McEuen Park as a Place for Placemaking
In his remarks that prefaced the January 6th design presentation on McEuen Park, Coeur d’Alene Parks Director Doug Eastwood declared the city’s intent to make McEuen a “placemaking park for Coeur d’Alene.” His use of the term “placemaking” is significant, and it helps to understand the reasoning behind some of the design choices proposed by Team McEuen.
Those in attendance at the overflow meeting saw an impressive presentation of how the venerable downtown park could be transformed. The current park’s boat launch, baseball fields, and parking lot would be eliminated and replaced by a plaza, gardens, water features, and a range of new amenities. The new design was eye-opening, if perhaps over-ambitious. The placemaking goal, however, was front-and-center.
In truth, “placemaking” is a word somewhere between jargon and an actual term of art. But like the term “sustainability,” while the definition can be a bit vague, a general direction is usually clear. Placemaking is a term used by planners and architects for more holistic, integrated designs of space. Rather than building just buildings, or engineering only highways, or constructing look-alike subdivisions, modern designers now include parks, complete streets, landscapes and greenspaces to create a more integrated whole.
Placemaking looks beyond just the engineering of specific uses and structures, but also looks to social factors, physical and visual linkages, and values such as safety and comfort and image, which are not necessarily tied to a specific land use. Placemaking recognizes that parks, public squares, streetscapes, and waterfronts can be more valuable than merely their collection of uses. A park, for example, is more than just somewhere where recreation occurs.
Urban public parks are increasingly the laboratory for placemaking. Millennium Park in Chicago and Discovery Green Park in Houston are recent examples of successful park designs that are attracting visitors and reinvestment that would not have occurred otherwise.
The placemaking approach was evident in the proposed design for McEuen Park. The current conglomeration of disparate single uses – boating, baseball, parking – would be replaced by a much wider range of integrated potential uses, both active and passive, that would make the park a much more welcoming and comfortable place for a much wider variety of visitors. But very importantly, the McEuen design provides much greater visual and physical connectivity to the Lake, which is central to the very identity of Coeur d’Alene.
Although we have serious concerns with the proposal’s approach to parking, and we have serious concerns with the proposal’s approach to Tubbs Hill, we are in general agreement that McEuen Park is a location with great potential, and that placemaking is an appropriate design approach for this important location.
The fact than nearly 600 people turned out on a cold January night to consider plans for a city park, shows the value to the community. The details are extremely important, and costs are very much a concern, but the opportunity should not be lost to the nattering of naysayers and defenders of the status quo.
Coeur d’Alene has a unique opportunity to create park that will not only enhance the value of park property as a park, but that also makes it clear why this place, Coeur d’Alene, is such a special place to be.
This article is adapted from one published in our quarterly newsletter. Join KEA for a subscription.
I think the KEA should focus on environmental issues at stake with this so called ‘placemaking’. what about Tubbs Hill and the plans to destroy the natural hillside that has been saved for so long? what about the trout spawning beds where the proposed alternate boat launch at the river is? what about the removal plans of the current boat launch and the sediments and contaminants that will enter the lake? i seem to remember the fight to keep lake CDA from being designated an an EPA SUPERFUND site. What about the open green natural element of what is there now and that fact that it is paid for. what good is the KEA if you just bootstep along with the corporate interests at play??
I will not give KEA any respect or any donations in the future…please think again. This has been very disappointing…
Jean,
For what it’s worth, we’re completely focusing on the environmental issues at stake. We agree with you about Tubbs Hill and our comments will reflect that. The new boat launch proposal is about 24 hours old and it’s something that we’re looking at. You can be sure we’ll be submitting comments about whether that’s environmentally appropriate and how that should be done given the difficulty with the contaminated sediments in the Lake.
On the other hand, we’re not knee-jerk in opposition. The park can definitely use a facelift. A new park will benefit those of us who work and live and play in Coeur d’Alene. According to the presentations so far, there is no plan to use tax dollars. It will attract investment and jobs and residents into an urban core that needs it. And, fundamentally, an attractive urban core is a proven and strong deterrent to sprawl, which is the biggest environmental threat to Kootenai County.
On balance, with protections of Tubbs Hill, and protections to the Lake during construction, and changing the approach to parking, an amended proposal would be a clear net gain for the “environmental issues at stake” and the community at large. We’re not “bootstep” with any interests — for or against– but we’re keeping an objective open mind about the proposal and we hope everyone else will as well.
