).
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
HEIGHT
SPECIAL
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
40 ft.
35 ft.
35 ft.
25 ft.
25 ft.
25 ft.
Pink.flwrs.
Whi te fl wrs .
White/pink flwrs.
White/pink flwrs.
Pink fl wrs .
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 or" the trash containers is shown in Figure 15. 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 ~ Picnic Area
The location of the picnicking area is shown in Figure 9. Consist~
ing of a level area 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
'0'011
1"<<0"
41
, tX'l ~O.
::-
~
t::..
,..... ]) .
en
~
~L.e: 'B"::>\'O"
FIGURE 15. Trash Container Design
'Zk:il
I
-
.SJ
l!\
i
I
I
""
-
C>
SJ<-n
\:V
I
\ tu:.\1A..nON
ecA.t.e: ~/e~:::.\'O'\
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 compa ti bili ty with the naturalness of the park. Two al terna ti ves 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 J1aintenance of the Existing Bridge
"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 ne~ lumber to reduce future decay, rot and splintering.
. ~.
42
IO-tu
'4-'&11
'l.1~1I t"
1
Co '0 II
--t
co
c;Q
R\t-10
RNO fOCff-
--._---~~.- - ----, -~~ ........... ......,
,
!
/
'--~----- --~::-, ". ....,... "," ,,'
I
,I
~A110N.. ...
E(Al.e" .'9B'I~\ 10 II
FIGURE 17. Picnic Table Design
~toLI
t
Q..'f.IO ~--1
\l\K~~
SWlOH
~ ,%"~1101\
FIGURE 18.
etfAJ M'\ 0 N
~~ ~i1t:. \ 10 1\
Alternative
One Picnic Table
f
~IO'1
.c " .
=.' ,
C9NCR~
t:U:.-\tAnON
f:(ALe.: o/BI\~\ '0'1
f
FIGURE 19. Alternative
Two'Picnic Table
43
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 d~sign element for the bridge will be
I
a sign affixed to the bridge denoting its name, "Billy Goat Bridge. II
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..
FlZor 0Gf:0
~WD E:>lZ\~
BN'fmH& GO~O\~
5~ hND ~ .
CUUJ~
~: ~el-::;:.l\OIl
'.1 ;)
'/
FIGURE 20. Redesign of Existing Bridge
,.
)
44
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 water 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 qulvert.
l-.
1'?11~0 CDHe-, ?LAff?
1'0 re- l\fMQ\J E;O
~1l 140 2.' {oIl aALf
CJ..lL..~er<r 10 ~\14
~'. ~~":;:..110"
FIGURE 21. Redesign of Creek Channel
"'
45
Two alternatives are shown in Figures 22 and 23. 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 areas, and most
importantly, would be more of a maintenance problem than the existing
structure.
!i.\l?T1 N6 COrJc., 'tJ..MP.,-n Be:...
Kf{tk:.eO kVeauD' coNe,
~AE;e, wML..
~1'?l1N& 2,'lo" ~ CUUleR:r
1O~N
~:~lo;:::.l'o'\
FIGURE 22. Alternative One Creek Channel
~' R~N1N& WN..L-
(0' 1UfZf WM
-BCB11H0 z'~I' ~
OU-\J~I 10 f\~\N
\' ~~~ ~'.:=:; \ '01\
FIGURE 23. Alternative Two Creek Channel
46
H. Provide Additional Access Across the Creek
Because of the proposed creek redesign, an additional structure will
not be needed (see Figure 21'). 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 bridGe on the north end of the park further supports its implementation.
I. Regrade 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 inclu~e 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 Park are 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
47
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-
sionsofhow 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
APPENDIX
A. Resident Questionnaire
Bj.' Questionnaire Map 1
B2. 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. Resiient Questionnaire Responses
J. Resident Questionnaire Responses
Family:
Ages:
Nembers:
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?
.1
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
.\ ,."
. y
\?>" ..' .~"
~b
~-
.?1
I I
I '
I !
...
APPENDIX B
I"
Questionnaire Map 1
'~
._.~
,-----..
/
I
r
-crJ'^\A
~<?
~:D
:.
~
;.
!
~
("
"
..
"
..
c:.
.",... -
~-
~..
~..
-",," .0..
Questionnaire Map
2
..
'.
