Dunwoody’s lack of park space isn’t lost on any of its residents. Although some residents are opposed to the city’s solution to the problem, others are excited about the possibilities.
As the City Council continues to discuss the possible adoption of a master plan for the parks and green spaces in Dunwoody today, residents plan to make sure their voices are heard.
George Binder, whose property abuts baseball fields that share park space with Dunwoody Nature Center, said he thinks the master plan is “too much, too soon.”
“The whole thing just seems fiscally irresponsible, and that is what I’m most concerned about,” he said.
Anne Gunning, a mom who supported efforts to establish Dunwoody High School’s lacrosse team, is concerned about the price of the project, too, but she’s overjoyed that the city is considering creating open green spaces where kids can do things like practice lacrosse.
“We just don’t have that kind of space right now,” she said. “But we need it so badly.”
In just more than 13 square miles, Dunwoody has just under 50,000 residents, City Manager Warren A. Hutmacher said. The city also has approximately 3 acres of park land per 1,000 people, but the national average is 10 acres per 1,000 people.
“We are woefully underserved in park space,” he said. “And we see this master plan as a guide to fixing the situation.”
The plan, a $60 million overhaul designed by Lose & Associates Inc., based in Nashville, Tenn., looks at the city’s parks and green spaces. The plan includes improvements at several sites, including Windwood Hollow Park, Perimeter Center Park and the Donaldson Banister House. But the two parks that seem to dominate the conversation are the two largest, Brook Run and Dunwoody Nature Center.
The plan suggests new uses for both parks. One of the biggest controversies is the relocation of the two baseball fields near Binder’s backyard.
The initial recommendation was to move the fields to undeveloped property at Brook Run Park and add a third, at the lower end of the park. Now, the three fields have been removed from the renderings and replaced by a multiuse lawn.
Besides the cost, Binder said moving the fields is a bad idea because they are part of the neighborhood.
Neighbors of Brook Run were opposed to relocating the fields for environmental, not sentimental, reasons.
Beverly Armento, president of the Lakeview Oaks Homeowners Association, said the new ball fields would have called for hundreds of trees to be removed. She’s much more encouraged about the prospect of the multiuse lawn, which allows the tree line to stay as-is.
Flooding is a major concern of many neighbors in the area, she said, as many of the homes were built in a floodplain. Armento said the tree line, which separates park land from the homes by 200 or 300 feet, provides minimal protection for the homes during heavy and prolonged rain. She said removing nearly half of the trees to create the ball fields could have been disastrous for the surrounding neighborhoods.
And residents like Binder are concerned about the amount of money it is going to take.
“I just think there are things that are more important, like our roads, that should get attention first,” he said. “I know we need park space, but I just don’t think this plan is the way to go.”
City Council members are expected to vote on the final master plan June 20. The revised plans show Binder likely will still lose his beloved ball fields, but not to Brook Run.
Gunning is glad the council is considering creating an open green space for the lower end of Brook Run Park, which will not disturb the tree line.
“If they do that, the space can be used for so many things,” she said. “Soccer, football, lacrosse, anything. And the kids would love to have that kind of space to play.”
About the Author
