The Two Dog Runs Within Lucas Park
In 2008 the Downtown Children’s Center moved to a new location, leaving behind their fenced/gated playground area within Lucas Park. Later that year downtown residents began to clean up the fenced space to use it as a place to let their dogs run off-leash.
The problem was the playground didn’t meet the city’s standards for a dog run — the fence was too short, there was no double gate entry and no access to water. The dog run would need to be rebuilt. When Lucas Park was designed it was symmetrical in both directions. With the east end fenced it was no longer symmetrical on the main library across Locust to the south. That, and the fact residents would be without any dog run during reconstruction, let me to suggest at a charrette in November 2008 that a new dog run be built in a different location, removing the old fencing once the new run was open.
In April of this year the new dog run opened. Nearly six months later, the old playground improvised as a temporary dog run is still in use. City officials said they had no plans to remove the old fencing.
Viewing the park as four areas around a fifth center section there is even less open park space than before! The old playground fencing needs to be removed with the east section of the park. This would, unfortunately, force residents to pay the fees to use the new dog run.
– Steve Patterson
Maybe we could put the bums in the old dog run.
Like a dog park except with cheap gin instead of water? They have to stay there until they blow a .07 or less? Brilliant! If the exit were somehow in Clayton that would be awesome. Maybe not humane but as long as we're dreaming here…
Steve,
We are planning phase two of Lucas Park Beautification. We will have another meeting for more community input and collaborate with businesses and other interested parties in the area. The old dog park will stop being a dog park, but first we need to get some input in to what it should become.
Howard Wynder
Downtownstl10
Why not just put playground equipment back inside the playground fence?! Aren't there any kids in downtown? Citygarden would seem to indicate that there's unmet demand . . .
Playground equipment is located at the west end of the park.
Is the fence “historic”? Does it add symmetry to the park? Then how 'bout bocce ball? Lawn bowling? A skate park? But if it's not historic/part of the overall design concept, then, by all means, it should go away, unless, like Lindenwood Park, it's there to restrict folks, bith young and old, from running onto a busy, adjacent street.
The fence is only about 15 years old and in poor condition. It throws off the symmetry as viewed from the library, which will reopen in 2012 for the 100th anniversary.
Bocce courts??? BRILLIANT!!! Let's start the fundraising.
That playground is pretty frigging dismal. The absence of trees to offer some future shade and separation from traffic is especially depressing and typical (for some reason) of St. Louis. I'm sure someone somewhere is planning to plant a couple miserable twigs in the next couple years, but I don't understand 1. why they had to knock down the mature, attractive trees that were there and 2. why new trees couldn't have been planted right away. As it is, I've never seens kids playing there, and I'm not surprised.
Agreed on the playground. The city's arborist inspected all the trees in the park and had the diseased trees removed.
That will probably be part of the plan. Some people would prefer that their children aren't playing next to 14th street.
Steve,
As you know we cleaned up the whole park to make it more amenable to use by all residents of the area. Yes, I have a dog and YES I wanted a dog park. Since we have put in the dog park we have had increased use of the park and, as we hoped a change in behavior. What we are looking for is a park that is equally available and safe for all residents of the area.
We have installed new benches by John Beck through a fund raising campaign and will continue to try and improve the image and the atmosphere in Lucas Park.
Oh the humanity! Forcing residents to pay FEES! You know just in case a resident wanted to let their dog off leash with other dogs that were vaccinated and in a place that had liability insurance and was up to code! My god! What are we to do now that the used needles and human feces have been removed?!?
With a free dog run available there is no incentive for people to pay.
That's interesting! We have had to change our insurance limits after exceeding the initial number of members. People with dogs who see a vet usually worry about worms, rabies, aggressive dogs etc., etc.,. That's part of what the fees cover. Also insurance, doggie bags and the other essentials for a dog park. No one is required to join the dog park. It's just a safer environment.
No where else in the city do dog owners have competing dog runs 20 feet apart, one free and one with a fee.
Your “Free” dog park is also illegal. There's your incentive to pay for the safe and LEGAL dog park.
Relevant Law:
http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/ords/data/ord6384…
10.04.220 Leashing of dogs.
No owner/guardian of any dog shall permit such dog to be found at large on the streets of the City or in any public place or on another person's private property, unless such dog is on a leash, not longer than six (6) feet in length and held by or under control of a responsible person so as to effectively prevent it from biting any person or animal. All dogs are prohibited from running or being at large unless under restraint as described above.
10.04.350 Penalty for violation.
Every person found guilty for the first time of a violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days or by both such fine and imprisonment. Upon a finding of guilt of a second violation, the person shall be punished by a fine of not less than three hundred dollars ($300.00) or by imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days or by both such fine and imprisonment; upon a third and subsequent violation, the person shall be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) and by imprisonment for not less than ten (10) days.
Dog Park Ordinance
http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/t1004.htm
Agreed, that is why it needs to be removed!
So come write me a ticket. I'll promptly drop it on the ground and laugh as my dogs piss on it.
Instead of continually putting good money to bad use lets take a step back and really address the needs of all the constituents of the park. I am co chairing the campaign for the Central Library restoration and renovation and it is in the interest of all the stakeholders to come together to balance the discussion. I have spoken to some of you about the library's concerns as Lucas Park is our new front yard and it needs to be addressed as a formal design plan.A Master Plan that artfully incorporates the needs of the constituents,yes the homeless, Christ Church Cathedral,area residents,library patrons, out of town visitors. I have had a long history in the neighborhood having had a studio in theRudman building in 1980, my children went to the downtown children's center when it was in Christ Church cathedral so i have a sense of the neighborhood. i was involved in Lafayette Square in the late 70's . I hope we can all come together on this one as alot is at stake. I have spoken with Gary Bess and the Mayor about my concerns for the park as well with some influential private funders. My task at themoment is to finish raising the money for the library so I have not had time to focus on the Park. I just wanted people to know that the needs of the park are on everyone's mind.
Alison Ferring
Allison,
I'd be interested in talking to you about the library and the park.
Steve
____________________________________
Steven L. Patterson, Publisher UrbanReviewSTL.com
STL Planning, Politics & Policy
Facebook.com/UrbanReviewSTL
Twitter.com/UrbanReviewSTL
Flickr.com/UrbanReviewSTL
____________________________________
314-514-5785 | voicemail/text
We are hosting a Hard Hat tour on the 6th of April from 12-1 PM at the library if you would like to come we could have lunch aterwards.
I’m glad someone at the Library is thinking about the overall neighborhood context and the possible synergies among various local venues. But the reference to Lucas Park as the “new front yard” confirms the fact that Olive St. and the dramatic front entrance of the library have been abandoned. That I don’t get it. Can anyone imagine the New York Public Library closing its historic entrance and turning Fifth Avenue into its “backyard?”
Why did it have to happen this way? Why are we killing one street while saving another?
I’m glad someone at the Library is thinking about the overall neighborhood context and the possible synergies among various local venues. But the reference to Lucas Park as the “new front yard” confirms the fact that Olive St. and the dramatic front entrance of the library have been abandoned. That I don’t get it. Can anyone imagine the New York Public Library closing its historic entrance and turning Fifth Avenue into its “backyard?”
Why did it have to happen this way? Why are we killing one street while saving another?