-'
)f.red aqi- M
a)f1Ts1IT ~
)f.red aqi- a)f1'I 'ii8 I~~g ~
.00 N
UOrl- 'eU1~UI1 asn treD c M
tq'e.:r.:rai- :8U1=TTOH c c N
Ai-n'eaq re.:rni-'eN ~ 1;1;1 ~ 0
.4- C M
MOU .:rai-i-aq i-no pa.reaTD _ N
uea TD 0 c N
paz1T'e1o.:raUIUIoo i-oN II . N
po oq.:roqq:81 au JO i-U10d :8u1TTaS 0 N
.
Ma1A 'e saP1AOJ<[ 4- M
i-a1n'b . M
sa:8'e Tre Aq pasn 0 . N
sa.:mi-on.:qs ap'eUI-treUI oN 0 C"'\
0 .
A.:l:i-unoo Jreq-UMOi- JreH 0 N
.
Ai-1unUIUIOO qi-1M :8u1daa~ . M
uos'eas JO a:8ueqo uadO . M
spaau AT1urEJ si-1nS a c N
IIpau:81saplI i-ou ATreni-oV 4- r:I \I\
0 . .
ssauuado + 0 . c ~
)f.red pooq.:roqq:81au pooD + . 0 C"'\
.~ ~
p.j ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ Cf.l
~ ~ Cf.l
~ Cf.l 0 ~
~ ~ 0 0
~ 0 (.) H :3
:3 :3 p::)
:::> p::) ~
0 p::) p::) I%l !3
~ ~ 0 ~ ~
Cf.l 0 ~ ~ 8
rclO
oC"'\+
o I
.c:OO
J.-lNC"'\
o
,0 I I
tb-f+
.,-i
Q)
z
Q)
.c:
+> 0
ON
S::MI
..-1 10
\I\~
rcl
Q) I I
.~.C1
H
en
~
Q)
~
N\I\
.. I I
AON
fJj I I
~.o
rcl
Q)
~
.,-i
en
Q)
.. rcl
en
Q) en
en .,-i
s::
~~
Q) P<
P=:
Q)
Q).c:
J.-l+>
.,-i
III :>,
s:: III en
s:: ~ Q)
o >
.,-i Q).,-i
+>.c:+>
en +> III
~ Q) ~
O'~ .,-i
.,-i 'H
+>~ct-t
ffi~<
rcl 0
.,-i >>(',
en ~
Q) 0 0
P=:1=lS::
(.)
><
i
p..
<
~aa_:[O U1 sa}{BUS. ....-t
aoua~1t~aU A+ 1;) + ....-t
sa.I1J ~UTPt1n8 + ....-t
UIatq,o.Id o1JJ'8.IJ, 4- ....-t
~u1+'8as oN 0 D N
+uaUId1UDa A'8td pa.:m+on.:qs oN 0 D N
qS'8.I.1 ~ +
. If'\
.
A+aJ'8S t:I 0 4- C'\
ad'8qs p'8q, U1 saa.IJ, I~ N
.Ia+xaa +sa]1 uo q,.:rno oN 14- ....-t
1-.Ioqs 00+ sq+'8d + ..-i
o1JJ'8.I+ atOAO.Io+OW 4- . N
.I1'8da.I spaau a~P1.IH ~ ....-t
qsnxq,.Iapun qonUI 00.1 ~ ....-t
~U1+q~1'I 4 . N
SUIatq,O.Id ~U1~.I'8d g4 . 0 If'\
::x:
ei! ~
P-i ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
E-i ~ ~ tf.l
~ ::x: tf.l
tf.l 0 ::x:
H ::x: ::x: S 0
~ 0 0 S
S S p::J
p::J ~
0 p::J p::J I g;
I ~ ~ ~ 2 8
tf.l
rOo
oC'\+
o I
.coo
l-1C\lC'\
.B I I
.c
bD
-~ ~ -\-
:z;
Q)
.c
+> 0
ON
S::....-tl
-.-I I 0
If'\ ....-t
rO
Q) I I
::-
..-1
H .0
rn
~
Q)
:>-i
N If'\.
