DOCSLIB.ORG

Bands of Green

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bands of Green Bands of Green a plan for the continuing development of trails, boulevards and linear parks in Seattle 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS A LETTER FROM DOUG WALKER ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER ONE: .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 THE HISTORY OF LINEAR PARKS IN SEATTLE........................................................................................................................................................................................................1 The Olmsted Plan.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 The Bogue Plan................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 The Burke-Gilman Trail: The Re-emergence of Linear Parks ........................................................................................................................................................5 Bands of Green 1990........................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 Today’s Challenges..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................7 CHAPTER TWO:......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 A PLAN FOR THE FUTURE .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 Definitions........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 Methods..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER THREE:.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 THE INLAND WATERWAYS OPEN SPACE NETWORK ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER FOUR:................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27 THE DUWAMISH RIVER OPEN SPACE NETWORK............................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER FIVE: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE NETWORKS............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35 Southeast Seattle ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................35 Southwest Seattle ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................45 Central Seattle ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................51 Downtown, Queen Anne & Magnolia............................................................................................................................................................................................61 Northeast Seattle ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................69 Northwest Seattle ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................75 CHAPTER SIX:....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81 CHAPTER SEVEN: .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 87 IDEAS FOR FUTURE EXPLORATION............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 87 A Regional System of Linear Parks ...............................................................................................................................................................................................87 Transit Greenways..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................88 APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................v Appendix A: Map of the Recommendations (Separate Document) ...............................................................................................................................................vii Appendix B: Neighborhood Plan Recommendations for Trails, Boulevards and Linear Parks....................................................................................................ixx Appendix C: List of Parks with Hiking Trails................................................................................................................................................................................xli Appendix D: Source Materials and Links ................................................................................................................................................................................... xliii i Kubota Gardens ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was produced through the generous financial support of the Seattle Parks Foundation and the Seattle Department of Transportation by: Tom Byers,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parks and Recreation
    PARKS AND RECREATION Parks and Recreation Overview of Facilities and Programs The Department of Parks and Recreation manages 400 parks and open areas in its approximately 6,200 acres of property throughout the City, works with the public to be good stewards of the park system, and provides safe and welcoming opportunities for the public to play, learn, contemplate, and build community. The park system comprises about 10% of the City’s land area; it includes 485 buildings, 224 parks, 185 athletic fields, 122 children's play areas, 24 community centers, 151 outdoor tennis courts, 22 miles of boulevards, an indoor tennis center, two outdoor and eight indoor swimming pools, four golf courses, studios, boat ramps, moorage, fishing piers, trails, camps, viewpoints and open spaces, a rock climbing site, a conservatory, a classical Japanese garden, and a waterfront aquarium. The development of this system is guided by the Seattle Parks & Recreation Plan 2000, the 38 neighborhood plans, the Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program with the Seattle School District, the 1999 Seattle Center and Community Centers Levy, the 2000 Parks Levy, and DPR’s annual update to the Major Maintenance Plan. 2000 Parks Levy In November 2000, Seattle voters approved a $198.2 million levy lid lift for Parks and Recreation. The levy closely follows the plan forged by the Pro Parks 2000 Citizens Planning Committee. The levy is designed to fund more than 100 projects to improve maintenance and enhance programming of existing parks, including the Woodland Park Zoo; acquire, develop and maintain new neighborhood parks, green spaces, playfields, trails and boulevards; and add out-of-school and senior activities.
