Keewaydin playground location set

New equipment and pool will go to the southeast of park building

by Tesha M. Christensen

Although the parks department doesn’t yet know when the playground will be replaced at Keewaydin Park, it does know where it will be located.

After a community meeting in March, the decision was made to position the playground and pool to the east of the park building, on land that once housed tennis courts.

The playground equipment will be displaced by the expansion of Keewaydin School. The groundbreaking on a $16 million addition that will double the size of Keewaydin School will be held in June; work is expected to be underway by the third week of June and continue for one year. At that time, part of the existing playground will be off limits.

“The K-12 play structure and wading pool will be open for use throughout and after construction,” noted Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Project Manager Deborah Bartels.  “The pre-K structure, the swings, and the Galaxy spinners will be removed to facilitate construction.”

Since a design of the school expansion was first released to the public in January, the school district has continued to modify the footprint. “There has been a concentrated effort to compact the building so there would be more play space to the southern end,” observed Doug Walters of the Nokomis East Neighborhood Association who serves on the school construction steering committee.

This not only lowers the construction cost of the school building, but also may allow the pool to remain where it is until the parks department is able to set aside funds for its replacement, he said.

In the first expansion design, the addition was located on top of the existing playground and pool. It will no longer extend that far south.

TWO CONCEPTS PRESENTED

At the March community park meeting, attendees evaluated two concept plans. Concept one included one ball field, two soccer fields, two tennis court, and a playground/pool area where on ball field is currently located on the southwest side of the park property.

While this would position the playground close to the school, some residents were concerned about policing as the area would be difficult to see from the street, noted Bartels.

This would place the playground and pool near the school loading dock and garbage area, as well as next to a large gymnasium wall without windows, pointed out Walters. Additionally, the soil in this area is peat, and in order to put a playground there better soil would need to be hauled in, upping the cost of the project. In the past, this area was a swamp and a dump. The school will need to drive pilings in 90 feet in order to construct its addition in the area.

A representative from the Minnehaha Falls Athletic Club (MFAC) told attendees that their biggest need is for ball fields for youth games. “There are no other baseball diamonds in our area,” said Walters. “They are all booked.” The diamonds at Bossen Field are heavily used by adult leagues that pay rental for the fields.

With that knowledge, participants favored concept two, which retains two under-12 ball fields and two soccer fields.

The other big difference between concept one and two was the inclusion of tennis courts in concept one. However, given that there are new courts at 15th Avenue and Minnehaha Parkway, as well as at Lake Hiawatha Park and Lake Nokomis Park, the tennis courts were given a lower priority, according to Walters.

The concept favored by attendees locates the playground and pool in the southeast corner of the park land, in an area that has been open space since the tennis courts were removed in 2007 because they were in poor condition.

However, community members thought that the playground/pool concept number two as presented was too “formal” and instead preferred the “ambiguous” and “organic” design of concept one, stated Walters.

Bartels is currently working to revise concept two. It will be presented to neighborhood residents at another community meeting; a date has not yet been set for this meeting. “The full extent of the improvements that will be presented in the plan will be determined at the next meeting,” stated Bartels. “We know that a wading pool and playgrounds will be included in the plan.”

The parks department hopes to present the revised plan for Keewaydin Park to the Parks and Recreation Board in May for approval.

COST AND TIMING

After the final design has been approved, the parks department will solicit cost estimates. Then it will begin looking for funding sources. Because the school project was approved last November, the parks department was not able to work these changes into its budget. A new wading pool/splash pad will cost about $500,000, and a new playground about $300,000. It could cost $200,000 to fix the drainage issues on the athletic fields. The parks department has budgeted $500,000 total to split between the service area of Morris, McRea, and Pearl in 2013.

Once funding is identified, the parks department will determine when the equipment will be installed. “There is a push to get the playground open by fall,” said Walters.

-30-

Concept 1 – Central playground with SE tennis courts

PROS

• Playgrounds located closer to school for use by students.

• Parents can easily observe three play containers from a single vantage point.

•Wading pool is near rec center for bathrooms and supervision.

• Tennis courts fill void in geographic distribution in SE metro.

• Tennis courts provide recreational activity for a different age group.

CONS

• Loss of one additional ball field.

• No buffer between fields and playground – possible safety issues.

• Possible expensive and extensive soil corrections required for pool and playgrounds.

• Policing: centrally located playgrounds behind buildings are less visible from the street.

• Retaining walls needed – athletic field grades are three feet lower than rec center.

Concept 2 – SE playground with athletic field

PROS

• Playground buffered from athletic fields by trees and topography

• No fields lost – 2 ballfields and 2 soccer fields

• Policing: area is very visible from the street

• Soils are good; construction less expensive.

CONS

• Distance of playground from school

• Distance between Pre-K structure and K-12 structure will make parental observation more difficult.

•  Wading pool distance from building; supervision more difficult

• No tennis courts

• Close to street:  fencing needed at perimeter of playground to meet current playground safety standards.

This story printed in the April 2012 edition of the Longfellow/Nokomis Messenger.