Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears three scenarios for Durham Athletic Park; staff, consultants and residents favor preservation-led approach
Summary
Perkins and Will presented three visions for the Durham Athletic Park preservation/restoration, transformation, and new development with conceptual cost ranges; community survey (2,600 respondents) showed strong interest in keeping the site public and preserving history. Council signaled a preference for option 1 and asked staff to pursue further analysis and phasing.
City staff and consultants presented Phase 1 of a feasibility study for the Durham Athletic Park (DAP) and heard two hours of public comment and council deliberation on three concept approaches: preservation/restoration, transformation, and new development.
"The purpose of this feasibility study is to develop a bold community centered vision for the historic Durham Athletic Park," Jackie Field told the council as she introduced the study and noted the work included 2,600 survey responses. Consultant Zena Howard (Perkins and Will) said the team "didn't start with sort of buildings or amenities. We started with people," and described three illustrative approaches: preservation/restoration (minimal but meaningful change), transformation (open central lawn and new circulation), and a new-development concept (daylighting Ellerbe Creek and a larger civic plaza).
Consultants provided conceptual cost ranges for each approach: preservation/restoration roughly $48M to $68M; transformation about $40M to $60M; and the most ambitious new-development scenario about $62M to $85M. Perkins and Will emphasized the estimates were conceptual and would need further design and engineering.
The Durham Sports Commission described conversations with three potential tenant types: a new professional league, a regional baseball academy, and North Carolina Central University (NCCU) softball. "We've been in conversations with potential tenants, 3 potential tenants," Marcus Manning said, noting talk of synthetic turf, expanded seating, and broadcast capability.
Speakers from Durham Central Park, Downtown Durham Inc., Preservation Durham, local historians and business owners offered a range of views: many urged preserving the parks historic fabric while activating it for broader public use; Preservation Durham asked that preservation be treated as central rather than secondary.
Council members probed tradeoffs: preservation can be expensive to renovate, while professional-tenant arrangements could limit unfettered public access. Staff warned that options 2 and 3 could preclude professional sports use because they reduce field playability. Multiple council members signaled a preference for option 1 (preserve/restore) and asked staff to come back with phased, fiscally realistic next steps, more economic analysis, and clearer definitions of operating arrangements if a professional tenant is pursued.
Next steps identified by staff included refining one concept per council direction, conducting economic analysis, exploring funding and partnership opportunities, and coordinating more closely with Durham Parks and Recreation on operations and connectivity.
