CAPEHART - WHAT SHOULD IT LOOK LIKE IN 20 YEARS?

The City has recently announced an agreement with the Navy and American Eagle which would effectively give the City the entire 25+ acre Capehart site for incorporation into Discovery Park. This is probably the most important acquisition of park property the City has made in a long time and certainly the most important for the Park since its inception in the 70's.

The details of the deal are far from settled, but right now the agreement calls for the Navy and American Eagle to demolish all above ground structures, leaving concrete slabs, pavement and wiring in place. This will likely happen in the next 3-5 years. It apparently will be the City's responsibility to remove the pavement, concrete slabs, etc to prepare for restoration.

Lots of steps have to happen in the short term, but I'd like to think ahead for a moment and consider what this parcel will look like in 20 years or more.

I've posted a picture of Capehart from the air taken a few years ago. Note that the site is surrounded by forest on the west side, meadow on the east, a dense stand of Scots Broom on the south, and the Westpoint access road and more forest on the north side.

Currently, no regular park users are allowed to walk within the parcel, it being a restricted access military residence. The Loop Trail runs along the western edge, running north-south. At the top of the steep road descending to the Metro wastewater plant, the Loop Trail connects to a paved path which runs parallel to the Westpoint road, along its north side.

Unlike the recently acquired 500 area parcel that was long, narrow and effectively blocked the direct passage of walkers from the Visitors Center to the bluff and historic parade grounds, the Capehart parcel does not limit or restrict access of the public to any other park areas. It has been in place well before the establishment of the Park. Because of this, as well as its relative remoteness from vehicular access points, the value in adding Capehart to the rest of the Park, lies more in it's open space and habitat enhancing characteristics, rather than for direct human use as a hiking area.

I would propose that we designate the Capehart parcel a wildlife habitat zone, in which pedestrian traffic is restricted. Now most people's initial response to this is "you can't fence people out - it's a Park for pete's sake! We have to let people in there". But - take a look at the recent trails project completed a few years ago thanks to the hard work of the Friends of Discovery Park. That plan shows the the Park completely filled (and fragmented) with trails, both designated and non-designated. There is very little un-interrupted habitat-enhancing space available to wildlife. Similar discussions took place when the 9 acres of the 500 area became available. Should we encourage or discourage pedestrian traffic? How many trails versus forest versus meadow? These issues were discussed during the 3 public input and planning meetings that took place, at the direction of landscape architect Charles Anderson. In the end, the decision was made that because of its central location and proximity to the Visitors Center and the south parking lot, it should contain several trails, running primarily north-south with an open grass field in the center of the parcel and open forests in the north and south, taking advantage of the trees already on site. This decision was complex, and not without its opponents. In the end, compromises were made in several ways. But I think we ended up with a reasonably good outcome, given the very limited budget available to the process.

With Capehart we have the opportunity to pioneer a new and badly needed paradigm for Discovery Park. What makes the Park so unique and such an attractive place for Seattle citizens is its nature, its wildness, and its wildlife viewing potential. By establishing a precedent showing that we value untrammeled habitat, we inform visitors that Discovery Park values and protects habitat for the wildlife that call it home and is willing to discourage pedestrian traffic in some areas to promote this priority.

How would this be done? Fairly simply. I envision a non-threatening, voluntary demarcation barrier with simple signs stating that for habitat and wildlife purposes, this area is off limits to human or dog traffic. The barriers would be low and rustic - perhaps a split log type barrier. A few gates would be installed to allow restoration crew access.

By creating this zone, we could create a unique and very special area in the Park that would raise awareness of the ultimate purpose of the Park - to provide a refuge from our manmade environment.

BUILDING 653

Building 653 - what is it and why am I writing about it?

Building 653 is a squat single story yellow cinder block building which sits immediately east of the FAA tower, on the top of the hill. To my knowlege, it was built at the same time as the Nike building (see Nike building essay) and was designed to work with the Nike building in controlling the Nike Anti-Missile Ballistic system in place during the cold war.

Because the FAA complex is so intimidating, most Park visitors stay far away from it and think that the 653 parcel is part of the FAA complex and therefore also off limits. This is not true. The FAA complex is clearly demarcated by a 7-8 foot high fence topped with barb wire - prison camp style. The FAA parcel forms the shape of an "L" with building 653 sitting in the crook of that "L". More importantly, building 653 has a long wide driveway running to it from the access road behind (east) the historic officers homes. That driveway leads to a large paved parking lot immediately next to 653. All of this is City owned property and includes a wide swath of land just to the south of the FAA tower and just north of the south unit of the Officers homes. All this property is technically "park".

I've been inside 653 before. It appears to have been built primarily for 1950's era computer use, with many large trench like passageways running through and under most of the flooring. Extensive cooling ductwork runs through the building. There is very little useful interior space. It is not currently used and has not been used for several decades.

Building 653 is currently being considered for demolition under the WPCAC recommendations - a spending list regarding the roughly $5 million being transferred to the City from King County, which I've discussed in several different essays. This committee has the difficult task of recommending which projects take priorities over others, especially given that $2 million of the original $5 million in WPCAC funds will likely be used towards the $9 million the City has agreed to pay the Navy and American Eagle for the Capehart parcel (see essay - "the City/Navy deal".

So why is demolition of this building a priority? First and foremost, along with the driveway and parking lot associated with it, it occupies a significan portion of publicly owned land that the public cannot take advantage of. As can be stated about the Nike building and others, nothing can be done to improve these areas with buildings standing on them.

Secondly, the combination of 653, the FAA complex and the Nike building together form an imposing series of structures that effectively block public access from the Visitors Center to the top of the hill, forcing the public to take a more circuitous route. The recent addition of the 500 area has allowed the public to climb the long staircase from the Visitors Center to the 500 area renovation site, but the Nike site remains. With the Nike and 653 removed, the way is clear to discuss with the FAA some type of mitigation of the site and allow improved public access. I've discussed this in some detail in my FAA essay.

In fact, it's an interesting exercise to walk from the Visitors Center to the Nike building and try to figure out a way to get to the top of the hill. It's not easy. And 653 is one of the culprits. Removal of this building will go a long way in creating the type of Park that was originally conceived nearly 30 years ago. Here are a couple of views I took in 2005: