Prepared by:
SUNY College of Environmental Science and
Forestry Center for Community Design Research
Prepared for and funded by:
City of Syracuse
Department of Parks, Recreation and Youth Services
City of Syracuse Department of
Parks, Recreation and Youth Services

Sincere thanks and congratulations to all of the community members, organization representatives and city agency staff who took part in the workshops and other events of the conceptual design phase of the Onondaga
Park Family Activity and Play Area. This is the initial step in a longer term design and development project which in order to succeed will require the continued interest and care of these and many other individuals and organizations.
Community Participants
Jason Allers
Jeff Belamy
Zoe Benson
Messiah Bey
Dana Bigelow
Mercedes Bloodworth
Andre Bloodworth
Avery Brooks
Stephanie Bullitt-St. Louis
Matthew Cohen
Jazz Colburn
Kim Dougherty
Dhiki Drury
Kathy Eber
Walter Eiland
Erick Fields
Roger Flagg
Sarah Gilbert
Jeff Gilbert
John Gilbert
Sandra Grainger
Emily Handelman
Marva Hudson
Grace Irish
Kathy Joslyn
Cecilia Joslyn
Emilia Kulczynski
Rafael Kulczynski
Keyshawn Lafodoe
Aggie Lane
Bernard Lenny
Raheen Mack
Francia Maderna
Ally McHarris
Denise Moore
Jaheim Moore
Organization and City Department Participants
Katie Mulverhill and Patty Weisse, Baltimore Woods Nature Center
Jennifer Maxwell and Jessi Lyons, Cornell Cooperative Extension
Andrew Maxwell and Owen Kerney, Department of Planning & Sustainability
Luke Dougherty, Office of the Mayor
Cathy Margrey, Onondaga Parks Association
Scott Butler, Senator Valesky’s Office
Bob Dougherty, Syracuse Common Council
Ruth Pierce and Walt Dixie, Time of Jubilee
Debra Crowell and Biallah Green, NAN
Dave Harding, QPK
Michelle Monsour
Amira Muhammad
Dan Mumford
Jacqueline Orzell
Jerika Peralta
Paul Pflanz
Louise Poindexter
Reggie Seigler
Anthony Singleton
Annie Spilley
Bruce Stark
Joanne Stevens
Debbe Webster
Jason Williams
Kelly Wypych
Anita
Zynita
Syracuse Parks Department
Baye Muhammad, Commissioner
Glen Lewis, Coordinator
Yasmin Guevera, project staff
Josh Zuppola, project staff
Chris Abbott
Ben Cleeton, photography
Center for Community Design
Research
Maren King, CCDR director and faculty
Kiva VanDerGeest, student assistant
Sarah Krisch, student assistant
Emily Handelman, student assistant
SUNY ESF Student Team
Marshall Allen
Amanda Bischoff
Matt Dennis
Ryan Fogg
Dan Maher

Onondaga Park is located in Syracuse’s Southwest neighborhood. It straddles the Strathmore, Southwest and Brighton areas of the city.
Upper and Lower Onondaga Park are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and are loved and used heavily by the surrounding neighborhoods. Including Kirk Park to the east, the park area encompasses 228 acres. In 2004, the Onondaga Botanical Garden and Arboretum Master Plan was completed which provides a vision for the park with the common goals of promoting environmental education, neighborhood revitalization and economic development. The master plan described and illustrated the park becoming a Botanical Garden and
Arboretum with different parts of the park focused on certain plant collections, planting strategies or other park elements. The Family Activity and Play Area was one the areas identified and described in the master plan.
The site of the Family Activity and Play Area is in Lower Onondaga
Park, on the northern border with the adjacent neighborhood and directly west of Onondaga Creek. It is currently accessible from Onondaga Avenue to the west, Onondaga Park Drive to the north and South Avenue to the east.
Family Activity and Play Area
Lower Onondaga Park
Kirk Park
Upper Onondaga Park
Although created as an interconnected park system, over time the upper and lower sections of Onondaga Park and Kirk Park began to be perceived as separate parks and disconnected. The same is true for the neighborhoods that surround the park. The project seeks to strengthen and unite the park sections and the neighborhoods surrounding them through the creation of a shared vision by the broad range of stakeholders. Another goal for this project is to begin to create an identity for the lower part of the park that will be as cherished as Upper Onondaga Park.
This is one of the first parts of the Botanical Garden and Arboretum
Master Plan to go forward and it is also the hope that this development will be the catalyst for other components of the Master Plan.
The process of this project was one of community involvement combin-
Page 1

ing the design knowledge of Landscape Architecture students and faculty through a community design thematic studio at the State University of
New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry with the knowledge and experience of the community members, local organizations and parks staff who know the neighborhood and park intimately.
A Community Design approach typically utilizes a participatory process created and facilitated to establish dialogue and collaboration among community members and designers. The result is a shared vision for the future of the park that acts as the foundation to guide action. The process in the
Onondaga Park Family Activity and Play Area occurred around a series of events, including three workshops, each of which were designed to progressively build upon and confirm information and ideas expressed by community members. An advisory committee composed of local residents and officials helped organize the community design process and over 60 community members participated in the workshops, which were held from
January 2013 to April 2013.
A series of goals were developed to guide the decisions throughout the entire design and documentation process. They are as follows:
1. Spark children’s intellectual, physical and social development through play in nature
2. Embed principles of ecology and natural systems
3. Revive Lower Onondaga Park as a unique place in its own right and as a connector- between the neighborhood and the park, between Lower Onondaga Park and the other areas, and between people in the neighborhoods around the park.
4. Respect the history and historical form of Lower Onondaga Park while creating a design that speaks clearly of this time.
5. Create and sustain a landscape that is pride of the neighborhood that can be cared for and maintained through the combined resources of neighborhood volunteers, park friends and the city parks department.
In addition to the goals, there are multiple outcomes to a community based design process. One set of outcomes are community-based designs for the
Family Activity and Play Area in Onondaga Park which is grounded in the workshop discussions and the unique characteristics of the Onondaga Park neighborhood. The final conceptual designs illustrate the students analysis and interpretation of how to achieve the goals and to incorporate desired elements and activities expressed by the community members, within the context of the park and neighborhood. These are preliminary ideas and will serve as a starting place for the next stage in the design process.
Page 2

Using this Document
This document contains the record of the community planning process, and the findings and recommendations that were developed. It includes the information and data collected, gathered and summarized from the workshops and provides a tool that can be used to guide the next stages of the design process. This document is also meant to act as a resource that furthers community dialogue and engagement. It is organized into the following sections:
•
Phase 1: Understanding the community and the park
•
Project Advisory Committee
•
Meeting and Educational Events
•
Research - History and Current Plans
•
First workshop
•
Draft Vision and Goals
•
Phase 2: Exploring alternatives and ideas
•
Research - Natural Play
•
Initial Inventory and Analysis of Park
•
Preliminary Design Studies
•
Educational Meetings and Events
•
Second Workshop
•
Phase 3: Expressing ideas and preferences
•
Meetings and Events
•
Third workshop
•
Designs
•
Findings
•
Phase 4: Documenting the process and products
•
Final designs
•
Project brochure
•
Project documentation
In addition to the printed documentation, digital files include the work
shop presentations with notes, and other documents as noted herein.
Page 3

Onondaga Park Family Activity and Play Area
January- April 2013
Page 4
January/February 2013
6
13
20
27
3
7
14
21
28
4
1 2 3
8
Advisory
Committee
Meeting
15
9 10
16
Community
Meeting 1
17
22
29
5
23
Onondaga
Park Tour
24
30
Community
Meeting 2
31
6 7
4
11
5
12
18 19
25 26
1
February
8
2
9
Workshop 1