.. I I
eON
&i I I
~.o
rO
Q)
~
,.-I
rn
Q)
.. rO
rn
Q) rn
rn -.-I
s::
o~
~~
Q) Pi
P::
Q)
Q).c
l-1+>
-.-I
C1:l :>,
a ~
o
..-1 Q) rn
oj.).cQ)
rn+>::-
Q) ..-1
;j Q) +>
O>~gb
+>r-1Q)
s:: :z;
Q) ;j
rO 0
..-1 >>C'-'
rn ;3:
Q) 0 0
P::j:::lS::
.
j:::l
~
~
P-i
<
a.:m':pm 01 11 aA'8a'I c. C'-
+ CI ow"'-
saA Tas.::mo 11 U1'81U1'8W 0 N
a~P1~q ~aq10U'8 ap1Ao~ . . N
~J'ed +'80~ ATT1a 01 aill'8uaH . .-t
sqTnq '1-U'8Td . .-t
~O'8q a}[BT '1-nd '1-.uoa 0 .-t
'1-uallid1nba A'8Td u1 '1-nd '1-.uoa ..j... 4- 0 0'\
O. . .
sP~1q '1-0'8~11V 0 .-t
.
AT'1-uanbaxJ a~Olli MOW c . N
a}f'8T ~O'8q ~u1~a 0 .-t
~aa~o opaH D . CO
~ ..... c . C
'.I(l ~a1xaa 1'8 ~a'1-xaa '/1 asoT:J a C\I
g
saqouaq ap1Ao~ 0 C\I
.
s.:ra'1-Taqs 01U01d paaN [:) .-t
saTq'8'1- 01uo1d paaN . 4- '!)
a . 0 ...
'1-uallid1nba A-eTd a Tdlli1s aA'8H c 0 + 0'\
+-- 0 0 . I:1
SU'8oqS'8~'1- paaN . :+- co
.. .
saa~'1- PTO aO'8TdaH a
. . rr'\
saa~'1- ~u1~aMoTJ 1U'8Td II ..
0 + c<\
~a1Xaa '1-sa/1 uo q~o paaN +- i+ C\I
-
sq'1-'8d a~Olli ap1AO.Id a a
. Cl --+
.
s~~1q~0+Olli '1-1Q1qo.Id .
110 4- l.f'I
.. a~P1~a '1-'80~ ATT1a.. aill'8N 1- .-t
a~P1~q ~TedaH ~ lJ a
a 0 l.f'I
a~Olli qsn:rq~apun '1-no J'eaT:J c
- . (\)
s~aMoTJPT1/1 paas ....
. . . 0 \J\
sqn.:rqs aZ1ue~~0 c
. (\)
~unq~1T PPV c
4( . c<\
. JSU'8~'1- ~apun ~U1~.::red '1- 1q 1qo.Id II . C\I
~u1~J'ed '1-1q1qQXd .
.0 . '!)
.0
::.:::
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ < ~
8 ~ <
~ < [J.l
~ ::.::: [J.l
z [J.l 0 ::.:::
H :::.:: ~ 0 0
~ 0 0 H 0
0 S r:I:l ~
H ~
0 r:I:l r:I:l ~ p:;
p:;
g; fg 0 ::> E>
~ 0
[J.l 0 8 rx. 8
'dO
oc<\+
o I
..coo
f-lNc<\
o
.0 I I
..c
~~..\-
Q)
z
Q)
..c
;.) 0
OC\l
S::.-t I
,..j 10
\/"\ .-t
'd
Q) I I
>
..-f
H.C
en
~
Q)
~
NV)
.. I I
~OC\l
r:z:1 I I
~ .-0
'd
s::
Q)
~
o
C)
Q)
en f-l
Q)
en ~
s:: 0
o >>
~
en'd
Q)M
p:; ~
o
Q) ~
f-l
.r! en
rd (!)
2 QJ)
o @
.r! ..c
;.) C)
en ('-,
Q)ct;~
~ 0 f-l
0' rd
;.)t~
s:: 0 Q)
Q) en..c
'd ;.)
.r! ;.)
en rd f-l
Q) ..c: 0
p:;~ct;
.
r:z:1
><
H
~
re
p..
<
a':pmoapv 0 l~gQ 0 . C'"'I
1:10 4-0 + 0 ...--l
aq 0+ pasn +1 mnn .:r:a++a8: -+C I.t"\
o. a.
ua+Jo paMolli +.us1 ss~~ P~18 . ...--l
a~u1~.:r:p paAo.:r:dlli1 aA~H + C'"'I
oa
ar +
pa.IEalo qsn.:r:q.:r:apun P~~8 :0 .0 /:'--
auo~ sau1Aad~~ +~q+ pB18 1+ ...--l
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
E-t ~ <
u.l
~ ~ u.l
u.l 0 ~
H ~ l::<:: S 0
~ 0 0 0
0 S P=l H
H P=l ~
~ P=l P=l I
p::
~ ~ :::> ~
0
u.l 0 E-t I">=.