    [Show full text]
  • A Driving Force
    N011V&Then byPaulDorpat T H E N : A caravan of motorcars featuring the Seattle Press Club in at least one pennant proceeds north past Mount Baker on a new Lake Washington Boulevard. The lakeshore was considerably changed in 1916 when the lake was lowered for the opening of the Lake Washington Ship Canal. NOW: Cars still make the scenic loop along the lake. A Driving Force 0 5 the parkway the Olmsted Brothers envisioned ~ ~~~~~!~~;~rs~ ~~e ~a~~~~~e~~~~~e~~ when they planned the city's parks and boule­ gers or even the occasion that prompted such vards in the early 20th century. Their highest a long caravan to snake along Lake Wash­ ambitions were to purchase the entire west ington Boulevard through the Mount Baker side of the lake up to the ridge between Col­ cutves and into Colman Park. man and Leschi parks and carry the boulevard I do, however, speculate. The year may be to a scenic "crestline." Instead, the parkway 1909, when thispartofthe boulevard was new. was developed into a string of parks that often If so, then the motorcade is probably headed meanders with the boulevard. for the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition, which When the lake was lowered 9 feet in 1916, opened chat spring on the University of Wash­ the concrete and riprap seawalls were exposed. ington campus. Pieces of the boulevard were Here at Mount Baker the seawall was kept, and rushed to completion so processions like this a new, landscaped slope drops from it to the one could cover the distance from Wetmore shoreline.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovery Park
    Final Vegetation Management Plan Discovery Park Prepared for: Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation Seattle, Washington Prepared by: Bellevue, Washington March 5, 2002 Final Vegetation Management Plan Discovery Park Prepared for: Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation 100 Dexter Seattle, Washington 98109 Prepared by: 11820 Northup Way, Suite E300 Bellevue, Washington 98005-1946 425/822-1077 March 5, 2002 This document should be cited as: Jones & Stokes. 2001. Discovery Park. Final Vegetation Management Plan. March 5. (J&S 01383.01.) Bellevue, WA. Prepared for Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, Seattle, WA. Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH........................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Approach .......................................................................................................................2 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND RECENT VEGETATION STUDIES ........................................3 2.1 A Brief Natural History of Discovery Park .........................................................................3 2.2 2001 Vegetation Inventory ...............................................................................................4 2.3 Results of Vegetation Inventory ........................................................................................4 2.3.1 Definitions ......................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Burke Building 400 North 34Th Street | Seattle, WA
    THE Burke Building 400 North 34th Street | Seattle, WA NEIGHBORING TENANTS FOR LEASE LOCATION high-tech 6,185 sf Fremont companies include Adobe, Impinj, Suite 200 Seattle’s funky, creative neighborhood Google, and Tableau Software “Center of the Universe” LOCATED IN FREMONT, AN OASIS FOR TECH COMPANIES For leasing information, contact JEFF LOFTUS • Newly remodeled lobbies and restrooms • Professional Management with 206.248.7326 with showers on-site building engineers [email protected] • High Speed Internet (Comcast Cable, • Views of the Ship Canal Century Link, Accel Wireless) KEN HIRATA • Parking ratio of 2/1,000 206.296.9625 • Near Fremont Canal Park, Burke • Available now [email protected] Gilman Trail, unique local shops and distinctive eateries • $32.00 PSF, FS kiddermathews.com This information supplied herein is from sources we deem reliable. It is provided without any representation, warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied as to its accuracy. Prospective Buyer or Tenant should conduct an independent investigation and verification of all matters deemed to be material, including, but not limited to, statements of income and expenses. Consult your attorney, accountant, or other professional advisor. BurkeTHE Building PROXIMITY SEATTLE CBD 3 miles 10 minutes to AURORA BRIDGE downtown Seattle LAKE UNION FREMONT BRIDGE LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL N 34TH ST N 35TH ST THE BURKE BUILDING N 36TH ST JEFF LOFTUS KEN HIRATA kiddermathews.com 206.248.7326 | [email protected] 206.296.9625 | [email protected] 400 North 34th Street | Seattle, WA SHIP CANAL PARKING 2/1,000 spaces per 1,000 sf rentable area N 34TH ST SUITE 200 N 35TH ST BurkeTHE Building SECOND FLOOR SUITE 200 AVAILABLE NOW 6,185 sf JEFF LOFTUS | 206.248.7326 | [email protected] KEN HIRATA | 206.296.9625 | [email protected] This information supplied herein is from sources we deem reliable.