INTRODUCTION
The Community Engagement and Conceptual Design Process is the first step in a longer process to design, construct and sustain a Family Activity and Play Area in Lower Onondaga Park. The intent of the community design process was to:
• establish a strong foundation for long term community involvement and interest in the project,
• establish a productive working relationship between the Parks
Department, the student design team and community members,
• encourage community members and the design team to create, share and understand community values upon which to base the design, and
• expand the knowledge of all participant about topics that would influence decisions, including the purpose of community design, the need for and the elements of natural play areas, the site history, and other natural and cultural elements and systems.
The process was designed to be participatory, engaging community members, representatives from partner organizations, students from ESF landscape architecture department and the Parks Department staff in collaborative learning and design. This type of process acknowledges that there are multiple ways of knowing a place, and that designers, planners, community members and other stakeholders have different types of expertise that should be integrated to create place appropriate and sustainable solutions. It is also established on the premise that all involved should have the opportunity to achieve goals from their involvement in the creation of the design and that community member participation will promote ownership, pride and long term involvement in the park’s future.
This process was accomplished from December 2012 through April 2013 and took place in roughly four phases.
•
Phase 1 – Understanding (the community, the park, values and possibilities): during this phase the participants worked together to understand the existing conditions of the park and neighborhood, the history and past influences
•
Phase 2 – Exploring (alternatives and ideas)
•
Phase 3 – Expressing (ideas in physical form and preferences)
•
Phase 4 – Documenting (the process and the products)
Page 5

PHASE 1 ACTIVITIES
Project Advisory Committee - Outreach to form a Project Advisory
Committee was begun in advance of the community design process, with a meeting December 11, 2012. This is an on-going process to gather a group of community members and organization partners who can take leadership and other working roles in design, development and implementation of the project. Identified tasks include outreach to invite community members to participate in the project, communication of what’s happening with the project process and events, and development of financial and community support for construction and long term programming and maintenance.
Approximately 16 people attended the first committee meeting, invited by Parks Commissioner or by word of mouth. Five or six of the initial committee members had fairly consistent attendance at events and meetings through the conceptual design stage and were helpful with outreach, advice on community issues and continuity. They can form the core group of an Advisory Committee that should be expanded in the next stage of the project.
Meetings and Educational Events To achieve the goal of providing educational and co-learning opportunities, a series of meetings and events were held on Wednesday’s at the Onondaga Fire Barn in Upper Onondaga
Park. These events introduced community members, students and staff to information that would increase their knowledge about the park, the neighborhood and design.
•
January 16, 2013 - Introduction to each other, the project and community design: Community members, students and Parks Department staff introduced themselves and why they are interested in the project. There was a project introduction and the Parks Department intent that the play area be designed to integrate play in a nature based or natural setting. There was a presentation on the community design process and approach to help everyone understand the potential benefits and roles.
•
January 23, 2013 – Neighborhood and Park Tour: Based on suggestions from community members and Parks staff, a neighborhood driving tour was planned out to introduce everyone to the neighborhood and park through the eyes of people who live in and know the area well. Approximately 14 people, including four neighborhood residents, participated in the tour, split between two vans. This helped everyone get a better sense of the park and the community context, including assets and resources, issues and concerns. This information would form the basis for questions asked in the first community workshop.
(see the digital files for the tour route map)
• January 30, 2013 – Prof. Emanuel Carter’s presentation of the
Onondaga Park Botanical Garden and Arboretum Master Plan:
Created in 2004, the Master Plan is intended to guide the redevelopment over time of Upper and Lower Onondaga Park and Onondaga
Park Boulevard into a of a series of gardens and plant displays. The original idea for the botanical garden came from community members and the primary goal is for the park to be the locus of ecologic, social and economic restoration and revitalization. The Family Play
Area was identified in the Master Plan. (for access to the Master
Findings
•
The Neighborhood and Park tour showed the high level of activity and development that is taking place in the area.
From grocery stores, community gardens, new housing and the park redesign, there is currently a lot of momentum in and around the area.
Findings
•
Community members participated in this process because of their interest in making Onondaga Park into an exciting and safe place for the Southwest Neighborhood of Syracuse to spend time outdoors with friends and family
Findings
•
The description of the Family Play Area as displayed in the Onondaga Park Master
Plan is a children’s garden and play area in combination with a passive recreation area for adults.

Research - In addition to what they were learning from community members and other experts, the students were assigned research topics to start to gather information and document it in a way that could be added to by them and other participants over the course of the project.
Park History - The Community Design Studio researched history of the park through the Onondaga Historic Association, internet research,
Paul Phlanz, Christine Capella Peters from the State Historic Preservation Office, Kate Auwaerter from the City of Syracuse Landmark Pres
ervation Board, and historic documents. With this information, students created three boards displaying some of the learned history. They were designed to be interactive, with spaces for community members to add information to the posters during the first workshop.
Onondaga Park was constructed during the 1890’s. In 1907, Lower
Onondaga Park was designed to complement Onondaga Park and
Kirk Park which was created by George Kessler, with Lower Onondaga Park containing a rock garden and a perennial garden. The idea for the botanical gardens within the park dates back to 1898. During the 1960’s there was reported vandalism, which continued to occur through the next decades, with park elements declining.
Findings
•
Location of former Star Lake was the northwest corner of the site
•
Star Lake was historically surrounded by several Willow trees of which only one remains
•
The site retains its historic open spatial character, with remnants of tree groupings that define the space
By the 1990’s, the park was in poor condition and in need of care and improvements. In 2000 the Parks Department took action in cleaning up the park, while also receiving $1 million for a botanical garden in
Lower Onondaga Park. Road closures to vehicular traffic on Sunday mornings during the summer were put into effect in order to help encourage pedestrian and bicycle use to the park.
It is also important to note the historic characteristics of the Lower
Onondaga Park site. In the 1930’s there was mass tree vegetation edging the site and Star Lake, with an open grass lawn area in the center.
The Lake was filled in sometime between 1958 and 1973 for unknown reasons. The issues with drowning and vandalism within the park/ community might have played a part in the decision to fill in the lake.
Historically, there were weeping willows located around Star Lake.
Over time the willows have declined, leading to their removal, with one willow now remaining. City/county Arborist Steve Harris has inspected this last willow and has recommended that due to structural problems in the canopy and major roots it be taken down if the area is redesigned to attract more use.
Current Plans – Information about other parks and neighborhood projects and improvements was gleaned from the Master Plan and
Emanuel Carter’s lecture (on the Botanical Garden and Arboretum
Plan), internet research, the neighborhood tour, and later from comments provided during the first workshop. One of the most significant plans is for the extension of the Onondaga Creekwalk, a popular walking and bicycle pathway that currently runs between Armory Square and Onondaga Lake. Plans call for the Creekwalk to run through
Onondaga Park, on the east side of the play area site, and continue south to Kirk Park. This can help attract more people into the area and to Onondaga Park itself.
•
Findings
•
Onondaga Creek Walk will extend from it’s current location south from Armory
Square through Onondaga
Park to Kirk Park and will run directly adjacent to the Family
Activity and Play Area
Page 7