o
't:J C'"'I +
o I
000
..c:NC'"'I
1-1
o I I
,D
tb~-l-
.M
(])
Z
(])
..c: 0
-PON
...--l J
~ 10
.M \J")...--l
't:J I I
(])
:>
-M .0
H
en
~
(])
:>iNI.t"\
I I
.. 0 N
~ I I
~.o
(])
:>
.M
en-p
.~.. Cll
en :>, S
(]) -P H
en 'M 'M
~uct-i
&(])~
en..c:
(])-P
p:: C',
-P~
(]) ;::::l H
1-1 0 Cll
'@ ~ Pi
S~~
O~-P
-M .M
-P..c:ct-i
en-po
(])
;::::l ;::::l (])
(you
-P :>, ~
~ 0 ~
(]) 't:J (])
't:J -P
'M -P ~
en Cll.M
(]).c:: Cll
P::~s
.
I">=.
><
H
~
ff
~
~up:ds u1 ~Up10U N
0+ aA1+1suas axom aq ~tn04E . .
4sruq.:I:a~un 40nm 00+ i-no }fooJ I ..-l
0
4+'ed a}f1q +xe+s ~ln04E . ..-l
AaUOm a.:I:Om ~uads ~tn04E ~ 2 0 ..::T
s~aaJl . ('\
. .
4S'e.:I:J . I+. ..::T
. ..
~U1urud a+'enba~'eUI +- . + ('\
s+ods 1101 111.!l . ~ N
a~'eure.rp .:I:aAo::; . ..-l
AA1 uos10d 0 c ~ ('\
~ao'elda.:I: +ou axe saa.:I:+ ~lC . +- ('\
.
aU1Aad'e.:I:~ ~a.realo aA'e4:1. llpln04S II N
0
s+sad 's+oasU1 10.:I:i-uo::; + ., N
}faa.:I:o +no uealC 0 ('\
+ 0
s+ue ~ac + ..::T
~ a .
.-
~U1i-+no s~aau ss'e.:I:~ 0 0 Vl
I~D .
~
/ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ :==
E-i ~ ..ex:
~ tJ)
~ ~ tJ)
tJ) 0 ~
H ~ 6 S 0
~ 0 0
S S ~ H
~
0 ~ ~ r:il ~
~ ~ p:;
~ 0 ~ ~
tJ) 0 ~
o
'd ('\ +
o I
000
.c:C\J('\
~
o I I
P
.c:
.~ ~ -I-
Q)
z
Q)
.c: 0
-PON
..-l I
,s:: 10
lMVl..-l
'd I I
Q)
~
j_o
en
~
Q)
~C\JVl
I ,
.. 0 N
~ I I
~.o
en
en Q)
--. >
en >>.r-!
Q)~-p
en.r-! Cl!
s::c.>1lO
o Q)
PiQ)Z
en.c:
Q)~
p:; ('0'
~.!<:
~ g ~
.r-! P Pi
Cl! Cl!
s:: Q)
g~~
.r-! .r-!
-P.c:'H
en ~ 0
Q)
;::l ;::l Q)
Q'oc.>
-P >> fti'
s:: 0 s::
Q) rcl Q)
rcl ~
.r-!~ s::
en Cl!.r-!
~:i~
d
><
H
~
~
~U1Ppa11 III ...-l
si-snq .:raas: . ...-l
i-1 Aq ClA1.:ra 2 . C'I
S~U1.Iatn 'e~ pooq.Ioqq~1au .IO~ . ...-l
qai-a}fS .. ...-l
i-1 Oi- sp1}f uai-.IB~.IapU1}f ~U1.Is: ~ ...-l
pOOMa.I1J i-aall00 0 ...-l
}faa.Ia U1 A'eleI . ...-l
Apni-S a - ...-l
a1ua1eI R . .;:t-
aa
aU1Aad'B.D1 uo lJU1MS . ...-l
si-aasu1fpuu seli-.Ini- qai-'eO . ...-l
s~op }f"[B 11 0 0 .;:t-
. .
