Little Brook Park:

Community Revisioning
CEP 301 Fall 2020
Final Written Report

Elijah Mason, Madeline McCort,

Emma Turner, Amelie Diaz, Tasha Weiss, Sally Celigoy, Abbey Monson
 Acknowledgements
A special thanks to the Lake City Collective, including but not limited to Cesar Garcia, Peggy
Hernandez, and Anya Gavrilko.
Also to our professors for CEP 460, Rachel Berney and Jess Zimbabwe.

Our Team

From left to right, top:

Sally Celigoy - celigs@uw.edu
Amelie Davis - adiaz@uw.edu
Elijah Mason - masone2@uw.edu
From left to right, bottom:
Emma Turner - erose99@uw.edu
Maddie McCort - mmccort@uw.edu
Abbey Monson - abbeysm@uw.edu
Tasha Weiss - weissn7@uw.edu

Please don’t hesitate to reach out to any of us above with any questions or concerns from
this report.

1
 Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………… 3

II. Client, Purpose, & Scope………………………………………………………………….4

III. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………....6

IV. Results & Conclusions

A. Outreach…………………………………………………………………………...9

B. Recommendations………………………………………………………………..13

C. Neighborhood Solutions………………………………………………………....24

V. Limitations……………………………………………………………………………….28

VI. Next Steps…………………………………………………………………………….....29

VII. References………………………………………………………………………………..30

VIII. Appendices

A. Flyer…………………………………………………………………………………....31

B. Google Survey…………………………………………………………………….…...32

C. Survey Responses……………………………….....…………………………………..37

IX.

2
 I. Executive Summary

The purpose of this research is to assess and analyze the community’s needs in relation to

the revisioning and redesign of Little Brook Park in Lake City, Seattle. In response to rapid

population growth and increased resident diversity, The Lake City Collective (LCC) and leaders

in the community acknowledged the need for an updated Little Brook Park. Our group in

Community Environment and Planning 460: Planning in Context teamed up with the LCC on

their community vision for Little Brook Park. LCC determined that prominent issues in the park

were dog waste and conflicts over use between dog owners and families.

Our student-led team reached out to the community through various means with the goal

of understanding what they would like to see implemented in the park. The outreach sought

information concerning programming options, design elements, and general comments about

Little Brook Park. After posting fliers, completing in-person tabling, and dispersing surveys, we

found that the most common feedback was that the dog waste issue was one of the most

important issues to address. We also learned that an upgraded playground, added lighting, and a

separate area for dogs were some of the most favored improvements to the green space.

Improved walkways, increased seating, a covered picnic area, and urban agriculture or garden

space are other essential elements that community members mentioned to be considered during

the redesign process of Little Brook Park.

As well as including a synthesis of community input and recommendations, this report

includes neighborhood solutions that aim to consult issues outside of the scope of the park.

While we attempted to make our research as thorough as possible, limitations existed in

our effectiveness in reaching out to a wide range of community members; this makes the amount

of recommendations received from community members limited as well.

3
II. Client, Purpose, & Scope
The Lake City Collective (LCC) is a grassroots, community-led organization with the

goal of empowering this changing population in Lake City. The LCC’s main need of assistance

was collecting resident input to contribute to a park redesign for the community. Throughout the

quarter, our group worked closely with the LCC to perform outreach and provide support

through their process of hiring a landscape architecture firm to redesign Little Brook Park.

Lake City Collective

This minority-led, non-profit organization was founded by Peggy Hernandez and Cesar

Garcia to empower underserved communities. The LCC works on issues that primarily affect

Black, Indigenous, and other families of color that live in North Seattle. They aim to remove

barriers that prevent participation and expression across cultures and to help families avoid being

displaced. The LCC now has a community gathering space where they can continue to advocate,

and elevate their community.

Current Conditions & Context

Little Brook Park is about one acre in size, tucked into the neighborhood near a

commercial strip. It features a restroom, benches, picnic tables, a play structure, an open lawn,

and a dirt trail. Although there are many opportunities for use, the park has recently encountered

some challenges. A new apartment building recently opened directly across the street from the

park, and long time Lake City residents noticed a change. Heavy dog use of the park has led to

concentrated dog waste within the grassy area. This has polluted the nearby stream and caused

tensions between dog owners and families with small children. In addition to the dog waste

problem, inadequate drainage and minimal upkeep reduce usership of the park.

