Some Oak Park residents have expressed concern and frustration about the proposed new Field Recreation Center, chosen through a Park District of Oak Park design competition.
Residents and parents of children attending Horace Mann Elementary School in northwest Oak Park said they’re unhappy with the chosen location for the new center within the park. It’s now located near the center of Field Park against the western border. But the winning designer, Patrick Brown, opted to propose rebuilding the center in the northwest corner of the park.
That could lead to loss of older trees and natural green space in that area, residents said, along with potentially creating a lack of visibility throughout the park that now allows parents to watch kids play independently. Residents also said they’re worried about potential increased traffic.
Ann Marie Buczek, director of marketing and community engagement at the PDOP, said the park district is taking all feedback into account before moving forward. Residents can share their thoughts at a meeting 7 p.m. Jan. 21 at the Mann Elementary School, 921 N. Kenilworth Ave.
The proposal
The Field Center, 935 Woodbine Ave., was built in 1926. Brown’s proposal is to replace that structure and to construct a 4,600-square-foot facility in the northwest corner of Field Park. He wants to build a “natural play area” in addition to classroom space and a performance stage. His intention is to improve pick-up and drop-off access and visibility.
Patrick Brown of ORG, Inc.’s design for the new Field Recreation Center. Credit: Provided by the Park District of Oak Park 
Patrick Brown of ORG, Inc.’s design for the new Field Recreation Center. Credit: Provided by the Park District of Oak Park 
Patrick Brown of ORG, Inc.’s design for the new Field Recreation Center. Credit: Provided by the Park District of Oak Park
Brown is founder of ORG Inc., a Chicago-based architecture studio. He was chosen from 26 submissions in the PDOP’s design competition, originally announced in February 2024. A jury of architects, designers and building experts helped select the winner in September 2024.
Residents were able to share feedback on the proposals with judges through a QR code at the Community Recreation Center between April 26, 2024, and May 5, 2024.
But some said they weren’t aware of the competition or the opportunity to provide feedback until after the winner was announced.
Buczek said the PDOP chose to host the feedback opportunity at the CRC to reach the most residents in one place. The competition was communicated through PDOP channels, she said, including in newsletters, on social media, in press releases and in flyers posted in Field Park and other areas.
But regular Field Park attendees said they weren’t aware of the competition at the time, and didn’t see flyers.
Resident concerns
Jeff Schneider, an Oak Park resident with kids who play in Field Park, said the placement of the new center is his concern, not the design itself.
“The whole thing seems like it’s being forced and pushed forward by the park district board or whoever without, really, the community’s input,” he said. “The design, as it stands, is a gorgeous-looking building, but no one likes the placement.”
The center’s new location could take away some green space and trees in the area, Schneider said. Buczek said if any trees are removed during construction, the park district will plant two in replacement.
Erin Connor, an Oak Park parent living across from Field Park, said the area is a great, safe park for families where kids can play independently. But she said the design eliminates a hill in the northwest corner that’s the “heartbeat” of the park.
“I’m not opposed to them building a new building, I’m not opposed to them using funding to do that,” she said. “It’s the location and the removal of the hill and the mature trees. It almost feels like the park district … weren’t clear on how families in this community use the park space.”
Scott Drews, another longtime Oak Park resident, said he also opposes the new location for the Field Center and loss of green space in that northwest corner of the park.
“It seems that losing the natural green space that is in the upper northwest corner for a building that’s double the size of the current one is a disproportionate expansion for a minimal benefit to the community,” he said.
The current building accommodates almost 30 kids, Buczek said, and there’s a waiting list of about 30 more.
Drews said the solution, in his mind, is to replace the current building in its existing location while also accommodating the increasing community demand for programming. But building a center in the new location could create a long-term impact in lack of green space.
“Why are we replacing a green space, which is inherently what a park is defined as, with a massive building and manufactured playground equipment?” he said.
Schneider also said he’s worried about safety. From any location now, he said parents can look across the park and see their children or pets playing. He said he’s worried the new location could create a blind spot. Connor echoed that concern.
Ideally, Buczek said, it should not impede that visibility. The landscape architect has assured them, she said, that sight lines for the park would still be clear.
Another concern is about potential increases in traffic in the area. Neighbors in that area said cars often blow through stop signs, a danger especially where kids are playing. But Buczek said the new center should not have an impact on traffic.
The idea is to increase participation in the after-school programs with a bigger Field Center, Buczek said. That means after-school pickup congestion at Mann Elementary School could decrease, with more parents instead picking up their children later from the Field Center.
“That traffic that some of the residents have talked about is the result of traffic coming and cutting through from Harlem and North [Avenue],” Buczek said, adding that the village may be conducting a traffic study in that area in 2025.
Some residents are concerned about the cost of the project, but Schneider said the park district has explained that it’s less cost effective to retrofit and upgrade the current building than building the new structure.
Drews said he’s not optimistic the PDOP will adequately respond to community concerns.
“The decision we make now is irreversible,” he said. “Our community deserves a thoughtful solution.”
PDOP plans
The park district held meetings in October and December discussing the Field Center plan, hearing resident opposition. Schneider also said PDOP Executive Director Jan Arnold reached out to some attendees to discuss concerns further.
Buczek said October was the first time the PDOP heard negative feedback about the proposal. Since then, the landscape architect on the project was able to present potential alterations to the project.
Those alterations could include building the new center in relatively the same location as the current one. But Drews said he felt Arnold and other park district officials were advocating more so for the original plan.
The park district board will have the final say.
Another meeting on the topic is scheduled at 7 p.m. Jan. 21 at the Mann Elementary School, 921 N. Kenilworth Ave.
Schneider said he’s felt like the PDOP response has been “‘Sorry community, we hear you, but we’re not listening to you.’”
“The biggest concern that we have is that residents perhaps don’t feel that we’re listening, we are listening,” Buczek said. “[The board is] committed to developing a plan that meet needs of all of our community.”
It’s unclear whether or not work on the Field Center will still begin this summer, as originally planned, but Buczek said the goal is to continue along the same timeline. The PDOP must first reach consensus on a path forward.