View Full Version : Voelker Park master plan in San Antonio



khook
08-18-2009, 01:53 PM
link to master plan for Voelker Park in San Antonio being developed.
Voelcker Park - City of San Antonio Parks & Recreation Department - Home (http://www.voelckerparksa.com/home/)


Once complete Voelcker Park will include:

-5 Distinctive Hiking Trails

-Open fields for recreation

-Pedestrian/Wildlife Land Bridge

-Nature Center

-Shallow Water Trails

-Educational Complex

-Multiple Playgrounds

-Picnic Areas

-Sculpture Garden

-Dog Park

-Event Space Pavilions

-Multiple Overlooks


Hmmmm the core to shore parks don't seem to be providing this many types of activities.... Lots of gardens maybe.... but not many actual activities for people to be able to participate in. Also seems as if there was alot more public input into the San Antonio plan.

warreng88
08-18-2009, 02:30 PM
link to master plan for Voelker Park in San Antonio being developed.
Voelcker Park - City of San Antonio Parks & Recreation Department - Home (http://www.voelckerparksa.com/home/)


Once complete Voelcker Park will include:

-5 Distinctive Hiking Trails

-Open fields for recreation

-Pedestrian/Wildlife Land Bridge

-Nature Center

-Shallow Water Trails

-Educational Complex

-Multiple Playgrounds

-Picnic Areas

-Sculpture Garden

-Dog Park

-Event Space Pavilions

-Multiple Overlooks


Hmmmm the core to shore parks don't seem to be providing this many types of activities.... Lots of gardens maybe.... but not many actual activities for people to be able to participate in. Also seems as if there was alot more public input into the San Antonio plan.

In all fairness to a C2S Central Park, Voelcker Park is about 15 miles from downtown. Lake Hefner Park has a lot of what Voelcker Park has plus a huge lake with restaurants, boating and excellent biking and jogging trails.

Millenium Park in Chicago is the one a lot of people are referencing in regards to size, usability and location near the CBD. It is only 24.5 acres but has an awesome amphitheatre, a restaurant, an ice rink, a fountain, a pavilion and promenades.

jbrown84
08-18-2009, 04:22 PM
Yeah this isn't an urban park. It's also much, much larger than the C2S park as proposed. But it's just another example of why our park needs to be bigger.

BPD
08-18-2009, 04:59 PM
Yeah this isn't an urban park. It's also much, much larger than the C2S park as proposed. But it's just another example of why our park needs to be bigger.

Yeah, but isn't Millenium Park, the one being put forward as the standard park to be copied, smaller than our proposed central park?

khook
08-18-2009, 10:00 PM
warren you get my point....if millennium park is the reference... then what has been planned for core to shore is falling way short. More activities must be planned for the park or "quote parks" === not just a pond with some gardens and some pathways...

This could be accomplished very easily by making a park that ran from Myriad gardens all the way to the "Oklahoma River". One contiguous block of land for a park that could be developed to provided many different functions and activities... But I go back to my previous comment = There as not been much public input into the plan.....

Hefner may have alot of what your saying, but in my opinion, Oklahoma City was planned to have a great park system... but alas not much has been done with those original grand parks- mostly golf courses or highway right of ways... In the discussion of the original plans for Oklahoma City, the founding fathers realized they didn't have space for a great public park in the downtown or central part of the city when it was established. We have an opportunity at this time to really create a vibrant downtown or central city urban park... But it will be haphazard unless there is more public input.

warreng88
08-19-2009, 07:52 AM
warren you get my point....if millennium park is the reference... then what has been planned for core to shore is falling way short. More activities must be planned for the park or "quote parks" === not just a pond with some gardens and some pathways....

I do get your point, but I am not entirely sure if you get mine. Voelker Park is 311 acres. It has plenty of size for all the ameneties you listed. The reason I brought up Millenium Park is because it is very close to a major DT, almost half the size of our park, but still very functional. Also, we are not 100% sure of what is going to be in our park. We know the size and have seen sketches, but still no final plan.


This could be accomplished very easily by making a park that ran from Myriad gardens all the way to the "Oklahoma River". One contiguous block of land for a park that could be developed to provided many different functions and activities... But I go back to my previous comment = There as not been much public input into the plan.....

How would you propose we make the park run from the Boulevard to the River? I-40 is already being built so we can't very well abandon that whole plot. I wish it was wider, but I think the idea of a main Central Park and a Promenade Park with a Pedestrian Bridge connecting the two would be great. That also gives developers more of a chance to develop residential areas facing several areas of a park, not just the Central Park.