4
Project Goals & Purpose

After learning about and visiting Little Brook Park and the Lake City neighborhood, we

set our goals as the following: collect community input for the park, gather and research ideas for

park design and programming, and offer strategies for park changes in the context of a dense,

diverse, and growing population. We wanted to synthesize the feedback from residents and

summarize the potential design and programming ideas for the Lake City Collective to then use

to continue the project.

5
III. Methodology

Outreach

To assess park usership needs, we pursued a series of actions to help connect with

community members and receive input and feedback from these individuals. Through a google

survey, posted fliers, elementary school and local housing outreach, and in person tabling, we

conducted outreach over the course of about 3 weeks.

Google Survey

As a group we crafted a Google form survey that included questions about the

respondents’ demographics, user needs, and current usership (see Appendix B for Google survey

questions). Through our survey, we strived to create awareness of the conflicts and users within

the park. We did this by including questions such as “If you bring children to the park or come to

the park with your family, what areas do you spend time at?” This was done so in hopes of

positively affecting park users that have not historically cleaned up after their pets simply due to

a lack of awareness. This same survey was created in a print-friendly version and distributed to a

small handful of residents in the neighborhood to be returned to the LCC and forwarded to us via

email.

Fliers

We distributed fliers in and around the park that asked residents to provide feedback on

the park via our survey (see appendix A for flyer). There was a link and a scannable QR code on

this flier that both led to the google survey. Fairly quickly we realized that most of our outreach

efforts involved people who visited the park from the Array apartments across the street, and we

wanted to extend our outreach to include families and other community members that use the

park. For this purpose, we researched the Seattle Public Schools meal pick-up destinations,

6
decided which school was the closest and most relevant to the Little Brook neighborhood, and

contacted the school in hopes of advertising the survey at the location. We got in contact with

Principal DeBell from Olympic Hills Elementary, our selected school, who invited us to post

fliers in the room where community members pick up meals for students. She also offered to

include the PDF of our flier in her newsletter to all of the families of Olympic Hills elementary,

assisting us in expanding our outreach efforts.

Elementary School and Local Housing Outreach

Principal DeBell of Olympic Hills Elementary was our most successful connection,

though we did attempt making contact with others. Through one of LCC’s community leaders,

we learned about the Jackson Park House, a low-income public housing location with the Seattle

Housing Authority (SHA). Following this meeting, we contacted the SHA and inquired about

posting fliers and/or connecting with the community there in some manner. In this email we

highlighted that receiving feedback from their communities will positively impact them through

a park that has incorporated end-user needs and feedback. Unfortunately, we never were able to

connect with SHA. We also contacted the Array Apartments manager on several occasions

through different forms of communication. Though we connected with them on one occasion in

which we explained our efforts and intentions, we were never able to follow through once more

to finalize due to their lack of response.

After the meeting with the LCC and community members mentioned previously, we

contacted Anya with the LCC to forward our survey onto the community members so they could

also provide further insights and feedback. We did not receive responses from the community

members, though we are confident their voices have been heard through their involvement and

time spent with the LCC.

7
In Person Tabling

Lastly, we conducted in-person tabling at the park on 3 separate occasions. To table, we

displayed our outreach materials, which included our flier with a link and QR code to our google

survey, a written survey that could be submitted to the LCC, and University of Washington

masks that we received from our department. All of our written outreach materials used the

English language. We brought the masks to provide an incentive to park users to fill out the

survey on all occasions besides our first time tabling. Typically, we had two to three students

from our group tabling and would invite people approaching the park to use their phone to scan

the QR code to our survey and complete the form. Based on the survey responses received, this

was our most successful method of outreach; the biggest influx of responses on the Google form

occured after we had tabled at the park.

Research

In addition to direct outreach to the community, our team recognized the importance of

bringing in outside sources of inspiration. We believe community members’ strengths were

demonstrated through their ability to identify what was missing from or not working in the park,

and our strengths as a team lie in supplementing their feedback with our own education and

research on planning and design. Part of our team focused on researching:

● Programming options which increase park visitation;

● Design elements which promote safety;
● Placemaking techniques;
● Unique solutions to issues of dog waste;
● Details of how Little Brook fits into Seattle infrastructure, zoning, bicycle and pedestrian
plans;
● Alternate areas which could be utilized as dog parks;
● And low-cost, temporary park improvement options, i.e. DIY or guerilla urbanism.

