Links, Comments, And Shared Info

---

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the below content are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of this site, its creators, or curators. Sharing this content does not imply endorsement or approval. This site, its creators, and curators are not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information mentioned.

We believe all voices should be heard and help contribute to a shared vision

A neighbor's Wikisage pages regarding Field Park  

 en.wikisage.org/wiki/Field_Playground

en.wikisage.org/wiki/Field_Playground

Neighbor's shared messages: 

The point I would like to highlight is that the north side of field park is unique and we would like it to remain that way.  Oak Park is a flat community so having a natural "hill" for kids to run up and down is a novelty.  Taylor Park is the only other natural hill at an OPPD park that I'm aware of.  And the gazebo is a natural outdoor area where most if not all have attended birthday parties and other significant events that we would like to keep the way it is.

___________________________________________

I want to make some points regarding the current structure which has been woefully neglected over the years. 

Most homes in the area are the same age as the field house. Had our homes suffered the same neglect as the historic structure in the park, the park service would probably consider them ready for tear down as well.

I believe the following points regarding the field house to be pertinent:

The field house

A) is a historic structure in the immediate vicinity of a historic district

B) is an integral part of the neighborhood in which it is situated

I support restauration, expansion if needed, and regular maintenance rather than demolition.

The envisioned new structure clashes with the architecture and history of the neighborhoods surrounding the park.

__________________________________________

We are trying to get the Park District to pay attention to community needs as the PDOP held a competition to receive proposals from architects (outside of Oak Park) and we're finding out after-the-fact that community input on the competition designs was held in late April/early May. (To give input, you had to stop by the CRC, review designs, and use their QR code to submit comments.) 

For me, this is about a more widely communicated round of input that is representative of various stakeholders of the park (recreationalists, conservationists, youth sports, after-school programs, etc) and then creating a design that meets as many needs as possible prior to finalizing the design. Ahead of the 2006/2007 park renovation, the community stated that a top priority was to have age-appropriate playgrounds which is how we ended up with playgrounds catering to different age groups, but within line-of-site of each other to ensure caregivers can supervise properly. That design considered community sentiment about the northwest part of the park (with the berm) being a safe space for families as there's fencing on 3 sides and 2 age-appropriate parks visible to caregivers with kids at each playground. The current design seems to scrap priorities from the previous master plan. I assumed when it was time for Field Center renovation/upgrade, the 2007 principles would be built upon rather than scrapped. Here's the plan from 2006:  https://pdop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/master_plan_recommendation_5_4_06.pdf

In addition to the links embedded above, here's the 2015-2024 master plan for the PDOP:  https://pdop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/PDOP_CMP_FINAL_2015-2024_web-1.pdf. 

And, here's the on-site documentation about Field Park:  https://pdop.org/about/plans/field-park/

Seeking signatures on the petition and gathering support  is more about getting the PDOP to be transparent with the surrounding community and various stakeholders to further understand the location decision of the design competition winner and about our community voices being heard and considered as this and future projects are presented and moved forward.