Hefner may have alot of what your saying, but in my opinion, Oklahoma City was planned to have a great park system... but alas not much has been done with those original grand parks- mostly golf courses or highway right of ways... In the discussion of the original plans for Oklahoma City, the founding fathers realized they didn't have space for a great public park in the downtown or central part of the city when it was established. We have an opportunity at this time to really create a vibrant downtown or central city urban park... But it will be haphazard unless there is more public input.

Can't argue with that.

khook
08-19-2009, 12:34 PM
One of my greatest concerns with the proposed c2s proposal is that blocks just south of the myriad garden planned for "boulevard mixed use". In my opinion taking three blocks (two full and two half blocks) out of development of buildings and place that area into park development would help to unify the parks planned. Also when you get to the new I-40, I do like the sky bridge, but a connection to keep the central park and promenade parks combined to each other much like the state capitol park on the north side of the capitol building going over 23rd would also provide continued unity.

Amenities then would be such that starting at the Myriad botanical gardens going south, you would have the botanical garden, with maybe the delivery of planned restaurants at the myriad gardens, an improved amphitheater for theater productions. Then in the next block which has been slated for building development - extend the botanical park to be a botanical park featuring native or habitat friendly landscape materials, along with a large outdoor sculpture park (maybe get the Oklahoma Museum of Arts outdoor sculptures out of mothballs).

For discussion maybe the great lawn should trade spaces with the boat pond, childrens garden and formal gardens. If those function were traded and the botanical park expand to the north as per my suggestion, then the "botanical areas would be contiguous and could be maintaned from the botanical tube maintence hub. (which would also need further development).

When you get to the events center, proposed east of the Union station, in my opinion that whole facility and parking, needs to find a different location. Posssibly in the area we just discussed as the botanical expansion or to the west side along Hudson, which would place it adjacent and along side the middle of all the botanical area. The reason I feel that it should move is my thought that opening up the connecting point between Central park and Promenade park is an important unifying connector. It should be an entire block wide... (again possibly something like the north great lawn at the State Capitol) As is proposed, the plan creates a giant divide and builds on making a bigger divide by placing buildings that obstuct the connection of the two parks), along with the I-40 alignment. Opening up this connection combines the park area rather than "build and seperate".

Then we get to Promenade park. It does look like some areas for ball parks, tennis courts, and trails have been proposed--- But alas the ugly discussion of PARKING. All of these uses bring people into to the park area to access them. I do not see anything but street parking. Is there enough parking? In the plan many new housing units are planned and it looks like in the plan that an assumption that the users of the parks will be from those housing units-therefore not as much parking will be needed. Also along with this thought is all the bike or walking trails look like they have been relegated to the Promenade Park only. Walking paths and Bike paths should be planned to allow access to all the parks.

So much for my thoughts at this time. I hope these comments will give others ideas that also need to be discussed...remember I started this all off because I do not feel, that there has been enough public input into the plan proposed. Out of many visions a great plan can be developed and hopefully implemented.

metro
08-19-2009, 02:10 PM
khook, just to clarify, as planned, there is no boat pond, as well as Union Station IS the event center in C2S. There are also serious talks about parking garages, but masking them with street level retail and better facades.

warreng88
08-19-2009, 03:58 PM
Union Station IS the event center in C2S.

Really? In all the C2S renderings I have seen, they have an Events Center directly east of Union Station facing the Central Park.

khook
08-19-2009, 04:44 PM
metro look at the final report of the core to shore committee....


the plan clearly shows at the Labeled - Central Park that a "Great Lawn, childrens garden, formal garden, Boat pond, and pedestrian spine are defined and layout on a plan in the report. Also look further and you will see the events center east of the Union Station along with parking on the south side of Union Station and the Event Center.


The report has been referenced at
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity/coretoshore.htm

with posting of several of the afore mentioned plans for the park.

Check it out..... Maybe there is some information there that others haven't seen yet either.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/coretoshore/CoreToShorePlan_2008_64_park.jpg

FritterGirl
08-19-2009, 05:02 PM
The final "park design" to come out of Core to Shore was really conceptual in nature. What you see was put in at the time for placement only to give the Core 2 Shore standing committee an idea of the types of amenities the park would/could hold. It was never intended to be a design plan that would be actualized.

The standing committee working on the C2S park redesign is working in consultation with a San Francisco-based, internationally-known landscape firm. The type of work this firm does is far and away much more impressive and much more interesting in scope than what you see as part of the final C2S designs. The park plans through the C2S committee were never really intended to see the light of day. They were just concepts.