8
IV. Results & Conclusions
Outreach

Survey and Flier

The survey we created was designed to get open and honest feedback from members of

the community. What we gathered from the survey reflected the initial concerns from the LCC,

which is that the average user of this park is tired of the dog waste and wanted to see changes in

the park to solve this problem. We found that our posted fliers were not effective, and for future

research and outreach, we suggest a more involved, hands-on approach of connecting with

community residents. Lastly, we acknowledge that creating fliers and outreach materials that

were more inclusive in their imagery, design, and language could drastically increase the amount

of responses and engagement.

In-Person Feedback

Tabling at the park was a great way to not only gather information from the members of

the community but also observe park users. The majority of members coming to the park were

dog owners, and despite many carrying bags for dog waste, very few dog owners left the park

with a bag in their hand or threw away their dog’s waste. Some visitors of the park displayed

hesitations from afar and avoided our table, but others came over, and showed interest in our

outreach efforts after we explained our intentions. Plenty of people scanned the survey’s QR

code and others proceeded to share verbal feedback instead. We do believe that using the

incentive of a free UW mask was successful. We credit the giving of masks for our best turnout

overall of in-person engagement and survey responses.

From in person tabling, we learned that having a quick and simple 10-15 second speech

to explain our efforts was most successful in convincing park users to take our survey. If we were

9
to do this again we would bring a notebook or get permission to record our conversations in

order to better note what people spoke about. Having better signage to represent our efforts

tabling at the park could be useful for future outreach so that park users feel more transparency

upon seeing us when visiting the park. We missed many people who would enter the park further

away from us, so setting up stations on both sides of the entrance could be an effective way to

increase engagement. Once people learned that we were students conducting outreach for the

betterment of the park and community, they became much more engaged knowing that the

change they were looking for could be expressed to us.

Results

After tabling, handing out surveys, and interviewing community members, we gained a

total of 15 respondents. 11 people submitted the survey and we spoke to 4 people in-person. We

provided the option for survey takers to share demographic information, but only some

respondents chose to share. Figure 1 represents the age range of those who shared this

information.

10
 Out of the 11 online survey respondents, 40% use the park multiple times daily and 30%

use it once per day. However, 50% wish they could use the park multiple times daily and 40%

wish they could use it once per day. All four of the in-person interviews said they use the park

daily. One respondent said they use the park everyday to work out. They use the bench near the

playground as workout equipment. When asked, “What do you like most about your

neighborhood/community?” four respondents appreciated the diversity of the community, two

mentioned they enjoyed the location and how it isn’t in the urban environment, and three

mentioned they enjoyed how many dogs there are in the neighborhood. One said that they only

lived in the neighborhood because of the price point. During one of the in-person interviews, the

respondent informed us that they have been living in the neighborhood for several years and

appreciate the diversity. However, the respondent said they wish people, especially dog owners,

had more respect for the park. Figure 2 depicts the programming options selected (respondents

could select as many as they liked) by some survey takers.

In terms of what community members like about Little Brook Park, five respondents

noted they enjoy it because it is convenient for dog owners. Five users noted they liked having a

11
green space near them. One noted they liked the playground, but it mentioned that it could use

some upgrades. When asked what changes they would make to the neighborhood, 14 out of 15

community members wanted increased feelings of safety either via environmental health,

walkability, and visibility. Eight respondents noted the lack of lighting at the far end of the park

and how that makes it difficult to pick up dog waste at night. Six respondents complained about

the dog waste issue and how it makes the park less accessible. One respondent mentioned,

“When my friend brings her daughter we mostly stay in the playground. The lawn is often too

full of poop to play in.”

In terms of dog ownership, 12 of 15 respondents are dog owners. 55.6% of dog owners

felt like they have enough space in the park for their dog, 33.3% responded they don’t feel like

they have enough space for their dog, and 11% responded that they think there is enough space,

but more would be nice. As shown in Fig 3 below, when asked if they feel like they have enough

options to walk their dogs in the neighborhood, 55.6% of dog owners said no and 44.4% said

yes. For dog owners who replied “no” to the questions regarding space for their dogs, all

mentioned that an off-leash area would be beneficial.

