Monday’s snow drew some observations by Holly Otterbein in City Paper about the changes at Clark Park. The story quickly lays out the two sides of the argument: “improvements” versus “clear cut.” Here’s the meat of the story:

“Indeed, the renovations — though aimed at providing better drainage, improved paths and more lighting — are the subject of no small controversy. The Clark Park revitalization, which has been in the works for the last 10 years, has drawn criticism from various locals, including eco-artist Aaron Birk, who wrote this September in an e-mail to City Paper and others, “Clark Park is going to be clear-cut in the next day or so. There is now a chain-link construction fence preventing anyone from setting foot in the park,” adding, “Let me know if you’re interested in helping organize an emerge ncy sit-in. I have a 50-watt megaphone.”

But according to the Friends of Clark Park, only 24 trees have been removed and that’s because they’re old, diseased or invasive.

“These trees were selected for removal after consultation with arborists from the Morris Arboretum,” says xBrian Siano, vice president of the Friends. “And preserving the tree canopy was one of the most important goals we had.”

Below is a copy of the (now 10-year-old) master plan for Clark Park. The folks at The Friends of Clark Park have said that they expect the “A” park to be open by this spring.
Clark Park Master Plan