First Workshop
Workshops were chosen as the primary forum for community participation because they can be designed to allow community members to share their ideas and knowledge while also hearing those of other participants. While focus groups or individual surveys are also useful, bringing together the community as a larger group allows the sharing and gathering of a lot of information and builds excitement and interest in the project or initiative.
The keys to successful workshops are advance planning to determine the research questions, careful development of activities, skilled facilitation to ensure that everyone gets the opportunity to participate and documentation of responses for later analysis.
In consultation with advisory committee members and Park Department staff it was decided that there would be a series of three workshops, which would be held on Saturday afternoons. The Onondaga Fire Barn was chosen as the location for the workshops because it is a newly renovated facility that many people had not yet seen and had different size rooms that could be used for large group activities as well as small group breakouts.
The first workshop was held on Saturday, February 9, 2013.
Preparation – The initial interactions with the advisory committee, their site investigations and their preliminary research led the students to develop a series of research questions that they felt needed to be answered in order to better understand the park and neighborhood in advance of preparing design studies. These questions were best answered by neighborhood residents and other stakeholders that visit the park and have personal knowledge of the neighborhood, including:
•
What is the history of the site? How has it changed over time?
•
How do people use the park? What activities do they participate in? Where, when and why?
•
What are the cherished or sacred places? Places of concern? Assets and resources?
•
What does nature mean to you? What did you do in nature as a child? What about now as an adult?
•
What activities can families do in nature together?
First Workshop Activities – The workshop activities were designed to familiarize community members with the project, and help them feel comfortable in participating and sharing information by starting with questions about their experience and things they know well. Some activities were individual, some in pairs, and some in small groups. Following is outline in chronological order of the activities:
•
Sign in and locate residence on aerial map with dot
•
Fill in entry survey with basic demographic information and warm up questions
•
Review and add information to History and Current Plan posters
•
PowerPoint Presentation introducing project and workshop process to entire group
Page 8

•
Move to three smaller table groups. Then individual introductions and sharing of a story or memory about the park
•
Orientation to aerial map
•
Identify and outline on aerial map the character and image areas of the park and community, and reasons why – pairs and then group
•
Identify and locate on aerial maps sacred places, challenges and assets of the park – in pairs and then group
•
Describe and map current use and patterns of use of the park – individually or in pairs
•
Respond to questions about nature and play with quick one or two word responses written on index cards, shared with the group and categorized
First Workshop Documentation, Analysis and Findings – following the workshop the Community Design Studio documented all of the information and responses shared by community members for each of the activities. They then analyzed this information by looking for patterns, common themes, and meaning in the responses to each of the questions. They documented their findings in a series of posters that depict graphically and in text what they interpreted including shared values, patterns of use and ideas for natural play. These posters provide a detailed view of the workshop results and are relevant not only to the play area design but to the overall Onondaga Park as a connected system.
(See the end of this section for the workshop 1 analysis posters)
Onondaga Park is highly valued by the workshop participants for a number of different reasons and is used for a variety of passive and active recreational activities. Among workshop participants, Upper Onondaga
Park is more heavily used and contains most of the places they identify as sacred, along with strengths and areas of concern. Activities in the park are most popular during the warmer three seasons of the year, but winter activities do occur on a regular basis.
Specific to the site for the Family Activity and Play Area, participants identified the remaining willow as sacred and defining the image of the site.
Findings
•
Most of current activities within Onondaga Park take place in Upper Onondaga
Park.
•
A large majority of community members identified resourc
es, concerns and sacred spaces occur in Upper Onondaga
Park.
Participant’s favorite activities in nature as children showed a high response rate for active recreation, including hiking, climbing and running.
They also favored passive activities involving games, plants, art and creativity. The greatest response to the question, “What can families do together in a natural setting?”, was for passive recreation, and activities such as picnicking, walking and photography. The responses to these final questions can be a starting place for the types of activities that might be encouraged or supported in the Family Activity and Play Area.
•
The largest response to the question of ‘what did you do in nature as a child’ was active recreation, including activities such as hiking, climbing and running.
•
The largest response to the question ‘what can families do together’ was passive recreation, including activities such as picnicing, walking, and photography.
Page 9

Draft Vision and Goals - From all of the information and analysis of the first stage, a vision and a series of draft goals began to emerge. The vision is a broad statement of how community members would like to be able to describe the Family Activity and Play Area in the future. The goals define how that vision can be achieved; they represent the strengths and assets of the park and neighborhood that can be used to best advantage, and the concerns and challenges that should be addressed to create a more healthy and sustainable environment. The goals can also be used to evaluate design proposals.
Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Page 14

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

Page 18

Page 19

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23

Onondaga Park Family Activity and Play Area
January- April 2013
Page 24
3
February 2013
10
17
24
4
11 12
18
Initial Findings
Review
19
25 26
1
5
2
6
13
Rusty Keeler
Presentation
14
20
SHPO
Discussion
21
27
Baltimore Woods
Presentation
28
3
7
March 2013
3
10
17 18
24
31
25
4
11
5
12
19
26
20
27
6
Interim Design
Review
7
13 14
21
28
1
8
15
22
29
15
22
1
8
16
23
2
9
2
9
16
23
Workshop 2
30

INTRODUCTION
The intent of this Second Phase of the Community Design Process was to:
• continue research on the site
• research and discuss park and nature play design to better understand contemporary practice and precedents
• continue to encourage involvement of the community members in the design process
Through research we explored various alternatives and ideas for the park which could be used in design.
PHASE 2 ACTIVITIES
Ithaca Children’s Garden
Research - During this phase research was completed on Nature play.
Meeting and presentations were held with Nature Play specialist Rusty
Keeler, the City of Syracuse’s City Arborist Steve Harris, SHPOs Chris
Capella Peters, City Planning and Sustainability’s Kate Auwaerter, and
Baltimore Woods’ Katie Mulverhill.
Nature Play -
Researching about Nature Play was a great first step in order to understand the design theory and approach. Students searched the topic, including the benefits of Nature Play and how to design to support and reinforce those benefits.
Ithaca Children’s Garden
A natural play area is designed to encourage interaction with nature through play. This interaction is important for social, emotional and physical development and well-being, especially for children. The initiative for this type of play is in response to the “Nature Deficit
Disorder;” a term coined by Richard Louv, in his book,
Last Child in the Woods (2008). Louv describes this disorder, resulting from a lack of interaction with nature, as diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional illness. He and others have noted that for a variety of reasons children are spending too much time indoors and there are more cases of learning disabilities and health issues in children than there have been in the past.
Ithaca Children’s Garden
Research has proven that children playing, exploring, and learning in and about nature is important to their growth and well-being. Long standing studies have also shown a relationship between the absence or inaccessibility of parks and open space with high crime rates, depression, and other urban social and health challenges.
Natural Play incorporates features, elements, and processes of the natural environment into a designed landscape for children. The design should encourage children to use all of their senses, including sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. Some common elements found in the natural environment that could be integrated into the design include plants, water, and topography/grade change.
Jowonio School
The Community Design Studio students selected one nature play landscape designer to research. A synopsis of their research follows; power point presentations with notes are included in the digital project files.
Jowonio School
Page 25