12
Recommendations

Programming

Programming provides different opportunities for use within a park. When thinking about

what programming should be included in Little Brook, we must consider what settings the local

residents would need to do the things that are important to them. The presence of programmed

activities can increase the use of a park, which can then increase stewardship of the park (PPS,

2008). Programming does not force people to use the park in a certain way, it only provides the

opportunity, therefore reinforcing a presence in the park that may otherwise be missing.

When considering the location of programming, we look at the park as it currently exists.

The east half of Little Brook Park is fairly programmed: there is a play area for children,

benches, picnic tables, and a bathroom. The west half of the park is an open lawn with a path

around it. This is less programmed, which gives more power to the individual. The fact that the

grassy area is not used by non-dog owners suggests that more programming would benefit the

west end of the park.

Another consideration to make is what time of day the programming draws users to the

park. We want the activities provided to establish a presence from early morning to night time.

Although we acknowledge that Little Brook is a small, neighborhood park, it should still provide

a diversity in use for a diversity of users.

In our survey, we listed programming options that might interest the community, and

asked survey takers to select all of the options that appeal to them. Below are the programming

options that were most selected, and that we recommend be considered in the final park design.

Active Programming Options:

Dog park, Open Lawn/Sports Space, Kids Play Area, Event Space.

Passive Programming Options:

13
 Enjoying Nature, Sitting/Resting, Community Message Board, Reading,

Eating/Cooking/Gardening

Design Features

Considering our team’s personal research as well as the desires of the community shown

through our outreach, our team has compiled a list of potential design element solutions to the

issues in Little Brook Park. These recommendations should serve as a resource for the Lake City

Collective when advocating for community needs and should also be considered by the firm

chosen for the park redesign. This list is not exhaustive, but we believe these to be a good

starting point when designing to increase placemaking, park usership, and community care.

Increasing Usership & Safety

Updating the park’s physical features is a good way to establish feelings of safety and

comfort, enhance ownership and belongingness, and mitigate issues of misuse by park visitors.

For Little Brook, having a public space that residents are proud of can increase park attendance

and communal obligation to look after it, thereby discouraging irresponsible behavior.

14
Increased Lighting

This was one of the most frequently-noted areas of weakness by our outreach

respondents. With Seattle’s weather and seasonal changes, outside open space can feel dark and

enclosed for much of the year, especially on the back end of the park which is canopied; this

darkness can encourage undesirable park use. Lighting features will increase feelings of safety

for park-goers, and will also increase visibility from the outside in, allowing a “neighborhood

watch” experience.

Updated Playground Features

An essential part of revamping this park to be reclaimed by the community will be

updating outdated playground equipment. This will bring more families into this space and help

reframe it as a lively community park, rather than a dog park. Potential playground

improvements could include:

● Multicultural elements representing the diversity in Little Brook (see Fig. 9), such as

interactive multilingual game boards, architectural elements reminiscent of different

15
 countries, international flags, etc.

● Rubberized groundcover (see Fig. 8), which deters dogs from using the playground as a

bathroom.

● The use of bright colors (see Fig. 7). Currently, the park is dominated by toned-down

blues, greens, and browns. Brighter colors would be more attractive to small children.

● Accessible equipment for differently-abled members of the community.

16
 This is an opportunity to include Little Brook children in the design process. When

redesigning the playground, we recommend releasing a survey with pictures of potential

playground features, and allowing children from the community to vote on what they’d like to

see in their park. Seeing their choices come to life could be an excellent way to instill feelings of

ownership for families.

Improved Walkways

The current dirt trail has not been

well maintained and, according to survey

respondents, gets quite muddy in the rain.

More enjoyable and accessible walkways,

such as crushed gravel or pavement, may

increase year-round park attendance and

safety.

Increased Seating

This was a common desire of those who responded to our survey. It would allow for more

comfortable time to be spent within the park, rather than using the space as a throughway or

visiting briefly. Although some benches already exist, they have been poorly maintained and are

often vandalized. More seating throughout the park would provide opportunities for

neighborhood residents to sit and enjoy fresh air, take some time to read a book or chat with

family members, and increase chances for community members to run into each other and

interact directly in a shared neighborhood public space. It also gives more space for adults to sit

while children play. Seating features should always be paired with lighting. This would allow for

safe and productive use in the darker hours of the day.