Improvements are by definition good.
Here is my item by item assessment:
The site should not be planted and manicured to look like every other “Disneyland” type turist trap in the western US. I think that many of us have seed this particular cookie cutter used elsewhere.
Placemaking… These plans are really about place changing. Boaters, and baseball out, board turists in. Families watch dads, moms, and kids play ball there. We used to also play soccer, flag football, tennis, etc., and go out to eat afterwords downtown. I think it is a mistake to take all the community sports out of our main sports field. By the way, i neither play nor watch teem sports anymore.
Steps at ramp: 1. There is a far superior vista at independence point, (There is also a lifeguard there). 2. We can test the ramp closure by closing it, but wait to take it out. 3. Perhaps a public dingy sailing club with rentals would serve the town and attract turists. A knowledgeable sailor should be consulted about the prevailing winds and the ease with witch novices may navigate a boat in the bay.
Massive fountain: This is a hackneyed knee-jerk item that architects use when they are desperate to put in something. Dry and unwatched fountains are abundant in the west. The main water feature is the lake! Additionally, fountains freeze and crack, and require about 2000watts of power continuously to keep the extra-chlorinated water interesting. Idaho is not about mediterranean fountains; they do not make our place.
Tennis: why didn’t we repave our old courts? Why put new ones in the wettest part of the park?
Remove fences. Of course! that is cheap and allows soccer players, frisbee players, crosscountry skiers, and wild young children to play about. It is also very cheap!
Massive concrete walkway? interesting to none but skateboarders and trick cyclists.
Out-door theater: Actors prefer not to shout out love scenes while Sherman Ave traffic and bars sound off. Amplified live music would be heard for about a mile. Fortunately, cold Cd’A nights would limit such disasters to about 4 weekends per year. This is not Athens (Georgia, nor Greece). Plenty of theater goes on in Cd’A, and non of these groups seem interested in focusing on the few out-door venues that exist. Now baseball is something that is just lively enough that families and friends will watch on. Small town baseball just might be part of the placemaking that has been going on while our of state architects were not looking.
Tubb’s hill: Hands off! — (except to keep fire hazards down a bit).
Underground parking: $20-$30,000 per spot. It is cheaper to pay people not to come. This is for the weekenders in the summer: the current lot is less than half full on a summer weekday (see google earth photos) This is where the big bucks come in. Why not put angle in parking on Front street (widen it) and thus “activate” the adjacent commercial properties. Lake side and other streets could also stand to sacrifice a lane for angle in parking. The effect would slow traffic a bi, which would actually improve pedestrian safety.
Remember, when we say pay with Bonds, we mean tax money that could go to schools. Removal of fences, rebuilding the tennis courts, and planting a few Ponderosa pines, and designating a bocci-ball site… this is cheap stuff. But in addition to taking up the parking lot, these are the essential changes that we need. A Dingy sailboat club (under 16 foot) would have to be run through the parks and recreation department and would collect fees and possible annual sponsors as the kids ball clubs used to.
Let’s not confuse pictures of hansom people in exotic places for images of what could be happiness and prosperity in Cd’A. The actors in those photos are waiting for the photo-shoot to be over. And about master plans beautifully rendered by architects: The architects? (I know many), they are wondering what the heck to sell this small town. They are looking to us for answers.
You have to be kidding! by reading your article it seems you are all about tearing up the ball fields and removing the boat launch. This is not in keeping with the the kpast work of the KEA! Our father George Lyman and Art Manley would be turning over in their grave if they could see what is going on now. It seems that all you folks in the city are in the pocket of D.H. It’s really too bad that you all can’t listen to the public. We want the boat launch to stay and the ball fields as well. Stay toned, we are not going to go down easy.! RD
[...] central location would be much better for the future economic development purposes of downtown. We think the investment in improvements to McEuen Park are worth doing, but only if the investments are in the park itself, not a parking [...]
[...] us in on that too. We think the Foundation’s position on Tubbs Hill is exactly correct. Regardless of how the McEuen project proceeds, better access for all, which also protects the natural qualities of Tubbs Hill, is worth working [...]
[...] connection to it and sense of pride and ownership in it are strong. While the concept proposal for McEuen Park is an arguably justified exercise in placemaking for Coeur d’Alene, Tubbs Hill is already a [...]