New sports field coming to lower Woodland Park: Two options, one meeting

Editor’s Note: See Eric’s prior stories on this subject:

• Lincoln Playfields Option C: Combining Options A and B for a Better Lower Woodland Park Design (Dec 15, 2025)
• Lincoln Playfields at Lower Woodland Park: An Update on Option A and Option C (Jan 19, 2026)

Lincoln High School has approval for a new hybrid football/soccer field, funded by the BEX levy for Seattle Public Schools. Most people welcome improvements to Lower Woodland Park and the expansion of playing fields there, but a critical decision is approaching on where to put the fields.

Until now, Option C has not been studied, and basic questions about Option A have not been answered. The project team met with proponents of Option C about a month ago to hear that design proposal, and it also met with the Lincoln PTSA to hear their request for the field to be built ASAP, which they believe means Option A. The project team has been otherwise tight-lipped, refusing to answer questions from the public dating back to last December.

The primary hope we should all have is that the best versions of both Option A and Option C will be presented with rigor and clarity at the upcoming community meeting. Hopefully, that will get us past inflammatory speculation on Facebook and towards discussion of what park design we want to be living with for the next 50 years.

The meeting will be hosted by Seattle Public Schools, on Saturday, April 25th, from 10 to 11:30 am, at Hamilton International Middle School, 1610 N 41st Street.

Here is what is known about the components of Option A and Option C as I understand them, based on discussions that have happened up until now. If you see anything inaccurate, please let me know in the comments:

Option A will require shutting down Soccer Field #2 for a full spring, summer, and fall, as the project is extensive, including these components:

1. Removing the existing field lighting, seating, concrete platforms, electronic baseball scoreboard, and a 2021 $1.7M investment in rebuilding Soccer Field #2.
2. Removing seven to nine trees along Green Lake Way and regrading the area so the synthetic turf can extend up to the walking path.
3. Constructing a retaining wall that is up to six feet high and directly abuts the Green Lake Way walking path for the length of the football field.
4. Installing a new field lighting system and replacing or moving the electronic baseball scoreboard.
5. Installing enough synthetic turf for the two new fields plus goalposts.
6. Installing fencing on all four sides of the new fields, with openings at the corners for people to exit and enter.
7. Miscellaneous: Connecting the new fields to the existing path system at the corners, planting of replacement trees, and possible changes to the parking lot striping to squeeze in more vehicles.

Option C construction would proceed in two phases. At Soccer Field #2, construction should only take about a month as the field is being upgraded, not replaced:

1. The existing field must be extended about 30 feet to the west for football, goalposts must be added, and restriping must occur.
2. New fencing will need to be added to the end zones on the east and west sides, higher than the existing fence, to allow for football. Sidelines will not be fenced or changed in any way, including lighting.
3. Optional: A grandstand could be added on the south side of the field (north-facing), but the Lincoln PTSA has said that hosting games is not important, so that may be removed from the project. Removing the grandstand will maximize practice field space, bring down the budget, and make the project even faster.

Part 2 of Option C is the installation of a 300-foot by 185-foot soccer field near N 50th Street and Aurora Avenue N. The construction time for this is unknown, but it could be economically staged rather than rushed, as there will be no loss of an existing field during construction. The project includes:

1. Removing trees in the gravel lot area. Which trees and how many depend on which field configuration is chosen.
2. Regrading the area and adding eiuther retaining walls or soil-nailed slopes. What gets regraded and how slopes are managed depends on field orientation and techniques used to manage the hillside. Soil nailing preserves upslope tree roots and creates a steep, natural looking environment.
3. Removing the driving entrance to the gravel lot and refurbishing the sidewalk there, including the addition of parking strip trees.
4. Adding a new lighting system, which could require electrical upgrades in the area.
5. ADA upgrades for the picnic loop bathrooms, plus ADA improvements to paths connecting the field to the picnic loop parking lot and bathrooms.
6. Installing the new synthetic turf field, with fencing likely needed behind soccer goals but not on the sidelines.
7. Miscellaneous: Transplanting hillside trees (many are new), planting of replacement trees, and general landscaping.

Here is what we hope will become clear at the April 25th meeting:

1. Budget: A real budget broken down into increments of one million dollars or less for both Option A and Option C. We have no idea what the budget is for the alternatives at this time, despite claims made on either side.
2. Tree assessment: How are the historic and functional value of trees being assessed? The trees removed by Option A were planned by the Olmsted Brothers, shade the Green Lake Way path, and buffer the fields from the street. The trees Option C removes are not part of the design of the park, but are much more widely varied in quality. Some are exceptional Western Red Cedars, while others are badly damaged, and others still are small, recent plantings that could be transplanted.
3. Orientation of the 50th & Aurora field: As you can see in the graphic at the top, the preferred orientation is into the hillside, as that minimizes tree impacts, better connects the field to facilities, and minimizes neighborhood impacts. However, that could be dismissed due to grading or historic impacts, which would limit the field to matching the extents of the gravel lot area.
4. Option A seating vs bike jump safety: Diagrams presented to the parks board on January 22nd showed seating in the roadway pushed up against the bike jumps, but bike jump users have been told that the roadway will be kept clear. Which is true? If seating is added in the roadway, how far does the seating and fencing extend?
5. Option A crowds and events: How are event spectators, families, pets, and other non-player users of the park accommodated? Plans up until now have had no space for people who are not direct participants in an athletic activity.
6. Option A synthetic turf “loop path”: On January 22nd, the project team proposed a synthetic turf loop path around the sidelines, next to fencing. How will small children, seniors, and other vulnerable populations be kept safe, and how will paths be kept clear? Will dogs be permitted on the synthetic turf loop path, and how will hygiene/waste be managed? Are there other examples of this being done in public parks? If the loop path does not exist, how would people access the park from Tangletown, particularly from the safe crossing at 52nd and Green Lake Way?
7. Thought-through parking: For Option A, the existing lot on Green Lake Way already overflows near one of the worst intersections in the city. How will additional demand be handled? For Option C, if parking is removed at the gravel lot, are the 170 parking spots in the picnic loop and 120 spots next to the horseshoe pitches sufficient?

There is still an opportunity for the development to be a true win-win, one that serves students as well as the broader community of recreation league sports, cyclists, runners, skateboarders, dog walkers, neighbors, and casual park users. Hopefully, this meeting offers the clarity our community needs so that everyone can make an informed decision.