17
 More seating could be implemented near the playground, and in the vicinity of the more

vegetated space near the creek at the back of the park, where more trees and biophilic

opportunities exist. We know that this is a strong desire of the community because of a story told

to our team by Cesar of the LCC. Cesar witnessed people bringing chairs to the creek so they

would be able to sit, read and enjoy the quiet and nature.

Covered Picnic Area

A covered area would allow a space of the park to be used year-round by community

members for events like holidays, birthdays, reunions, etc. It could also be used for

community-organized events to be more comfortably held in Little Brook; we are aware that the

park has been used as a venue for LCC-hosted events in the past. A covered area would be yet

another reason for park attendance to increase.

Urban Agriculture or Gardening Space

The success of a community

implemented raised-bed garden feature was

already seen through the LCC’s installation of

flower boxes at the nearby intersection of NE

143rd St and 32nd Ave NE, with the help of the

youth in Little Brook. Allowing community

members to engage in the construction and

maintenance of parts of the park fosters

ownership over this space. It would also allow more intensive interaction with plants in an area

of Seattle which severely lacks green space.

18
Design Features For Dog Waste

The biggest issue impacting park attendance and community pride is excessive dog

waste. This issue is caused by dog owners neglecting to pick up after their pets, which may have

to do with lack of access to trash cans, feeling as if it doesn’t matter since no one is ever at the

park anyways, or simply a failure to recognize the impacts of their actions. Our team makes a

couple recommendations of physical park alterations that can improve this issue by putting more

eyes on this public space, spreading awareness of the problem, and instilling a greater sense of

responsibility in dog owners.

Eye-Catching Trash Cans

An increased number of trash cans throughout the park that are fun colors or visually

engaging in some way may flip the switch for dog owners to remember to throw away their pets’

waste. It also allows visitors to see exactly how close they are to the nearest trash bin; the current

ones are built in very neutral colors which easily blend into the background, especially in

19
low-light conditions. Colorful trash cans would make the disposal of trash a more fun and

accessible experience.

This is also a potential collaborative community art project for the LCC or design firms

to launch. An event could be hosted in which community members, especially children, could

contribute to painting trash cans, such as the one pictured below. This is low-cost,

low-commitment, and would be highly effective in building personal pride in this public space.

Bins Designed for Dog Waste

Bins have been released to market which are specifically designed for the disposal of dog

waste. In-ground units, such as the one below designed by Practica Ltd. and Sutera, would

decrease the amount of maintenance needed over trash in the park, and would decrease the smell

from bins (Sutera). Although these can be somewhat expensive, the right trash can solution could

be a good investment for this community, seeing as dog waste has been such a serious issue in

this critical green space.

20
 These units would be an effective solution to the problem, but do require an investment

and special maintenance. If this option is not viable, then simply attaching more trash cans (like

the colorful ones mentioned above) to dog bag dispensers would also address the issue.

Increased Amount of Bag Dispensers

This recommendation seems a bit like common sense, but it was highly requested through

our survey, and we believe it to be a good low-cost, short-term, highly effective solution as larger

improvements are in the works. The park currently has only one poop bag dispenser near the

entrance to the park, but not near the grass field where dog owners mainly take their pets.

Spreading more dispensers throughout the park would make them more accessible no matter

what direction visitors are entering from, and would encourage more folks to pick up after their

pets. Dispensers could be paired with the colorful trash cans mentioned above so as to create

one-stop shops for waste disposal needs.

21
Separated Dog & Play Areas

Although the park is on a pretty small lot, there is an opportunity to separate an area

where dogs are allowed from places where children and families might play, picnic, or kick balls

around. This area could be fenced or not, but either way, it could include features geared towards

attracting dogs, and could discourage use of other areas of the park for dogs to do their business.

This would show the community’s active effort to include pet owners in the use and pride of

public space, and would instil a greater responsibility for this faction of the population to behave

responsibility. Paired with the right enforcement and signage, this would allow for more peaceful

coexistence of families and dogs.

Incentivizing Signage

We believe using very intentional signage and messaging could be critical for solving the

dog waste problem. This includes signage that brings community members, including dog

owners, in instead of calling them out with negative language or visuals. Instead of talking about

negative consequences like fines or displaying big red X’s over dogs pooping, signage could

include things like:

22
 ● “Let’s look after our wonderful community”

● “Help keep our creak clean and clear!”

● “Keep Little Brook safe for our kids!”

This type of messaging is more likely to make community members feel like they are a

part of something special by living in Little Brook and fosters a greater sense of pride and

responsibility to show up for others.

Visuals to Spread Awareness

Many folks contributing to the issue of excessive dog waste may do so because they

simply don’t understand the consequences of their actions. Clearer or more understandable

messaging about the awful pollution which already

exists in the creek, as well as how it’s linked to dog

waste, may make people feel more responsible for

disposal. There currently is one sign about the creek’s

pollution, shown to the left, but it is hidden on the

dark backside of the park, and is old and dirty. It’s

also very text-heavy, which probably doesn’t attract

many people to read it. Simpler, more clear and

explicit graphics will be useful.

In conclusion, these design elements could work

together to reclaim Little Brook Park as a lively space of community engagement, children’s

play, and safe interaction with nature. They begin building a Little Brook brand; in other words,

they emphasize placemaking and pride in being from this diverse pocket of Lake City.

23
Neighborhood Solutions

For many people, dog owners included, Little Brook Park is their only space to enjoy

nature, recreate safely outdoors, and enjoy dense vegetation. This small park alone cannot and

shouldn’t have to be the sole source of greenspace for the entire neighborhood. Without changes

to the neighborhood at large, it will be very difficult to solve problems within the park including

contaminated runoff into the creek, small lawn, dog waste, and general interactions with nature.

Because of these complex problems, we have proposed neighborhood-wide solutions including

greenways, guerilla urbanism, pedestrian and vehicle safety upgrades, other neighborhood parks,

and street trees.

Greenways

One thing that can provide similar services as parks is adding greenways and walkable

streets. In Seattle, there are a lot of greenways concentrated in areas such as the University

District, Green Lake, and Mountlake and Eastlake areas. As shown below in Figure 17, even

though Lake City has a more concentrated population than many other areas of Seattle, the

walkability and greenspace is very limited.

Additionally, the existing greenways

in Lake City are north-south oriented,

while the difficulty in travel is

accentuated by the crossing of major

north-south streets such as Lake City

Way. Walkability and access in this

area would be greatly improved by

the addition of more greenways and

24
walkable streets running east-west so that communities are not confined by north-south

corridors.

Characteristic to many neighborhoods in Seattle is the use of pedestrian only streets for

events. This is often done temporarily by blocking them off for markets, block parties, and fairs.

Using the blocks surrounding Little Brook Park for these kinds of events could draw attention to

the neighborhood as well as create community-building activities for both new and existing

residents.

Guerrilla Urbanism

Another potential solution is implementing

Guerilla Urbanism, also known as tactical urbanism, in

the neighborhood. This is a term coined by the New York

Department of Transportation and New Orleans Group

CNU NextGen, as a way to push back and get around

restrictive and unnecessary government policy to better communities (Lydon; Davis). LCC has

already exercised this tactic, displayed in Fig. 18, involving local youth in transforming a

neglected street corner into a space with planter boxes and landscaped groundcover.

25
Pedestrian & Vehicle Safety

We noticed that despite heavy foot and vehicle traffic in the little brook neighborhood,

the city has failed to provide adequate sidewalks and crosswalks, making it difficult for people,

especially children, to access neighborhood amenities such as parks. Installing sidewalks would

greatly improve safety and potentially increase the accessibility and use of Little Brook Park.

Another solution to increase safety is traffic circles; the city of Seattle has invested in adding

traffic circles to residential streets, but must focus more on lower-income communities. These

small patches of vegetation could be used as a space for dog owners to bring their dogs.

Neighborhood Parks

In addition to being one of the only resources for dog owners, Little Brook Park is also

one of the only resources for children and families to play in a park. Cedar park is the closest

nearby park, and is similar to Little Brook in that it has a lawn as well as a playground. Cedar

Park features more robust programming such as a baseball diamond and walking path though.

