Roosevelt Park Master Plan (pdf) - Hampden Community Council

MASTER PLAN
IV. MASTER PLAN
Based on the development opportunity sites illustrated in Exhibit 3, the design
team prepared three alternative concepts for the park development. Because
several areas of the park were appropriate for several different functions or
program elements, the alternatives illustrated advantages and disadvantages of
locating each of these elements in different areas. The alternatives were reviewed
with the community and preferred elements of each plan were selected to be
included in the master plan, described below. The three alternatives are described
and illustrated in Appendix B, Master Plan Alternatives.
A. Development Opportunities
Based on the overall structure of Roosevelt Park, the project team identified
several areas where existing program elements could be expanded or new
program elements developed, while maintaining the overall positive qualities of
the existing park structure.
The team worked with four “givens”:
The Roosevelt Recreation Center will be maintained and should be able to
accommodate some expansion.
The new playground will be maintained in its present location.
The ball fields will remain in their current general locations; however, they may
be re-oriented or expanded within these general areas.
The swimming pool will remain in its existing location.
Based on this given information, the team identified the remaining areas of the
park that could be used to accommodate the expansion of existing facilities or the
development of new ones, as shown in Exhibit 3, Development Opportunities.
This exhibit identifies the uses suitable for each of these areas based on needs
related to space, proximity to other uses and potential impacts on adjacent
properties. For many uses, there is the flexibility to locate them in several
different areas but for larger uses, such as the ball fields and skate park, there are
limited options as to where they could go.
The project team prepared three alternatives as described and illustrated in
Appendix B: Master Plan Alternatives, to illustrate several different options, each
with advantages and disadvantages. For example, maintaining the current field
layouts and locations leaves more room for other program elements but results in
inferior ball fields. Similarly, orienting the ball fields with all of the infields
backing up to a central location allows for efficient team programming but
negatively impacts the integrity of the park’s strong spatial definition.
The alternatives also illustrated that some program element locations remained
consistent from one concept to the other, primarily because there is only one
logical location for them. Additionally, no alternative could accommodate all of
MAHAN RYKIEL ASSOCIATES. 2/18/04 11