Robin Moore, a landscape architect, has many years of experience in design and research of natural learning environments. He identifies a series of Behavior Settings that promote patterns of play that support the multiple forms of growth and development in children. According to Moore, “Children have a natural affinity toward nature. Dirt, wa
ter, plants, and small animals attract and hold children’s attention for hours, days, even a lifetime.” He also notes that “Garden settings are important for children because they live through their senses.”
Robin Moore is also the director of the Natural Learning Initiative, which promotes the importance of the natural environment in the daily experience of all children, through environmental design, research, and education. The mission of the initiative is to help communities to create stimulating places for play, learning, and environmental education. He has aided in the creation of a set of guidelines for a planning, designing, and managing outdoor play settings for children. He also authored a book called
Plants for Play
(1993) which presents guidelines in terms of design and management of children’s landscapes and reveals the importance of plants as a resource for play and child development. Playgrounds he helped design include Blanchie Carte
Discovery Park and the Kids Together Playground.
Example of Robin Moore’s Work
Helle Nebelong is a nature play designer with a bachelors degree in
Landscape Architecture and a Masters of Public Management. According to Nebelong, “the idea behind the ‘nature playground’ is that themes and possibilities for play are introduced, but it is the children, with their own imaginations, who give color to their play and bring things to life.” In nature play design she suggests using color carefully. It is a misconception that everything needs to be brightly colored in playgrounds. “After hours of color saturation in day-care centers, watching TV, and shopping with parents in supermarkets, kids need to relax their eyes and minds.” She suggests using earth tone colors, and occasionally using color to accentuate certain features/elements.
Example of Helle Nebelong’s Work
Helle Nebelong also notes that standard playgrounds are more boring and even dangerous for children. Prefabricated equipment has everything designed to be equidistant and programmed which means kids do not need to concentrate as much. This is when kids get hurt. Kids need
“the ability to concentrate on estimated distance, height, and risk needs practice.” The playground is a good place for this learning to begin.
Other suggestions include highlighting contrasting textures and forms, allowing children to manipulate and create their own playscapes, and allowing for evolution in the playground, such as through plant materials. Other considerations include having a genius loci (spirit of the place), the design must not be dirty or run down, and to try and involve the children in the design. Some projects of hers include the
Nature playground in Valbyparken, Copenhagen; the Aalholm School in Copenhagen, Denmark; Murergaarden, in Norrebro, Copenhagen; and the Garden of Senses in Faelledparken, Copenhagen.
Herb Schaal is a nature play researcher and designer. Receiving his
Masters in Landscape Architecture from SUNY ESF, he is a founding
Principal of EDAW Fort Collins. He has been practicing landscape
Page 26
Example of Herb Schaal’s Work

architecture for 30 years and has designed over 20 children’s gardens.
His philosophy is to provide “open minded, interactive opportunities and engaging all senses,” which can be found within all of his designs. His garden designs include water to touch and hear, fragrant plants to smell, striking color combinations, and fruits and vegetables.
He also tries to incorporate the eight intelligences: Verbal/linguistic, mathematical/logical, spatial, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Naturalistic is especially stressed in natural play areas, described as sensing patterns and making connections with the elements of nature. An Activity Matrix is used for each design, which describes both the learning experience and what activity will be for each element in the children’s garden, as it notes the senses, intelligence, and the activity/experience. Some of his designs include
Bookworm gardens, Children’s Garden at the Morton Arboretum, the
Naples Children Garden, and the St. Louis Children’s Hospital-Roof
Garden.
Adam Bienenstock opened Bienenstock Design in 1984 and serves as the board director at the Child and Nature Alliance. In his designs he strives to connect “children to nature when and where they play.” He defines Natural Playgrounds as a place that allows for engagement of gross and fine motor skills, development of cognitive skills, increased attention span, higher school grades, lower absentees, more creativity, and growth of collaborative play/learning. Today, our “playgrounds have become flattened, paved and sterilized land punctuated with cata
logued monuments of plastic and steel.” With Nature Play, you can focus on the ease of maintenance and properly engaging children, while creating opportunities for children of all abilities, cultures, and fitness levels. Bienenstock has created natural play designs in the public space, school, and childcare sectors of design. Some of these projects include McCleary Playground in Toronto, ON; Matilda Street Natural
Playground in Hamilton, ON; Donnan Park in Edmonton, Alberta;
Dundas Central Public School; and the Binoojii House.
Example of Adam Bienenstock’s Work
Preliminary Design Studies - Using their growing knowledge of the site and of natural play area design, the students were given a week long assignment to prepare a site design study using the preliminary goals to get an initial sense of the site scale, the amount and type of activities that might occur on the site. There was an internal design review with Parks
Department staff, Dave Harding of QPK Design and an ESF faculty member. These early designs were not shown to the community because they were missing community input on program and types of activities desired for the new family activity and play area.
Educational Meeting and Events
•
February 13, 2013 - Rusty Keeler Presentation: Rusty Keeler is a designer of natural playscapes based out of Ithaca, New York. Mr. Keeler came up to Syracuse and with the students from SUNY-ESF as well as Park Department officials toured two local sites that he has been involved with creating. The first site was the Jowonio School located on East Genesee Street in the city of Syracuse. They have an extensive natural playground which cascades across a large hillside in the rear of the school building. From there, the tour continued onto the Early Rusty Keeler Presentation
Page 27

Education and Childcare Center located on the South Campus of Syracuse University. Rusty was directly involved with the development of the playground located there. Following the tour, the group reconvened at the Onondaga Park Firebarn where Rusty Keeler gave a presentation on his work and natural play philosophy to community members, students and Parks Department staff.
• F ebruary 20, 2013 – Meeting with Christine Capella Peters from the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Kate Auwaerter from the City of Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board
: At this meeting it was learned that Upper and Lower Onondaga Park are on the National
Register of Historic Places, including the project site. This means the design for the park must follow the guidelines from the State Historic
Preservation Office and City Landmark Preservation Board. The final design will need to pass SHPO review. Most important for this site is it’s spatial organization with flat topography, views and vistas across and through a fairly open space, with edges defined by perimeter vegetation. Star Lake was there previously and SHPO will not ask that it be recreated. If interested in referencing it in some way there needs to be additional research on why and how it was filled in. If desiring to establish the original outline of the pond the location would need to be well documented. Anything new added to the site must respect the original features, character and fabric.
• February 27, 2013 - Baltimore Woods/ Nature in the City Presentation by Katie Mulverhill: The Nature in the City program provides educational opportunities for children where they can learn about nature.
The program visits various elementary schools in Syracuse to run its programs to grades K-6.
Second Workshop Activities - The second workshop was help on Saturday, March 23, 2013 at the Onondaga Firebarn.
•
Preparation
- The findings from the analysis of the first workshop data and research about play area design were used in the preparation for this workshop. Using that information found, the ESF students prepared materials to provide community members with more information about natural play areas and developed a modeling activity so they could select and locate activities they wanted to occur on the site.
A variety of behavioral settings were used for the modeling activity. The idea and basic list of the behavior settings came from
Robin Moore, nature play designer and researcher. Several pictorial examples were provided for each setting to help give community members ideas for the modeling activity. These behavioral settings include: o Spatial and Circulation

Entries

Pathways and Circulation

Outdoor Shelters/ Classrooms

Arbors, pergolas, trellises and shade structures

Lawn

Gathering spaces o Topographic change and ground surfaces
Page 28

o Play Settings
 Sand and water and dirt play settings

Active water play settings

Water gardens o Living Elements
 Trees and Shrubs

Flower and Vegetable Gardens

Animal Habitats

Decorative Grasses o Play Props

Art Works

Manufactured Play Structures

Moveable Play Structures
 Natural Play Structures

Loose Parts and Play Props o Support

Outdoor Storage
 Restrooms

Food/ Restaurant

Drop Off

Fences/ Enclosures
•
Workshop Activities - The workshop activities were designed to give community members a chance to have hands-on participation in the creation of the design for the park. These were done in three groups of four to six people with two facilitators who walked the community members through the activities and the different steps in design. Following is the outline in chronological order of the activities: o
Sign in and review the Analysis Posters from the first workshop o Fill in entry survey o Powerpoint Presentation introducing the project, review of the findings from the first workshop, Nature Play designer
Helle Nebelong Case Study, introduction to Behavior/Activity Settings and review of the afternoon’s activities o Move to three smaller table groups, followed by individual introductions within the table group o Orientation to the aerial map with individuals marking the location of how they currently enter the site, their travel path, and the method they use for travel through the site o Participant mark up of additional inventory, including other characteristics and factors to be aware of on site and in surrounding area o Individual selection of priority Behavior/Activity Settings introduced in the presentation by marking preferences by placing colored dots on poster with images of settings.
Group agreement on priority settings to begin modeling activity.
o Diagramming activity organizing a layout to establish relationships between behavior settings and their relative size o Reorient people onto the model aerial base in location and scale
Page 29

