When given a choice between an image of the isthmus piled high with monolithic buildings and an image of the isthmus composed of a tree-lined park, most people are naturally drawn to the isthmus park concept.  Although the air-brushed park image is enticing, we do not believe the isthmus park expansion is feasible in light of the City's land use and urban design objectives – even if our community could afford it.

There are many reasons why an expanded isthmus park is not feasible, with density, sustainability, and transportation goals in the City's Comprehensive Plan being near the top.  The City is way behind in reaching its downtown housing density goals.   Just meeting the current City goals will require at least 20 blocks of downtown land (figuring 5 story buildings with parking built-in) dedicated solely to urban housing.  Simply put, there is hardly enough room in downtown to accomplish our housing density objectives without being forced to build higher-than-mid-rise structures in most of it.  Downtown already has 63 acres of park space, which occupies approximately 10 percent of the total downtown area.  We just can't afford to add more downtown parks in locations prime for residential development if we truly want to meet the Comprehensive Plan goals.  It should go without saying that not meeting our density goals will also stymie the sustainability and transportation objectives, which call for giving citizens the opportunity to live where use of a car is a choice and not a necessity.  

An expanded isthmus park is also not feasible from an urban design perspective.  The design concepts of urban edges and continuous streets are ubiquitous throughout the Comprehensive Plan and are fully intended for the isthmus.  The expanded isthmus park (with two major cross-town thoroughfares running through it no less) would inhibit downtown vitality and park usage by removing opportunities for urban edges and continuous streets.  Indeed, the City constructed an expensive (and wonderful) connection to the Westside with the 4th Avenue bridge and other pedestrian friendly facilities across the isthmus including sidewalks, bike lanes, and lighting. These substantial investments will fall short of their intended goals without a continuous street edge across the isthmus and the naturally-occurring pedestrian activity that would come with it.   Likewise the use of Heritage Park and Percival Landing will never live up to their full potential without an adjacent urban edge of continuous streets.

Safety is an often overlooked issue that further hampers the feasibility of an expanded isthmus park.  Safety issues are already major concerns at downtown parks such as Heritage Park and Percival Landing.  Keeping these parks vandal free are major challenges for City Police and the State Patrol since there is no nearby activity after dark.  In fact, the State officially closes Heritage Park at 11pm because it cannot afford the surveillance that it feels is necessary for an open space of that size.  The only realistic way that downtown parks can be safe for all citizens after dark is with adjacent housing and mixed-use activity that will populate the area for 18 to 24 hours a day.  This is called community policing (or as Jane Jacobs would say, "eyes on the street").  The City of Olympia is dedicated to community policing, which is a major them in the Comprehensive Plan chapter on public safety.  Community policing is only practical and effective for parks when parks are appropriately scaled to the built environment surrounding them.  Thus, expanding Heritage Park would further undermine Olympia's community policing goal by removing urban activity near our large downtown parks. 

It should also be noted that an expanded isthmus park is not called for nor even discussed in any existing City, County, or State plan.  The plans that do exist have been created through many years of public input, careful planning, and a 2004 voter-approved funding measure.  Supplanting these existing park plans with a new and costly park project on the isthmus would negate the considerable time, money, and energy spent on park planning by city officials and citizens.  How is an expanded isthmus park more important than existing and underfunded downtown park priorities such as rebuilding Percival Landing or new walking paths to connect our existing waterfront parks?  Moreover, pushing this new park "priority" to the front of the line would also suppress the needs and desires for other parts of the City. 

Of course there are the obvious financial questions posed by this isthmus park initiative.  How much is it really going to cost?  Where would the dollars to acquire the isthmus come from?  What about funding to maintain and secure the park?  How could our severely cash-strapped city afford to lose the current – and potential – tax revenue generated from the isthmus?  Is adding another strip of disconnected grass to Heritage Park worth the financial burden in these difficult financial times?

For all of the above reasons, the initiative to create an expanded isthmus is divisive at best, and selfish and irresponsible at worst.  Even in the highly unlikely event that a large amount of cash suddenly became available from the City, State, and private donors, creating an expanded isthmus park would fly squarely in the face of many goals, objectives, and dreams that have been carefully articulated in the Comprehensive Plan.  As a result, we do not believe that an isthmus park is palatable or feasible, even if the feasibility study being commissioned by the City says we can afford it.