Blog

It has been over a month since Wallyhood published a proposal by Friends of Lower Woodland Park, Lincoln Playfields Option C. Since that time, a very encouraging 265 neighbors have come forward to publicly reject Option A and endorse Option C. This is a phenomenal amount of feedback in the doldrums of a Seattle winter break, so thank you Wallingford!

Friends of Lower Woodland Park are providing this update on what we have heard from Seattle Public Schools (SPS), details on trees, managing events, managing parking, and finally, public comments in favor of Option C.

SPS Speaks!

SPS has released this message about Option C: “The suggestion referred to as ‘Option C’ (not proposed by SPS) relies on modifying and upgrading an existing Seattle Parks & Recreation (SPR) field (Field #2) AND constructing a new field. Building two fields is beyond the scope and budget of the project.”

FLWP response: SPS has already studied both sites and considers them walkable from Lincoln, so they are within the project scope. Option A involves installing two entirely new fields, while Option C only adds a single new field and upgrades the existing, recently built Soccer Field #2. This contradicts the SPS claim that two fields is the issue. Regardless, we assume the real issue they are trying to flag is cost.

The concern about cost is largely offset by the fact that Option A requires demolishing the recently rebuilt Soccer Field #2, which includes an expensive lighting system and concrete visitor platforms. Option A also requires building a retaining wall and removing historic trees along the Green Lake Way N walking path.

Meanwhile, Option C at that site proposes a minor field upgrade that preserves lighting, concrete, astroturf, fences, and walking paths. The astroturf under the grandstand in Option C could even be repurposed for the field extension. Additionally, the soccer field addition proposed at N 50th Street and Aurora Avenue N will not impact existing infrastructure. It occupies about half the footprint of what SPS studied as Option B, avoiding the vast majority of Option B impacts and costs.

Whether Option C will cost less than Option A is unclear, but the costs appear comparable. What is clear is that Option C is less destructive and will produce a much better outcome for park users and neighbors.

The only other change in the last two months occurred shortly after the November 6th public meeting, when it was pointed out that the Option A design removed part of the parking lot. In response, the design team preserved parking by moving the fields towards the BMX bike jumps and removing all seating. Their updated renderings show that this shift requires removing the lowest part of the BMX bike jumps.

What about the trees along Green Lake Way?

The ten trees along Green Lake Way appear in historic overhead photos dating back to 1936. While it is unclear if they were specifically designated by the Olmsted brothers, they date to that era and remain healthy, historic landmarks today.

These trees are part of a continuous line leading toward the lake, providing essential shade for both the walking path and field users. Furthermore, they serve a critical functional role by buffering the fields from the road and the parking lot. Not all trees are created equal—these ten are mature, thriving, and integral to the park’s character.

Below is a slideshow gallery showing the progression of these trees in 1936, 2000, 2023, and today (overhead photos from imap):

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

How will having the fields at separate locations impact events?

Regarding events, the SPS design team stated on November 6th that Option A would not allow for hosting games, as the design lacks sideline space, seating, or a buffer for visitors. When all fields are in use, conflicts, parking, and congestion will become significant issues. SPS has stated that Option A only allows for practice fields and that all games would be away games.

Meanwhile, Option C upgrades Field #2 with a grandstand and preserves existing paths and space for sponsor booths and visitors, which would allow Lincoln to host home events for football or soccer. If an event required two fields, SPS could utilize the nearby Field #7, located across from the Green Lake Pitch & Putt. If a third field were to be needed by another sports league simultaneously, the location at N 50th Street and Aurora Avenue N would provide its own 170 parking spots and dedicated restrooms.

What about parking?

Neither Option A nor Option C would add new parking stalls. Since Option A adds a field to the existing sports complex, SPS predicts that parking will overflow across Green Lake Way N and into the residential neighborhood. Their proposed mitigation for these parking issues is to prohibit events at the field complex.

In contrast, Option C places the new soccer field at N 50th Street and Aurora Avenue N, allowing users to utilize the 170 existing spots in the picnic loop. Additionally, there are 120 underused parking spots near the horseshoe pits that could serve events like cross-country and cyclocross. Under this plan, large-scale sporting events would not take place at the 50th and Aurora field; they would be held at the main complex along Green Lake Way.

Furthermore, the gravel lot at 50th and Aurora is increasingly occupied by derelict vehicles and RVs. Refurbishing this area into a field would activate this section of the park, resolving current encampment issues. The installation of the field would also include a general renewal of the area, including maintaining the trees along the sidewalk.

What are you hearing from the community?

Support from Lincoln students, parents, park users, and park neighbors has been overwhelming and positive—it is what keeps us going. Here are ten of the many dozens of comments we have received endorsing Option C and rejecting Option A:

• “I have coached and officiated games at the LW fields for 20+ years, and have seen the current over-use and limited parking and open space around the existing fields evolve into a crisis. Build new fields in Woodland Park – DO NOT put more density / use on the LW complex!!” – Patrick
• “The idea that those tremendous, beautiful shade trees lining the east side of lower woodland park be removed to make room for heat-trapping plastic grass makes me so sad… In the sunny months those plastic turfs will be miserable to play in without the adjacent cool shaded air of those trees to bring down the ambient heat.” – Stephen
• “Rising 8th grader next year and a neighbor to the school and the parks, this plan finally puts equity and utility at the forefront. Plan C looks like a great win-win solution for all concerned.” – Michael P
• “I love the idea of a grandstand on the hybrid football / soccer field… it really adds to the overall feel of the school climate. At a time when many people are feeling more and more isolated and lonely, creating a way for the greater community to participate and join is something that is needed.” – Jon-Erik
• “I do not support the renovation of this community space for new astroturf fields. I also have very serious concerns about how this will impact traffic… The school’s activity needs do not trump community safety and other’s enjoyment of the park.” – Maureen
• “I already have trouble getting out of my driveway with the current traffic and this would make it worse. I currently deal with people parking blocking my driveway… though I feel this is a waste of taxpayer money if there needs to be another field in Woodland Park please choose option C.” – Margaret
• “Revised Option A should be dead on arrival… We need to be conserving our trees and green space. These trees have taken decades to grow and AstroTurf is not green space… why was this planning not done before Lincoln reopened? Seems like another example of poor planning by SPS.” – Neal
• “The proposed Option C plan looks to be the best option… I am very excited about the underutilized gravel parking lot being transformed into a soccer field with minimal impact on trees and the park driveway. The ability to have a grandstand… will make Woodland Park a really incredible park!” – Alyssa
• “Two fields in one footprint, while likely cheaper to build, is a terrible idea for many reasons. Please change your plan to split these two fields up and put them each into their own area.” – Kathryn
• “My understanding is Option A will make it a lot less useful for me and my dogs. It looks like my current paths cross 52nd will be gone and my access to Woodlawn park will be shifted to 50th or 55th? Even now the legal way to access from 55th is messy.” – Morgan

As we wait to hear from SPS and SPR, please consider offering your support by signing the petition to advance Option C and reject Option A. You can also send your input directly to Seattle Public Schools via a link on their project page. If you hear back from SPS or have further ideas for advancing Option C, please let the team at Friends of Lower Woodland Park know at [email protected]. Thank you!