    [Show full text]
  • History Summary Sand Point Peninsula
    HISTORY SUMMARY SAND POINT PENINSULA PRE-EURO AMERICAN SETTLEMENT POST-WAR • Native American group associated with —hloo-weelth-AHBSH“ peoples inhabited • 1947, rumored that NAS Seattle to be closed due to creation of Air Force three longhouses along Wolf Bay, immediately south of Sand Point • 1950, station scheduled for deactivation, delayed due to Korean War th MID-1800S EXPLORATION • 1950, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established research laboratory NE 65 St. • 1850, first likely Euro-American sighting of peninsula, name Sand Point used • 1952, base closed except for Naval Reserve activities late 1950s, rumors of jet • 1855, U.S. Government Land Office surveyed Sand Point aircraft use, requiring extended runways, jet fuel storage EURO-AMERICAN SETTLEMENT • 1965 - —Outdoor Recreation and Open Space Plan“, Seattle Park Department • 1868, William Goldmyer homesteaded 81 acres immediately south of Pontiac and Seattle Planning Commission, identified Naval Air Station for major park Bay development • 1886-90, shipyard, Pontiac Brick and Tile Company, Pontiac Post Office • 1969, main airstrip resurfaced and extended to 4,800 feet, estimated cost established northwest part of peninsula $500,000 • 1914, Pontiac Brick and Tile Company closed MILITARY TO CIVILIAN CONVERSION • 1910s to early 1920‘s, four families resided northwest portion of Sand Point • June 30, 1970, air station deactivated, all flight operations ended, surplus 347 • 1918 to 1926, Carkeek Park located on the northwestern part of peninsula acres EARLY AIRFIELD DEVELOPMENT • 1975, 196 acres of the station transferred to the City of Seattle for Sand Point • Late 1910s to 1920s King County acquired small farms on Sand Point peninsula Park • June 19, 1920, groundbreaking ceremony with symbolic tree cutting and first • 1975, Sand Point Park Master Plan, proposed 75-acre Sports Meadow, tennis aircraft landing, station size 400 acres courts; neighborhood park, maintenance complex, and restaurant.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Peoples' Rights Image Attributions
    Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Image Attributions. The following list contains image and document attributions for the assets used in the lecture videos of Columbia University’s Massive Open Online Course (MOOC), Indigenous Peoples Rights. The attributions are listed in order of appearance. We hope that this document serves as a useful resource for your own research or interests. Table of Contents. Module 1. The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Movement. Module 2. Right to Self-Determination. Module 3. Right to Land, Territories, and Resources. Module 4. Cultural Rights. Module 5. UN Indigenous Peoples-Related Mechanisms: The Power of Advocacy. Course Timeline. Module 1: The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Movement. Video: Origins of the Movement,. Christoph Hensch. “Homelands a Human Right.” B&W photo of a protest for Indigenous Peoples. May 1, 2015. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. https://flic.kr/p/tb7thg. Santiago Sito. “Marcha a favor de Evo Morales - Buenos Aires.” Boy holds a flag, marching in favor of Bolivian president/indigenous leader Evo Morales. November, 18, 2019. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0. https://flic.kr/p/2hNH1n1. Protect the Inlet. “April 7, 2018, Burnaby Mountain, BC, Canada.” Grand Chief Stewart Phillip addresses the crowd. April 7, 2018. Public Domain. https://flic.kr/p/GgDwbe. 1 Broddi Sigurdarson. “confroom2.” Extreme wide shot of UN Permanent Forum on Indigneous Issues UNPFII. Circa 2000s. All rights reserved by the owner. Permission granted for this project. United Nations, Rick Bajornas. “Even Marking International Day of the Indigenous Peoples.” Two Indigenous women at the UN with earpieces and an Indigenous Peoples sign. August 24, 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Carkeek Park