Eastside Park provides the closest off-leash dog area. It is located just north of city limits, only a

mile northwest of Little Brook Park, but is difficult to access due to a lack of walkable streets.

26
Trees for Seattle

Another potential remedy for the neighborhood is an increase in urban trees in the Lake

City area. Trees not only provide greenspace for aesthetic reasons, but can host many living

things and provide micro habitats which increase the biodiversity of the surrounding urban area.

The patches of dirt or grass below

can also provide spaces for dogs to

use, as well as slow drainage to

creeks and waterways by absorbing

and filtering runoff into the soil. The

city has begun efforts to increase the

amount of trees in urban spaces in

the city, but should be directing more

efforts to underserved communities,

which generally have less parks and greenspace.

27
V. Limitations
Our limitations exist within the research that we could conduct and recommendations

that we could make. It was clear to us that the most effective form of outreach was in person

tabling. Although we wore masks, and remained six feet away from park users, COVID-19 may

have made some park users decide not to speak with us. The pandemic also means that less

people are using the park. Our data is skewed toward only people who feel comfortable using a

public space at this time. This included younger people and dog owners, and did not include

many older residents or families. Also, people have lost jobs and have had their hours reduced so

as we were trying to get a hold of faculty of schools and apartment complexes it turned out to be

harder than we originally expected. We risked not hearing from the members who may have once

accessed the park regularly but were tired of the conditions it was left in and would commute

elsewhere.

We are limited in the recommendations we can make because of the narrow

demographics of survey respondents. We cannot speak for those who did not share their thoughts

with us, and cannot make complete recommendations without complete involvement of the

community. Although collectively we have a host of knowledge on the topics of this project, our

research for this project was bounded by the timeline of the quarter. Further research and

outreach must be conducted to make suggestions and decisions about park revisioning.

28
VI. Next Steps
As the Lake City Collective continues to move forward with this revisioning and redesign

process, we hope that our team’s outreach findings and recommendations will be shared with the

leaders in the community and with residents of the community so they can see how work is

already being done to advocate for and improve on green space in their neighborhood. When

these documents are shared with the community, survey respondents will be able to see how

important their voices and opinions were in the development of our recommendations.

Our findings should also be presented to the landscape architecture firm which is chosen

for the redesign of the park. This way, resident voices can be considered from the very beginning

of the design process. We hope that our findings will be an inspiration and catalyst for further,

more widespread engagement with residents on this project.

Large-scale designs such as this can take time as stakeholders navigate bureaucratic and

governmental processes. In the meantime, community organizations like LCC have the

opportunity to implement small changes to increase park usership and placemaking. This may

include solutions like painted trash cans, gardening boxes, plastic bag dispensers, or improvised

signage. This park is a critical space for community health, community engagement, and civic

pride, and no step is too tiny to improve life for Little Brook residents.

29
VII. References
Davis, Brian. “On Broadway: Tactical Urbanism.” faslanyc, Blogger, 6 June 2010,

http://faslanyc.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-broadway-tactical-urbanism.html.

Lydon, Mike. “The Next Urbanism: A Movement Evolves.” Planetizen, 28 March 2011,

https://www.planetizen.com/node/48680.

Pfeifer, Laura. The Planner's Guide to Tactical Urbanism. Montreal, McGill School of Urban

Planning, 2013. Regina Urban Ecology,

https://reginaurbanecology.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/tuguide1.pdf.

“Seattle Department of Transportation: Traffic Circles.” Seattle.gov,

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/safety-first/traffic-operation

s/traffic-circles.

Sutera. “Home.” Sutera: In-Ground Waste Containment. Accessed 13 December 2020.

“Trees for Seattle.” Seattle.gov, https://www.seattle.gov/trees.

“What Role Can Programming Play in Creating Safer Parks?” PPS, RSS, 2008,

www.pps.org/article/torontosafety5.

30
Appendix A: Flyer

31
Appendix B: Google Survey

32
33
34
35
36
 Appendix C: Survey Responses
Location:

Array apartments

Lake City - Tuscany Condos

14027 Lake City Way NE

14027 Lake City Way NE, S101

14032 28th Ave NE

Array Apartments

12546 22nd Avenue NE

14027 lake city way

14300 32nd Ave NE

Age:

37
Household size:

What do you like most about your neighborhood/community?