o Creation of a model using the behavioral settings. Each category of setting was identified by a different color craft paper and each had colored squares in three different sizes.
Each of the three groups laid out their design using colored squares glued to an aerial photo of the site. The student facilitator kept track of the discussion and reasons why the group selected the locations and relationships they did o Concurrent with the adult/teen activities, there were separate activities provided for school age children. This included drawing ideas of what types of activities they would like in the park and creating a group model that showed the connection between all of the parts. Children also planted flowers and seeds to take home, and learned about the parts of flowers.
o All groups came back together for the presentation of the final models by a community volunteer from each group including the kids design for the park
See Appendix for the Workshop 2 PowerPoint slides.
•
Second Workshop Documentation, Analysis and Findings -
During the modeling activity, students had taken notes as to the placement and layout of the layout of the site and why people decided to do that. The Community Design Studio students analyzed the information collected and the models to see the common elements and/or locations of specific elements within the designs.
Included on the following pages are the composite matrices for each group, which document the groups’ design and associated themes and ideas. These elements include lawn, rest rooms, gathering spaces, shelters, sand/dirt/water play, and play areas (adult and kids).
Of the three groups, different designs and ideas were presented, with a few common trends. Some of these similarities include: o a major play area in the northeast, o water feature at Star Lake, o minor entry in southern area, o minor entry in northeast (two designs), o vegetation in or near Star Lake area, o gathering space close to play structure, o paths connecting activity areas, o increase vegetation around site edges, o multiple play areas of various sizes, o accessibility, o restrooms located on creek side area, and having activities across the road along the creek (two designs).
Some distinctions between the designs include no common main entry space identified, one design tried to keep the baseball field, one design had multiple ornamental planting areas, and another design had multiple gathering spaces in the shade.
Page 30

Model Activity Results: Group 1
Page 31

Model Activity Results: Group 2
Activity Settings
What can take place there?
Where is it on the model and why?
Discussion during modeling
Paths (m) biking, running, racing, hide and seek, interpretive info/walk
All over the place, circulate around north half of site
Primary and smaller intimate secondary paths, dirt and gravel for those, circulate around northern half, progression of information
Open Lawn (m)
Entries (m)
Restrooms (m)
Natural Play
Structures
Sand/Water/Dirt running around, active play, using mounds for games
NE corner of site, near entrance 2
There will have to be a lot, good to have just simple open space for kids to be kids, integrate with seats to keep an eye on them
1)NW entrance off Onondaga
Ave, 2) NE off creek walk, 3)S off creek walk use it for creating art, murals, mosaics (graffiti proof) near baseball backstop, and seats running around, slides, climbing, jumping, exploration adjacent to open lawn largest area, secondary tucked away near wild vegetation
Main enterance off Onondaga Ave, for security and emergency purposes, others off creek walk but the backstop is so ugly the main entrance should be on NE corner
Small and discrete, but beautiful with interesting painting/mural
Could also include manufactured play structures,
ADA accessable, wheelchairs kids being kids, use of tools, unstructured play integrated with above
A place for kids to just be kids, and get dirty and have fun
Active
Water/Water
Gardens
Flower/Veggie
Gardens
Drop Off
Seating
Page 32 fountain play, education on creek, play in shallow water Old star lake site harvestin activities, community based events around star lake droping off sitting, observations, watching your kids
West edge of site along still open, Onondaga Park Blvd
Around star lake, in the open grass area
Should be shallow, or no standing water at all, spray fountain style but designed in a natural way.
Refrence star lake. GENUS LOCI. Other pond is nice and should stay. Make it beautiful
Integrate watering with the lake feature to take care of two things at once, make it very community oriented, vegetable gardens for kids anf use them for education on benefits of eating healthy
Circulation patterns seem appropriate for it to go here, needs to connect to path system
Needs to allow people to rest during points of thir walks and to keep an eye on their kids

Model Activity Results: Group 3
ONONDAGA   PARK:   Family   Activity   and   Play   Area WORKSHOP   2
MODELING
Activity
Entries
Restrooms
Open
Paths
Lawn
Gathering
Natural
Structures
Sand,   water,   and
Dirt
Trees   and   shrubs shading,   sit   under monumental
Active   water structure/play.
INTERACTION   with   the   water   feature.
Outdoor
Other
Play
Setting
What there?
Sign,
can gathering
Restroom, structure anything
take area
place shade
picnic,   seating,   gathering kids play
play,
Shelters seating,
adults shading,
play picnicing
Where   placed   on   model   and   why?
Discussion   during   modeling
Size ‐ not   disney,   minimal   designs   but   the   eye   opener   should   be   walking   into   the   site   and   seeing   the   activity   settings.
NW   &   SE   corners center   on   eastern   edges:   Acts   as   a   radial   element   that   connects settings
proximity.
multiple so   all   are
activity in   close
near   play   and   gathering,   One   of   the   larger   activity   settings   however   broken   up   into   multiple   locations
Specific   connections   between   decided   activity   settings   on   diagram   and   model.
Acts   as   a   connecting   element   from   open   spaces   and   childrens   play   areas   so   children   can   be   watched
One   of   the   larger   activity   settings   but   similar   to   open   lawn   it   has   several   location   with   same   connections   to   other   settings.
near all for
play over,
area, edges children,
act   as   barriers gathering   spaces
Small,   want   accessible   from   all   activities   but   also   easily   accessible   by   handicap large   amounts   of   open   lawn   but   can   be   broken   up   in   many   locations   with   consistent   connections   to   gathering   spaces   and   childrens   play   areas.
multiple   small   gathering   areas   throughout   site   that   are   connected   to   other   activity   spaces want   towards   end   of   site   so   don’t   have   to   walk   far   to   get   there locate   near   play   area,   messy   is   fine,   water   source   close   to   creek   and   prior   play   structure lots   of   trees   however   the   concern   for   unwanted   visitors   having   the   ability   to   be   unseen   is   a   thought   to   take   in   consideration near the   with
play   areas, original   star
surrounding also lake
Can   be   an   elimant   withing   gathering   spaces.
of
close   to location river
birch logically dirt/play
‐ locate less
near pipes
sand   water
Have   to   have   this   for   older   community   members.
Include   within   gathering   spaces.
Page 33

Page 34

Page 35

Onondaga Park Family Activity and Play Area
January- April 2013
Page 36
7
14
21
28
April 2013
1
8
15
22
29
16
23
30
9
2 3
10
17 18
24
Ithaca Children’s
Garden Visit
25
4
11
19
26
5
12
6
13
Workshop 3
20
27