    CARKEEK PARK FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Update 2007 2 This Forest Management Plan is dedicated to Nancie Hernandez in grateful appreciation for 13 years of Park Maintenance and volunteer guidance. LAN Front cover photos taken in subunits: 4 B 1 C 1 B 3 A 1 C 3 CARKEEK PARK FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Created by Peter Noonan, March – December 2002 Updated by Lex Voorhoeve, December 2005 – November 2007 Prepared for: • Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation • Carkeek Park Advisory Council Funding sources: Carkeek Park Advisory Council Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation, Urban Forestry Unit Seattle Department of Neighborhoods Matching Fund NOTE Like any forest management plan, this is a dated document, now describing the situation by the end of 2007. Over the next ten years big changes are expected in the Carkeek forest, particularly due to the over-mature Alder/Maple forest declining. Updating this document in response to those changes will likely need to occur every five years. RECOMMENDATION The non-forested units in Carkeek Park include unique wetland and riparian habitat, valuable to salmon and other wildlife. A management plan to address those units would make an excellent companion to this document. Diagrams by Peter Noonan Maps by Dale Johnson Photos and drawings by Lex Voorhoeve Plant Palettes, Appendix 5, completed by Doug Gresham Photo 1. Jacobo switchback between subunits 1B and 1C, installed by the Parks Trails Program; volunteer crew led by Jacobo Jimenez. 4 Figure 1. Carkeek Park Trails Map 5 SUMMARY 7 1. INTRODUCTION 7 2. BACKGROUND 8 HISTORY 8 PARK USE 8 PHYSICAL NATURE 8 SOIL STRATIFICATION 9 LANDSLIDES 9 SEDIMENTATION 10 FORESTS 10 A SHORT HISTORY 10 PRESENT DAY 11 RED ALDER STANDS 13 BIG LEAF MAPLE / RED ALDER STANDS 14 DECIDUOUS / CONIFEROUS MIXED STANDS 15 CONIFEROUS STANDS 15 WILDLIFE 15 MIGRATORY BIRDS 15 RESIDENT SPECIES 16 3.
    [Show full text]
  • New Or Expanded Capital Facilities Proj.# Project Title Capacity 2007* Location
    New or Expanded Capital Facilities Proj.# Project Title Capacity 2007* Location City Light 8307 Utility Relocation due to This project will relocate, replace 23,979 SR 99 / Battery St. Alaskan Way Tunnel and and protect City Light facilities Seawall Project affected by the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall with a new seawall and transportation facility. *Amounts in thousands of dollars 2007-2012 Proposed Capital Improvement Program -921- New or Expanded Capital Facilities Proj.# Project Title Capacity 2007* Location Fleets & Facilities A1GM101 Animal Shelter 600 square feet of expanded 250 2061 15th Ave. W customer service space. A34200-2 Civic Center Plan - Seattle This project will provide for 0 600 4th Ave. Municipal Tower, Airport renovation of 750,000 square feet Way Center, and Other of office space within Seattle Projects Municipal Tower, 18,000 square feet of retail space at the new City Hall, and renovation of more than 276,000 square feet of work space and evidence storage at Airport Way Center. A1FL303 Emergency Community This project will create several 0 Various Locations Disaster Supplies emergency community disaster caches stocked with emergency shelter supplies for about 1,000 people each. A1FL302 Emergency Fire This project will fund hardened 0 Various Locations Suppression Water Supply hydrants to be installed at several reservoirs and at water storage tanks; several dry hydrants will be placed into fresh and salt-water sources. A1FL301 Emergency Operations This project will fund a new 0 300 5th Ave. Center 16,684-square-foot facility - approximately 9,200 square feet larger than the existing Emergency Operations Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Outline of United States Federal Indian Law and Policy
    Outline of United States federal Indian law and policy The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to United States federal Indian law and policy: Federal Indian policy – establishes the relationship between the United States Government and the Indian Tribes within its borders. The Constitution gives the federal government primary responsibility for dealing with tribes. Law and U.S. public policy related to Native Americans have evolved continuously since the founding of the United States. David R. Wrone argues that the failure of the treaty system was because of the inability of an individualistic, democratic society to recognize group rights or the value of an organic, corporatist culture represented by the tribes.[1] U.S. Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes Citizenship Adoption Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 530 U.S. _ (2013) Tribal Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) Civil rights Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978) United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978) Congressional authority Ex parte Joins, 191 U.S. 93 (1903) White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U.S. 679 (1993) United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Artists' View of Seattle