Diverse neighborhood with friendly people of all backgrounds and heritages.

Friendly people, lots of dogs

Quality local shops and restaurants even this far from downtown and more populated areas.

Good access to busses.

Price point- that’s about it

It doesn't feel like we're in the middle of a city, it's quiet and secluded(ish)

I love how active and diverse the community is.

I just moved to this neighborhood but so far everyone in the neighborhood seems very nice and
neighborly

A dog walk danced off

38
Diversity of people, lots of dogs

What changes would you like to see in the neighborhood/community?

For the community to be better stewards-reduce litter, for example.

Dog poop is not picked up at the park (not sure how to enforce that...)this makes the park not
safe for kids, other dogs, and other people trying to enjoy the grass space. Maybe adding another
post with the dog bags closer to the grass with a garbage can right by it may increase dog poop
pick up. Increase yard maintenance as well.

Trash and upkeep of the area

More lighting

More lights and more sidewalks

Less through traffic on non-main roads, less speeding, less crime

I would like for people to take care of the neighborhood more and show pride in it.

Better services for homeless so they are less likely to set up camps in parks

Dog walk

Fewer homeless people and less gang activity and drug deals

What do you like about Little Brook Park now?

39
Nice to have a park space in the neighborhood

Lots of space and grass, and dog poop bags provided + garbages to dispose of poop bags

Great place to take my dog every day. Very close to where I live.

Convenient for dog owners

it exists

I like the green space and it seems like a nice little neighborhood park.

Nice playground, swings could use upgrades

Easy access, family friendly, grassy area for dogs

What have you liked about the park in the past? What are some of your favorite memories
in the park?

I enjoy taking my dog there! The dog poop bags and garbage cans are great!

I mostly just use it for my dog

I just moved here, but I’ve loved getting a feeling of nature so close to my apartment and in such
an urban area.

I have only been a couple of times --ok park but some creepy characters hanging around

Daily walks with my dog along the dirt path

40
What do you think is missing from the park?

Many pet owners walk their pets in the park. It would be nice to have pet waste stations (with
bags and trash cans) around the perimeter of the park so more power owners might be
encouraged to clean up after their pets, making the park now sanitary for all to enjoy.

More dog poop bag posts

It is not treated very well by people. A lot of dog poop and trash/beer cans/etc.

Dog park and rubber flooring for playground and better lighting and basketball courts

Lights.

I would love to see more lights and an off-leash area

would love more benches

A fenced off-leash dog area would be nice

How often do you use the park?

41
How often do you wish you could use the park?

What park programming options appeal to you?

If you bring children to the park or come to the park with your family, what areas of the
park do you mainly spend time at? Are there any areas you avoid?

The grass and path around the grass - but you have to watch your step for poop!!!

When my friend brings her daughter we mostly stay in the playground. The lawn is often too full
of poop to play in.

playground unless there are creepy characters

42
We occasionally see a homeless person sleeping and inhabiting the space behind the treeline
toward the back of the grassy field where it's more hidden.

Do you feel like you have enough space for your dog in the park?

Do you feel like you have enough options to walk your dog in the
community/neighborhood?

If you answered “no” to either of the questions above, feel free to use this space to
elaborate.

I take him out to the park twice a day to relieve himself, but if I want to take him on a walk for
exercise I drive somewhere else

Off Leash large areas

43
There aren’t a lot of sidewalks in the area, and lake city way is very busy. It would also be nice to
have an off-leash area we didn’t have to drive to.

Little Brook Park is one of the only places nearby I can go to walk my dog. Although we usually
walk around the dirt path, it would be nice to have an area for my dog to run around in.

What doesn’t work or is missing from the park?

Pet waste stations around the perimeter of the park, so more pet owners might be encouraged to
clean up after their pets.

Other dog owners not picking up the dog poop

The park needs to have lights. The back area is super dark and makes people uncomfortable to
take their dogs back there in winter

People need to pick up after their dogs. More dog waste stations and trash cans at the back end of
the park might help. Also, removing the thorn vines would make the park safer for dogs and kids.

Dog walk

An off-leash dog area would be nice. Fewer homeless people and drug deals in the park would
also be nice.

Share any other thoughts that you may have below

I love this park, and I love that we are trying to make improvements to it.

44