Introduction
The purpose of this phase was to:
•
Express alternative design ideas in physical form
•
Present and review the designs with community members
•
Record comments and discussion and analyze for preferences and concerns
Meetings and Events
• April 2, 2013 – Meeting with Steve Harris:
A meeting was set up with the City/County Arborist, Steve Harris, to discuss the condition of the willow on the site, an element of the site that had high interest and acknowledgement from the community members. It was learned that the willow is in rapid decline, with a hollow root in one of the main roots and several dying and stressed areas on the tree, making it hazardous.
Although a landmark for many years, the willow will unfortunately need to come down. Steve also noted a few other trees that need to be removed, which include the maple tree to the northeast and the maples trees in the southeast sections of the site. Steve suggested the willow and other trees could be cut down and used within the site for other purposes, such as play structures. (
See the digital files for a video of
Steve Harris describitng the condition of the willow tree.)
Workshop 3
Preparation – The conceptual site designs created by the students were documented in plan view as well as models, which are easiest for community members to understand. The students also prepared master plans for the entire area of Lower Onondaga Park, between South Avenue and
Onondaga Avenue.
Workshop Activities – The workshop was designed to provide a comfortable forum for students to present their design studies, for community members to ask questions, make comments and discuss the preferences and concerns related to the designs.
•
Sign in and review display of design models
•
PowerPoint presentation with overview of process to date and brief presentation by each student of the alternative design studies
•
Participants rotated in small groups to review and discuss the student designs. Each participant was assigned a group that allowed them to review three of the five final designs. They were asked to relay there comments in writing on a comment form and/or to discuss comments and questions with the student designer and their small group. In that way everyone in the group had a sense of preferences and concerns with the designs.
Designs - Each student in the Community Design studio presented their own individual design idea for the site. Each design was different in terms of ideas and organization. They are presented on the following pages.
Page 37

Page 38

Marshall Allen
Page 39

Page 40

Dan Maher
Page 41

Page 42

Amanda Bischoff
Page 43

Page 44

Ryan Fogg
Page 45

Page 46

Matt Dennis
Page 47

Findings
After the workshop, the surveys and individual comments from the design were documented for each design. The students created a composite list of desires and preferences from the people who attended the workshop.
Additional review of the design models by other community members might yield different results, but the major categories of ideas can provide guidance for that review and the next stage of the design.
Landscape Features
•
Multi-purpose lawn large enough for informal pickup games
•
Water o Star Lake: acknowledge former presence either as an active water feature or as a dry feature and outline o No standing water that would be breeding ground for mosquitoes o Consider wet and dry periods in terms of stormwater collection and integration o Various ways of interaction with water were attractive
•
Shallow water with stepping stones
•
Star stone shape fountain
•
Ripple fountain
•
Misters
•
Water play features
•
Paths and Walks o Hierarchy of paths, including primary and secondary. o Choice of paths to vary experience o Design layout of paths – no clear preference for formal versus informal, although the student designs leaned towards informal o A path around “Star Lake” area - no clear preference for having a path or not o Accessibility – paths and surfaces can provide access to features and areas for users of different abilities
•
Seating – provide different options in all areas of the site
•
Gardens o Different “ecosystems” and plant communities o Vegetable gardens in main site; raised planters provide access to many o
Butterfly garden is an attractive idea o Formal garden for adult relaxation
•
Gathering areas o Deck or patio for overlook and prospect o Integration of gathering areas with other activity spaces o Picnic areas with tables o Pavilion or shelter for groups and children’s programs
Page 48

•
Willow o Living willow structures o Commemorate former presence, but not with dead trunks
•
Green Infrastructure – bioswales and dry creek o More playable without water o
Sedge meadow – filters stormwater, provides movement with wind
Play and Play Structures
•
Natural elements o Recycled materials o Creative use of willow and other trees that will be need to be taken down
•
Fort building
•
Tree Fort structure – more in-depth research needed and questions about accessibility
•
Play from wheelchairs o Rope courses o Mazes/labyrinths o Additional ideas and research
•
Landforms o Mounds for climbing and winter play o Framing views o Separation of spaces
•
Sand/digging o Desire for this activity but may need to limit size of area and locate carefully o Some concern expressed for health risks
•
Stepping stones and wood cookies
•
Animal Play Structures o Animals carved into logs – relief sculptures o Animal representation – Munich
•
Discovery o Digging o Carved animals o Dry creek bed
•
Children’s use own energy to “power” play equipment - bikes with interactive lights, merry-go-rounds, teeter-totters, spring animals, etc
Page 49

Support and Infrastructure
•
Buildings o Restrooms – possibly combine with storage?
o By creekwalk on east side for easy access and visibility from creekwalk o On west side associated with a drop-off. Higher visibility from Onondaga Avenue may result in less vandalism o Concessions: rent out space to make/sell food o Storage – play equipment, gardening equipment
•
Entrances o Entrances at all four corners as people will be coming to the site from different directions. o Major gateway at Onondaga Avenue entrance to serve as a connection to Upper Onondaga Park o Mid-site entrance on east side to increase exposure to
Creekwalk (also possible building location) o Vehicular drop area needed and could be located on parroad north of site or park road west of site
•
Parking - Participants seemed accepting of parking in neighborhood but want to be able to see parking area from park and have it fairly close by.
•
Road closures – there are several alternatives shown on the student design studies for road closures. All closed the east and south park roads. There did not seem to be preference expressed by community members.
Additional Concerns
•
Accessibility o Wheels and wheelchairs access while still providing different path and area materials o Bicycle and skating circulation patterns – where will they be allowed o Play opportunities for all
•
Security and safety o Visibility and sight lines – concern about dense vegetation and the possibility of people hiding o Visibility and surveillance from surrounding streets o Level of transparency into structures o
Conflicts between people/children and cars – moving and parking
•
Interpretation – not much shown on student designs and desire to incorporate interpretive elements and signage
Page 50

Page 51

Page 52

INTRODUCTION
After receiving feedback from the third workshop where five design ideas were presented to the community, the feedback was collected and analyzed by the students. In this phase the students take the next step in the community design process, which is the last involvement of the ESF Community
Design Studio.
The purpose of this phase is to:
• Document the community design process and findings to date. This was accomplished by students Amanda Bischoff and Marshall Allen, and is represented this document.
• Translate community preferences and concerns into two final design studies. These designs are documented and illustrated in the remainder of this section.
•
Create a project brochure that summarizes the process to date. This was accomplished by student Dan Maher and follows the design studies.
Final Designs - Two of the students in the Community Design Studio,
Ryan Fogg and Matt Dennis, were assigned to create two composite designs for the Family Activity and Play Area site. Using the consolidated comments from Workshop 3, the Ryan and Matt developed a list of elements that would be included in the designs. Elements that seemed to be attractive to most community members would be included in both designs.
Elements about which there were differing opinions would be shown as different alternatives in each design. Following is the list they created and reviewed with the other studio team members:
•
Elements in BOTH designs:
•
One main gathering building
•
Separate bathrooms and storage
•
Entrances at ALL corners
•
Mid site (East side) access
•
Parking on vacant land in the neighborhood northeast of the park
•
Lots of open lawn space on southern half of site (large enough for pickup games)
•
Paths around Star Lake feature
•
Hierarchy of paths
•
Living willow structures
•
Dry creek
•
Recycled materials
•
Fort building area
•
Wheelchair play
•
Topography change (mounds)
•
Bike racks on extremities of site to discourage bike use on site
•
Open on west side for security purposes, clear visibility
•
Mention interpretation
•
To be used in Ryan Fogg’s Design:
•
Bathroom on west side of site
Page 53