i-1 q~nO.Iqi- }f.IOM Oi- }f"[B11 . .;:t-
.. D
l"[BqAalloA .&e1d: . ...-l
pxBA JO u01suai-X3 C ...-l
A'eld sp1}f qai-'e11 9. C'I
S.IaMolJP11M }fa1eI + ...-l
a~P1.Iq 110.1:i- uo A'eleI +- ...-l
uez.reJ, A'eleI + ...-l
i-1 Oi- Ua.Ipl1qaue~ a}fBJ, + + . C'I
saa.Ii- qlU110 0 T-l
}faas-0~-pue-ap1q A'e1d: ~ N
i-1 q~nOX4i- a}f1q ap1H 0 . 0 . .;:t-
i- 1 punO.IB unH () N
aaqs1.IJ A'e leI Ii) C'I
. &I
l"[Bqi-ooJ A'eleI -4 T-l
SSO.Ia'e }[['e11 110 + 4- ~
<11II1:10 a oa
i-'e }fool OJ, ~o 0 co
o. .0
::.:::
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ :.:
E-l ~ <
:.: tf.l
~ < l:>::: ~
tf) 0
H l:>::: ::.::: S 0
~ 0 0 0
0 0 P=l H
H H P=l ~
0 P=l P=l I !Xi
~ gg 0 :::> ~
~ 0
tf) 0 rx.. E-l
o
'1:1 C'I +
o I
000
.cNC'I
I-l
o I I
P
fo~+
.r-j
Q)
z
Q) 0
.cON
~T-l1
10
~ \J')...-l
1 I
'1:1
Q)
~.o
H
en
~
Q)
~C\l\J')
J 1
.. 0 N
~ J 1
~ .0
(\-,
~
w~
Q) ~
en
s::: Q)
o..s:::
~~
en
Q) Q)
!Xi en
::l
Q)
I-l ::l
.r-j 0
m:>.,
e 0
O~
,r-j
+>'1:1
en s:::
Q) Q)
::l~
O'~
Q)
~
S:::~
Q) m
'1:1..s:::
.r-j ~
en
Q) 0
!XiE-l
p..,
<
./
e.:rel.{,+ 0 C"'I
~tI1eCl. uro.:rJ S~U1l.{,+ .:rel.{,+o sdee~ . c
,+'e }fooL 0'+ a01N 0 ..::T
III. . a
'ee.re esn-1'+lnw . C\l
a
A'eld 0'+ eO'eld c ~
-4 II 0 4-
p.:r'eA JO u01sue,+x~ 0 C\l
0
A,++eJd 0 C"'I
0 0
100l.{oS 0'+ ~U10~ sso.:ro'e ,+nD + ~
u01'+'e,+ue1.:r0 - ,+U10d TEoo~ . r'l
.
paA'ed ~u1aCl. uro.:rJ .:re,+xaa 'Mcsdea~ Cl ~
s,+s1xe ,+snr [J C\l
0
s.reo uro.:rJ .:raJJnCl. punoS ~
.
ep1Jd dno.:rn 0 . C\l
A,+ 1unururoo JO esuaS . ..::T
+ D .
~u11aaJ uado A.:r1V .f- 0 [J C'-
1- +0 0
a.:rour pOOl.{.:r0Cl.l.{~1eN CUI ~t: II 0
aA1'+0'e.:r,+,+'e +-0 0 + ~
,+Uo.:IJ enTEA A+xadoXd ses'ee.:rouI s: . \.0
II
aO'eld aua.:res 'e '+ 1 sa}[BW ~ . 0 r'l
.:ra,+o'e.rel.{o u1'e,+u1'eur '+1 sdleH 1:0 [J c ~
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ::;.: ~
::;.: < t:r.l
~ < ~ ~
t:r.l 0
H ~ ~ 0 0
~ 0 0 H 0
0 8 P=l H
H P=l ~
0 P=l P=l ~
~ ~
g; sg 0 ~ ~ ~
~ 0
t:r.l 0 rz.. E-i
'00
Or'l+
o I
..coo
~Nr'l
o
,.a I I
fo .
.r-l ~+
Q)
z
Q)
..c 0
~0C\l
~ I
S:::IO
.r-l~~
'0 I I
Q)
>
j . Cl
rn
~
Q)
~N~
I I
0C\l
..
~ I I
r:r:I
~
.0
('--
'0
o
o
-S
o
p
..c
.. tUl
rn .r-l
Q) Q)
rn s:::
s:::
o Q)
Pi..c
rn~
Q)
~~
()
~~
.@~
.~ ~
~Pi
rn
Q) Q)
&:S
~ rn
s::: Q)
Q) 0
'0'0
.r-l
rn ~
Q) 0
~~
.