    WHERE DOES SEATTLE’S CREATIVE COMMUNITY GO FOR INSPIRATION? Allow us to introduce some of our city’s resident artists, who share with you, in their own words, some of their favorite places and why they choose to make Seattle their home. Known as one of the nation’s cultural centers, Seattle has more arts-related businesses and organizations per capita than any other metropolitan area in the United States, according to a recent study by Americans for the Arts. Our city pulses with the creative energies of thousands of artists who call this their home. In this guide, twenty-four painters, sculptors, writers, poets, dancers, photographers, glass artists, musicians, filmmakers, actors and more tell you about their favorite places and experiences. James Turrell’s Light Reign, Henry Art Gallery ©Lara Swimmer 2 3 BYRON AU YONG Composer WOULD YOU SHARE SOME SPECIAL CHILDHOOD MEMORIES ABOUT WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO SEATTLE? GROWING UP IN SEATTLE? I moved into my particular building because it’s across the street from Uptown I performed in musical theater as a kid at a venue in the Seattle Center. I was Espresso. One of the real draws of Seattle for me was the quality of the coffee, I nine years old, and I got paid! I did all kinds of shows, and I also performed with must say. the Civic Light Opera. I was also in the Northwest Boy Choir and we sang this Northwest Medley, and there was a song to Ivar’s restaurant in it. When I was HOW DOES BEING A NON-DRIVER IMPACT YOUR VIEW OF THE CITY? growing up, Ivar’s had spokespeople who were dressed up in clam costumes with My favorite part about walking is that you come across things that you would pass black leggings.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form
    NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (formerly 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. ___X___ New Submission ________ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Seattle’s Olmsted Parks and Boulevards (1903–68) B. Associated Historic Contexts None C. Form Prepared by: name/title: Chrisanne Beckner, MS, and Natalie K. Perrin, MS organization: Historical Research Associates, Inc. (HRA) street & number: 1904 Third Ave., Suite 240 city/state/zip: Seattle, WA 98101 e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] telephone: (503) 247-1319 date: December 15, 2016 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR 60 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. _______________________________ ______________________ _________________________ Signature of certifying official Title Date _____________________________________ State or Federal Agency or Tribal government I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Seattle Edward B
    City of Seattle Edward B. Murray, Mayor Finance and Administrative Services Fred Podesta, Director July 25, 2016 The Honorable Tim Burgess Seattle City Hall 501 5th Ave. Seattle, WA 98124 Councilmember Burgess, Attached is an annual report of all real property under City ownership. The annual review supports strategic management of the City’s real estate holdings. Because City needs change over time, the annual review helps create opportunities to find the best municipal use of each property or put it back into the private sector to avoid holding properties without an adopted municipal purpose. Each January, FAS initiates the annual review process. City departments with jurisdiction over real property assure that all recent acquisitions and/or dispositions are accurately represented, and provide current information about each property’s current use, and future use, if identified. Each property is classified based on its level of utilization -- from Fully Utilized Municipal Use to Surplus. In addition, in 2015 and 2016, in conjunction with CBO, OPI, and OH, FAS has been reviewing properties with the HALA recommendation on using surplus property for housing. The attached list has a new column that groups excess, surplus, underutilized and interim use properties into categories to help differentiate the potential for various sites. Below is a matrix which explains the categorization: Category Description Difficult building site Small, steep and/or irregular parcels with limited development opportunity Future Use Identified use in the future
    [Show full text]