•
Drop off area on west side
•
Active Star Lake water play
○
Ripple fountain
○
Misters
○
Water play feature
•
Raised planters
○ Butterflies
○
Veggies/Fruits
•
Integrate pavilion into central building
•
Sand
•
To be used in Matt Dennis’s Design:
•
Bathroom on East side of site
•
Drop off area on North side
•
Dry option, no standing water
○
Star stone shape
○
○
Periodic shallow water w/ stepping stones
Sedge meadow
•
Different plant communities
•
Decking for overlooks
•
Animal play structures
•
Design Descriptions
The first design, by Ryan Fogg, was created with the idea that the spirit of the place is the special qualities and features of water in the area. The main element on site is the ripple effect water feature. It would be a ripple shaped out of the landform that children would be able to play on and climb over while in the center there will be spray fountains that children could play in and get wet on the hot summer days. Things like the community garden beds, pathways, and no mow grass areas would all be organized according to the ripple effect, essentially representing the ‘splash’ that
Star Lake once made in the park and neighborhood. The second major feature is a dry creek that winds through the site creating fun, yet educational, spaces and textures which kids can play in.
Ultimately all these unique features will honor the past yet provide a fun contemporary park that fits the needs of today’s community members.
In the second design, created by Matt Dennis, the main idea was to preserve the rich history of the site while also contributing a modern-day approach to a sustainable landscape. Star Lake was the main feature on this site decades ago, and the new representation will once again stand as the main feature. This time standing water will not be a component, as the “lake” will be the first phase of a storm water management system connecting the entire site to Onondaga Creek. This bio-retention area and swale interact with the other main feature, a living willow structure. A dynamic, changing feature commemorates the historic willow trees but in a more exciting fashion. Both of these elements provide endless opportunities for children’s play and exploration, as well as unique gathering spaces for adults alike.
Page 54

Page 55

Page 56

Ryan Fogg 1
Page 57

Ryan Fogg 2
Page 59

Page 60

Matt Dennis 1
Page 61

Page 62

Matt Dennis 2
Page 63

Top left, design by Amanda Bischoff featured a pond at former Star Lake and a building with deck overlooking play areas and lawn.
Middle left, design by Matt Dennis included a living willow structure as a focal setting.
Bottom left, design by Dan Maher clustered connected play areas and featured a picnic and seating area along the future Creekwalk.
Top right, design by Marshall Allen featured a living willow structure and paths through small hills
Bottom right, design by Ryan Fogg introduced a ripple earth and water feature at the location of former Star Lake and a dry creek bed for discovery play.
After the second workshop, students from SUNY ESF created their own site designs and models based on information from the first two community workshops. The images to the left show models of the five original designs for the Family
Activity Area. Each design was unique but sought to accomplish the same goals derived from the workshop exercises. The students presented and discussed their design ideas with community participants at the third workshop.
The comments and discussion from community members was documented and analyzed to understand preferences and concerns. This information and other community comments and suggestions will be utilized to develop a final detailed design during the next stage of the design process.
Community members, organizations, businesses and other interested parties are encouraged to take part in the design and development of this exciting new park area.
For further information, contact Glen Lewis, City of Syracuse Department of
Parks, Recreation and Youth
Programs
315-473-4330
GLewis@syrgov.net
Brochure prepared by
Dan Maher, Emily Handelman and Maren King.
SUNY ESF Center for
Community Design Research
315-470-4721 ccdr@esf.edu
Community Engagement and Conceptual Design
Introduction:
Onondaga Park is located in Syracuse’s southwest neighborhood. The 2004
Master Plan will guide development of the park into a public botanical garden and arboretum. One of first areas in the Park to be developed as part of this plan will be the Family Activity and
Play Area in Lower Onondaga
Park.
This project is a priority for the
Parks Department because the playground in this area was in poor condition and had to be removed. The Parks
Department would like to create a natural play area and family activity area in
Lower Onondaga Park that fits within the neighborhood and overall park setting.
A Collaborative Process:
The Parks Department will be working with community members and several consultants to plan, design, and construct this activity and play area. In order to learn more about Onondaga
Park, its visitors and local community, the Parks
Department asked SUNY
ESF’s Center for Community
Design Research to run several community workshops to engage local residents and park visitors in the conceptual design process of this activity and play area.
A Process of Community
Design:
The Parks Department recognized that an open and welcoming process that engaged community members in the design process could have many benefits, including:
• Encouraging residents and other stakeholders to share information and build understanding about the neighborhood and the new play area
• Uniting the neighborhoods around the park
What is a Natural Play Area?
Neighborhood residents have been expressing the desire for more trails, natural areas and ecologically based designs. With this input the
Parks Department decided that this would be a Natural Play Area rather than traditional playgrounds seen in most other parks. A natural play area incorporates features, elements and processes of the natural environment into a designed landscape for children.
Historic Considerations:
Onondaga Park was originally developed in the late 1800s.
Upper and Lower Onondaga
Park are on the National Register of Historic Places. This important designation means that any development within the park must respect the spatial character and remnant features of this valuable cultural landscape. The State
HIstoric Preservation Office also supports the Park’s Master Plan.
Onondaga Creekwalk:
The Onondaga Creekwalk, which currently runs between Onondaga
Lake and Armory Square, is expected to be extended to the south into Onondaga Park. The
Creekwalk will bring more visitors to the Park and neighborhood, especially with the Family Activity and Play Area as a unique destination.
Botanical Garden and
Arboretum Master Plan:
Supported by the City of Syracuse, this plan is based on an idea from the community, and guides the development of a series of gardens and exhibits. It promotes the park as key part of neighborhood revitalization, and sound environmental planning.
Family activity and natural play area
Formal display gardens
Restored botanical walks
Botanical promenade
Perspective drawings from 2004 master plan documents
Brochure
Page 65

Upper
The Vision and Goals for the project were developed from the results of the first workshop and confirmed at later events.
Project Vision:
The Family Activity and Play Area is a cherished and memorable landscape that is common ground, a place of unity and welcoming to all. It encourages fun, healthy play and intergenerational interaction. As a multifunctional landscape it serves a variety of social, cultural, educational and ecological purposes and changes and adapts over time.
Project Goals:
1. Spark children’s intellectual, physical and social development through play in nature
2. Embed principles of ecology and natural systems
3. Revive Lower Onondaga
Park as a unique place in its own right, as a destination and connector between the neighborhood and the park, between Lower Onondaga
Park and the other areas, and between people in the neighborhoods around the park.
4. Respect the history and historical form of Lower
Onondaga Park while creating a design that speaks clearly of this time.
5. Create and sustain a landscape that is pride of the neighborhood – that can be cared for and maintained through the combined resources of neighborhood volunteers, park friends and the city parks department.
Lower
Valued Places
Sacred Places
Upper Park Top Identified
Valued and Sacred Places:
Playground
Biking Lane
Hiawatha Lake
Stone Bridge
Wooded Grove
Play Area Site in Lower Park
Top Identified Sacred Places:
Willows
Star Lake
Upper Park Most Common
Existing Activities:
Walk/Jog/Run
Biking
Snowshoe
X-Country Ski
Play Area Site in Lower Park
Existing Activities:
Walk/Jog/Run
Biking
Kayak
Kirk
Valued and Sacred
Places
One workshop activity was designed to discover how the community values the
Park. Workshop participants identified locations and specific attractions that held both value and sacred meaning. The outcome of the analysis shows an imbalance between areas within the park, with most valued places being in
Upper Onondaga.
Park Use
This diagram is an analysis of the responses gathered from each community member about their patterns of activity use within Onondaga Park.
Symbols show where different activities take place and lines represent patterns of movement in the Park through activities like running, biking, and snowshoeing. The unbalanced usage of the
Park is seen in high activity in the Upper Park and lower and pass through movement in the Lower Park and the Family Activity Area site.
Flower &
Vegetable
Gardens
Ben Cleeton Photography Ben Cleeton Photography Ben Cleeton Photography Ben Cleeton Photography Ben Cleeton Photography
Activity Settings
This exercise was developed to have community members explore and prioritize potential activity settings. This helped to determine the key features to be designed and developed into the Family Activity Area. The photos and corresponding text are a combined list of activity settings that were chosen by workshop participants and are the cornerstones in the developing designs for the site.
Spatial Diagramming
Community members participated in a diagramming activity during the second workshop. This activity helped to identify potential arrangement and sizing options for the activity settings chosen in the preceding exercise. The activity settings were arranged in the diagrams to show how the community would to see the area arranged and related.
Community Modeling
The images to the left show the final exercise in the second workshop. Models were created by groups of community members with the help of student facilitators. Each group arranged their chosen activity settings on the site with the guidance of the diagramming exercise. The models were presented and discussed with the other groups, including a model created by the children at the workshop.
Ben Cleeton Photography