I
~
~
euo speeu 'u01+ounJ o~ ...--I
0
TBu01+ounJ aIOlli eq PTTIO[ at .. C\l
u01+oe+0~d pooT~ 0 ...--I
s)f.red ~etnO lliO~J e~Uet'{:J 0 ...--I
aITI+BU JO ~d SeA.J:eS8.:Id +- Cl 1.1"\
0 0 0
+B )fooT 0+ eOUJ . ...--I
~
p.reA)fOBq P8+o1~+se~Un 0 + C\l
sOl+84+s8B pue A+nB8g . 4- 1.1"\
0 . 0
po04~oq4~18u s81J1un . C\l
.
8UO 8AB4 S80p +1 +nq · e.rns +ON' . C\l
+1 8STI S8lre TTB JO eTd08d 0 1.1"\
&-1- 0 .
8xe sPPI 8~8411 110U){ .. ...--I
A+10 sez1uetunH [) c C\l
AOBA1.:Id 0 ...--I
eOBds u8dO 0 . + C'-
. o. .
xeT8~ 0+ 80BTd 0 ~
. a c
+U10d ~U1AJ1+uepI 8.J. . ~
. rre + 1 lliO~J ABl1B +eD [) ~
II-+- 0
)f.red Po04~oq4~leN .c CJ C'- .
0-4- 04- .
+81TIO S~14+ Sde8] Q ...--I
u01+BaI081:j ".0 0 0 C\l
~..o ~ . + ...--I
l:x::
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ < :==
~ <
~ tfl
~ ~ rI.l
rI.l 0 l:x::
H ~ ~ :3 0
~ 0 0 S
:3 S ~
~
0 ~ ~ r:r:1 ~
p:; ~ p:;
~ rg 0 :::>
~ 0 0
rI.l 0 E-i I%.. E-i
o
't1 C"'I +
o I
000
..c:C\lC"'l
I-l
o I I
.0
fo..e+
or-!
Q)
Z
0>
..c: 0
+>OC\l
...--I I
l=: 10
o,-j 1.1"\...--1
't1 I I
0>
.~. [)
H
(/)
~
Q)
~
(\j 1.1"\
I I
.. 0 C\l
~ I I
~.o
I-l
o
l=:
o
or-! ('--
+> ~
.~ C) 0
~ S l=:
(/)~ (/)
l=:= +>
o (/)
Pi roor-!
(/) ><
0> (/) 0>
p:; ro
..c:+>
Q) or-!
I-l~
.r-! I-l :>,
ro ro ro
E Pi ~
00>0>
.r-! ..c: ..c:
+>+>+>
(/)
0> ~ l=:
;:l l=: or-!
0' ,r-!
..c: =.
+>+>0>
l=: (/)
0> ;:l 0
't1 0 Po
ocri :>, B
Q)OPi
p:; I=l =
IJ
><
H
I=l
~
<
\
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 Office, 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.
. - ... I ~
. I '.,.. \..... ,
Joe Delgado,8/10/01 11:52 AM -0500,Re: Brison Park
1
To: Joe Delgado <hereslookingatyou@yahoo.com>
From: David Woodcock <woodcock@archone.tamu.edu>
Subject: Re: Brison Park
Co:
Bee:
X-Attachments:
Just back in town. Have a 1976-77 report on Dexter Park (now Brison Park) which contains most of the
data you need.
Mr. Bill Lancaster at 303 Dexter (696-5286) grew up in the house he i:ltill lives in, which is across
from the park, and he has all sorts of stories about playing in the pond!
The report was written by Elizabeth Lancaster.
If you give me an address I will put a copy of the report in the mail. I have already copied it and it
is ready to gol
David Woodcock
>Mr. Woodcock,
>
>My name is Joe Delgado working for Dr. Ed McWilliams in the Department of
>Horticulture. Dr. McWilliams has asked me to find historical information
>about Brison Park.
>
>I was informed that you may know a little about Brison Park located on
>Dexter in the College Park historical district of College Station. The
>professor I work for is interested in knowing a little about the park.
>What is known is that the park was a pond designed by the late Langford.
>It was drained for some reason by someone and it is this information that
>is wanted at this time. Would you be able to furnish who, why and when
>the pond was drained? If not, would you be able to say approximately when
>this was done?
>
>I appreciate any information you are able to provide
>
>Thank you and have a great day,
>
>Joe Delgado/Dr. Ed McWilliams
>
>
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Make international calls for as low as $. 04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
>http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Printed for David Woodcock <woodcock@archone.tamu.edu>
1