Photo from the study documents.
Should Franklin Park mostly stay as is and get a facelift, or more significant changes? A study by the National Park Service, DC government, and the Downtown Business Improvement District has devised three options for us to consider.
All of the options add a much-needed children’s play area in the northeastern portion of Franklin Park. Residents of the Chinatown area have nowhere close to take their children. They also create some measure of plaza or promenade space which can give people places to eat lunch or for events.
Right now, the park is very large but doesn’t provide a lot of usable spaces. The benches are all in a line along the paths, which don’t create good spaces to eat lunch in groups. The fountain in the center is, as Dan Malouff put it, “nothing but a squat ledge set in a sunken plaza.” The paths also force people to walk an indirect route even to get there.
The first pair of alternatives keeps the layout mostly as is, but widen a few paths to create space for farmers’ markets and other events, and add bike racks and electric charging stations. At the northern edge there would be a plaza with some moveable seating. One sub-option also adds a building there which could house a cafe, restrooms, park offices, and provide information, while the other has no building.
A second option, called “The Edge,” would activate the southern I Street edge with a larger plaza that could hold two small buildings, one for a cafe and restrooms and the other for park management and information.Dan pointed out
that good parks engage the city around them by putting activity along some of the edges. This option would do that. It would also move the southern path so that it leads people more directly into the center, where a fountain with a different design would better engage people than the standoffish current fountain.
The most dramatic change would come in the third option, “The Diagonal,” which creates direct diagonal paths from three corners into the middle of the park. There would be plazas on the 14th Street and I Street edges, and the fountain would be much more interactive, the kind where jets of water shoot out from the ground over a large area. The document notes that this can let people enjoy the water at times, while the jets can be turned off at other times to program the center space for events.
This option has the greatest number of movable tables, with many around the fountain and others on the 14th and I edges. Both this and the Edge option give bus riders, many of whom board along I Street, more places to sit in the park while they wait as well.Some of the options keep more of the existing trees than others. 37% of the trees are large, mature trees, while some trees are not in good shape. “The Center” concept, which changes little, would preserve about 90% of trees; “The Edge” preserves 77% and “The Diagonal” 49%.As is often the case with such studies, there is a tradeoff between keeping the existing design and trees and building a park that serves the most people. If one were designing Franklin Square from scratch, it might be fairly clear to use The Diagonal. Is that the right call here, or should we make more modest changes for the sake of history, tree preservation, continuity, or other reasons?