Upper
The Vision and Goals for the project were developed from the results of the first workshop and confirmed at later events.
Project Vision:
The Family Activity and Play Area is a cherished and memorable landscape that is common ground, a place of unity and welcoming to all. It encourages fun, healthy play and intergenerational interaction. As a multifunctional landscape it serves a variety of social, cultural, educational and ecological purposes and changes and adapts over time.
Project Goals:
1. Spark children’s intellectual, physical and social development through play in nature
2. Embed principles of ecology and natural systems
3. Revive Lower Onondaga
Park as a unique place in its own right, as a destination and connector between the neighborhood and the park, between Lower Onondaga
Park and the other areas, and between people in the neighborhoods around the park.
4. Respect the history and historical form of Lower
Onondaga Park while creating a design that speaks clearly of this time.
5. Create and sustain a landscape that is pride of the neighborhood – that can be cared for and maintained through the combined resources of neighborhood volunteers, park friends and the city parks department.
Lower
Valued Places
Sacred Places
Upper Park Top Identified
Valued and Sacred Places:
Playground
Biking Lane
Hiawatha Lake
Stone Bridge
Wooded Grove
Play Area Site in Lower Park
Top Identified Sacred Places:
Willows
Star Lake
Upper Park Most Common
Existing Activities:
Walk/Jog/Run
Biking
Snowshoe
X-Country Ski
Play Area Site in Lower Park
Existing Activities:
Walk/Jog/Run
Biking
Kayak
Kirk
Valued and Sacred
Places
One workshop activity was designed to discover how the community values the
Park. Workshop participants identified locations and specific attractions that held both value and sacred meaning. The outcome of the analysis shows an imbalance between areas within the park, with most valued places being in
Upper Onondaga.
Park Use
This diagram is an analysis of the responses gathered from each community member about their patterns of activity use within Onondaga Park.
Symbols show where different activities take place and lines represent patterns of movement in the Park through activities like running, biking, and snowshoeing. The unbalanced usage of the
Park is seen in high activity in the Upper Park and lower and pass through movement in the Lower Park and the Family Activity Area site.
Flower &
Vegetable
Gardens
Ben Cleeton Photography Ben Cleeton Photography Ben Cleeton Photography Ben Cleeton Photography Ben Cleeton Photography
Activity Settings
This exercise was developed to have community members explore and prioritize potential activity settings. This helped to determine the key features to be designed and developed into the Family Activity Area. The photos and corresponding text are a combined list of activity settings that were chosen by workshop participants and are the cornerstones in the developing designs for the site.
Spatial Diagramming
Community members participated in a diagramming activity during the second workshop. This activity helped to identify potential arrangement and sizing options for the activity settings chosen in the preceding exercise. The activity settings were arranged in the diagrams to show how the community would to see the area arranged and related.
Community Modeling
The images to the left show the final exercise in the second workshop. Models were created by groups of community members with the help of student facilitators. Each group arranged their chosen activity settings on the site with the guidance of the diagramming exercise. The models were presented and discussed with the other groups, including a model created by the children at the workshop.
Ben Cleeton Photography

Top left, design by Amanda Bischoff featured a pond at former Star Lake and a building with deck overlooking play areas and lawn.
Middle left, design by Matt Dennis included a living willow structure as a focal setting.
Bottom left, design by Dan Maher clustered connected play areas and featured a picnic and seating area along the future Creekwalk.
Top right, design by Marshall Allen featured a living willow structure and paths through small hills
Bottom right, design by Ryan Fogg introduced a ripple earth and water feature at the location of former Star Lake and a dry creek bed for discovery play.
After the second workshop, students from SUNY ESF created their own site designs and models based on information from the first two community workshops. The images to the left show models of the five original designs for the Family
Activity Area. Each design was unique but sought to accomplish the same goals derived from the workshop exercises. The students presented and discussed their design ideas with community participants at the third workshop.
The comments and discussion from community members was documented and analyzed to understand preferences and concerns. This information and other community comments and suggestions will be utilized to develop a final detailed design during the next stage of the design process.
Community members, organizations, businesses and other interested parties are encouraged to take part in the design and development of this exciting new park area.
For further information, contact Glen Lewis, City of Syracuse Department of
Parks, Recreation and Youth
Programs
315-473-4330
GLewis@syrgov.net
Brochure prepared by
Dan Maher, Emily Handelman and Maren King.
SUNY ESF Center for
Community Design Research
315-470-4721 ccdr@esf.edu
Community Engagement and Conceptual Design
Introduction:
Onondaga Park is located in Syracuse’s southwest neighborhood. The 2004
Master Plan will guide development of the park into a public botanical garden and arboretum. One of first areas in the Park to be developed as part of this plan will be the Family Activity and
Play Area in Lower Onondaga
Park.
This project is a priority for the
Parks Department because the playground in this area was in poor condition and had to be removed. The Parks
Department would like to create a natural play area and family activity area in
Lower Onondaga Park that fits within the neighborhood and overall park setting.
A Collaborative Process:
The Parks Department will be working with community members and several consultants to plan, design, and construct this activity and play area. In order to learn more about Onondaga
Park, its visitors and local community, the Parks
Department asked SUNY
ESF’s Center for Community
Design Research to run several community workshops to engage local residents and park visitors in the conceptual design process of this activity and play area.
A Process of Community
Design:
The Parks Department recognized that an open and welcoming process that engaged community members in the design process could have many benefits, including:
• Encouraging residents and other stakeholders to share information and build understanding about the neighborhood and the new play area
• Uniting the neighborhoods around the park
What is a Natural Play Area?
Neighborhood residents have been expressing the desire for more trails, natural areas and ecologically based designs. With this input the
Parks Department decided that this would be a Natural Play Area rather than traditional playgrounds seen in most other parks. A natural play area incorporates features, elements and processes of the natural environment into a designed landscape for children.
Historic Considerations:
Onondaga Park was originally developed in the late 1800s.
Upper and Lower Onondaga
Park are on the National Register of Historic Places. This important designation means that any development within the park must respect the spatial character and remnant features of this valuable cultural landscape. The State
HIstoric Preservation Office also supports the Park’s Master Plan.
Onondaga Creekwalk:
The Onondaga Creekwalk, which currently runs between Onondaga
Lake and Armory Square, is expected to be extended to the south into Onondaga Park. The
Creekwalk will bring more visitors to the Park and neighborhood, especially with the Family Activity and Play Area as a unique destination.
Botanical Garden and
Arboretum Master Plan:
Supported by the City of Syracuse, this plan is based on an idea from the community, and guides the development of a series of gardens and exhibits. It promotes the park as key part of neighborhood revitalization, and sound environmental planning.
Family activity and natural play area
Formal display gardens
Restored botanical walks
Botanical promenade
Perspective drawings from 2004 master plan documents