Clark Park plan faces opposition

The community organization Friends of Clark Park held an open meeting last night to discuss the University City District's proposed plans to revitalize Clark Park.

The organization's members submitted two petitions to the Friends of Clark Park Board in August protesting the UCD's plan. The Friends of Clark Park will play a large role in conjunction with the UCD in deciding what aspects of the park will be changed.

However, the group has been unclear as to its specific problems with the plan. Therefore, members of the Friends of Clark Park Board organized last night's meeting and invited those who had signed the petition to share their objections.

About 25 members attended the meeting held at Rosenberger Hall, located at 43rd Street and Woodland Avenue, to vocalize their objections to many of the plan's more substantial changes, stating that they want the park to keep its current character.

"This park is used. Its uses have been developed by the community. It doesn't need drastic changes," said Mauricio Mendez-Vaz, who lives near Clark Park.

Current Friends of Clark Park President Susan Scanlin and two other board members were the only three board members out of roughly 25 present at the meeting because, as Scanlin stated, they wanted to keep the discussion less formal and have more of a dialogue.

Those in attendance were given the opportunity to speak freely regarding their problems with the UCD's revitalization plan, and many voiced concerns over vegetation, changes to the current children's playground and basketball courts and a proposal to pave additional park areas.

Matthew Wolfe, local resident and member of Friends of Clark Park, submitted a new plan to the Board, leaving out many of the elements, which had been points of contention in the current one.

"If we adopt a less controversial plan, we can move ahead and get something accomplished," he said. "The plan is far from what I would have done had I done just what I wanted. In listening to a lot of people, I generated a consensus of the community's basic goals."

Wolfe's plan leaves the park much as it is now, including retaining existing pathways, though replacing them with a more viable surface. It also highlights the importance of Clark Park as an open green space in the densely populated West Philadelphia neighborhood.

Most in attendance emphasized how important it is to maintain the park's current natural, open appearance, rather than designing a more manicured space.

"I don't want another Rittenhouse Square," area resident Carolyn Burdon said. "I much prefer the natural park."

Another hotly debated topic was the issue of tree removal. One of the opponents' fears about the UCD plan was that an excessive number of trees could be taken out of the park.

Most of this controversy surrounds trees that have been designated as unsafe or unhealthy, but many in attendance suggested that additional studies be done on the trees in question.

Residents shared experiences at Clark Park that they feared would not be possible should the board move forward with the current proposal. Many also addressed safety concerns involved with the UCD plan.

Mendez-Vaz brought up the issue that additional shrubs -- which the UCD has proposed be planted in the park -- would provide a space for possible attackers or others to take refuge, endangering local residents who use the park.

"Changes shouldn't be made unless they're good changes," commented area resident Lois Hamerman. "We shouldn't commit to these proposals until we've shown that they're for the better."

Despite similar concerns by many members, and the repeated urge that the board move slowly on any action, Friends of Clark Park Board member Scott Maits raised the issue that contention among the group would lead to no progress at all.

"We need to keep up the momentum. The danger is that nothing will happen, and then there may be no money available," he said.

The Friends of Clark Park will be holding a general member meeting on Jan. 29 to address some of the issues brought up at last night's meeting and to allow the entire body to discuss Clark Park's future.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.