As others have noted, the ideas for this park, if realized, will fall much more in line with the kinds of projects and activities you might see at Chicago's millennium park. This is an urban park, not suburban, so the planning will fit that type of setting and potential for foot traffic.

As for public input, there may be room for that when the time is right. There was a public charrette regarding the redesign of the Myriad Botanical Gardens. I don't know why there wouldn't be something similar for this park, but it's still much, much too early. They still have to acquire the bulk of the land.

khook
08-19-2009, 05:36 PM
fritter thanks for the info..... again the point is discussion must be ongoing.... and not just a presentation by some firm without imput. The public is going to be asked to fund this project. Your comment of "there may be room for that when the time is right" is why discussion must be brought to the fore-front of the process... Not here's what has been planned - what do you think about it, because the committe or planners know best. It will be public money - and public users. And the public should have the imput into the parks project - just like the owner and developers do on any of their projects that they fund.

Again this is discussion about the c2c that is out there right now being done by a standing committee spending public funds.

Too often after a plan is presented there is little possiblity in making larger changes to the process or to even change direction with the plan.

metro
08-20-2009, 07:28 AM
Exactly as FritterGirl said. Khook, the drawings you refer to were just to throw the idea out there. I've seen the actual models that the Hargreaves and Assoc (the San. Fran design firm) have made. There is a thread on that actually. It in no way resembles the original faux renderings you were referring to.

I do however think the park is lacking some major urban design elements or essentials and hope the Mayor and Council are smart enough to allow public input early enough in the process to where it could actually make a difference on the final design, and not just a formality.

khook
08-20-2009, 10:25 AM
Metro thanks for the info..... could you please post the thread to the hargreaves concept. The only way the public will be assured of having early enough input is to make sure that those that are controlling the process realize that there are many in the community watching and hopefully becoming vocal about the process. You to have some concerns about the process..... lets make sure the process results in a final concept that we can all get behind and support.

Lets take note the all the information being discussed and even mentioned as being "faux rendering or non existing drawings" is information from the standing committee. Those drawings are a point of reference. Discussion should be occurring about what is proposed... and the results of that discussion shoud be part of the input for the hargreaves concept. Otherwise the faux drawings are just pictures drawn up and PAID FOR that have no value. Just public money being spend creating a "placemarker".

metro
08-20-2009, 10:40 AM
Where the "events center" is on the drawing above, in the Hargreaves piece, it is a "hard park" since it backs up to the new I-40 and an elevated Robinson Ave. Good chance it will end up a skate park area and I also suggested they should put some b-ball goals up. There will also be "hidden" maintenance area in this far SE corner, well at least that's the recommended plan currently.

Doug Loudenback
08-21-2009, 01:24 AM
This is all very interesting but until something post-steering committee is presented by it or some other group in at least quasi-authority, most importantly if and when it should occur, yet another report to the council, all of the above (including, to be sure, the steering committee's report) is speculative. The Steering Committee's report itself was merely a report presented to the City Council.

Some mention was made, above, of the "standing committee working on the C2S park redesign." If it would produce and/or present a report that would be good to know ... I'm not aware that it has, though.

Unless and until such time as the City Council takes some action, or the Steering Committee or some other recognized element of city government (such as the above noted standing committee) gives some degree of blessing to some element in the Core to Shore plan, all that we really have to go by is the "last" such publication made by such a group, and that is, as far as I'm aware, the Steering Committee's late-2007 report. It's the only such document which appears at the city's Core To Shore website.

Metro, you said that Union Station has now assumed the role of the Events Center in the Steering Committee's report. Please provide your source as I'd like to check it out.

metro
08-21-2009, 02:30 PM
Doug, my source is the Hargreaves and Assoc. model (the firm designated for the design), they've already gone through at least 3 conceptual designs to reach this latest 4th model that is the current proposed. Regardless of what you've seen or heard, serious work is already being done behind the scenes on this. None of which has been made public, the closest "public info" that has been released was the infamous thread I started entitled something to the effect of "Core To Shore models - blurry pics". You know me and I wouldn't just throw this stuff out there unless I was behind the scenes. I understand an FOIA request is going to be made, and it SHOULD, since this is afterall a PUBLIC project using TAXPAYER money.

Doug Loudenback
08-21-2009, 03:59 PM
Ok. If and when something is done publicly in the form or a report or something, it is then that I'll pay attention.

metro
08-24-2009, 09:58 AM
Doug, start paying attention in Sept., as I mentioned, that's when they plan to go public, unless something changes or changed that I don't know about.

lasomeday
08-24-2009, 10:46 AM
Yeah, they are pushing everything through from Core to Shore, and will probably start tearing down buildings in Sept!