Dig Into Two Concepts for an Upgraded Bolm District Park in East Austin

An aerial view of the Bolm parkland. Image: City of Austin

From 1972 to 2008, the 68-acre tract of riverfront land in East Austin now known as Bolm District Park served as nothing more than a dumping ground supporting the industrial dredging and cement production of local construction materials firm Capitol Aggregate. The city’s 2013 acquisition of the site, located at 6700 Bolm Road on the neck of the “Dog’s Head,” foreshadowed the change now bound for this previously far-flung corner of the city, with a number of nearby industrial sites mulling redevelopment plans in light of increasing property values and population density.

More than a decade after purchasing this property, the Parks and Recreation Department is now forming a vision plan for the future of Bolm District Park with assistance from design consultancy Halff, a fairly open-ended conceptual process for future programming and development possibilities at the parkland — which currently remains unimproved and mostly inaccessible, still littered with enough post-industrial wreckage from its former life to support the filming of a science fiction student film if anyone’s interested.

Image: City of Austin

After seeking early public input late last year, the city now has two potential design concepts for the future of this parkland, and we’ll run each of them down for you before dropping the link to the survey you’re gonna fill out. The one big drag on both of these concepts is that PARD has reserved 10 acres of the parkland’s northwest portion for a future maintenance facility, taking a moderately big chunk out of what’s possible here — on the bright side, all that stuff goes closer to the highway, leaving the site’s nicer river frontage free for the public.

Concept A

Image: PARD / Halff

This concept arranges a hub of active uses near the 183 frontage road, while situating more passive uses closer to the Colorado River. Trails meander through the park, seamlessly connecting all activities without the need for internal roadways. The primary design focus is on enhancing connectivity through the trail system, minimizing vehicular access within the park’s interior.

— Austin Parks and Recreation Department

Concept B

Image: PARD / Halff

In this concept, there is a significant separation between active and passive uses. Like Concept 1, the expansive lawn is positioned near the Colorado River, while a sizable off-leash dog park is situated closer to neighboring areas for increased walkability. A park roadway descends into the park, offering broader vehicular access to various parts of the park. The central design principle here emphasizes a more pronounced distinction between active and passive uses, coupled with increased vehicular accessibility throughout the park.

— Austin Parks and Recreation Department

We’re pretty sure the answer is obvious here — by emphasizing trail connections over larger internal roadways, Concept A is a much more pleasant design with larger contiguous open spaces. Still, both concepts are very similar, with each including critical features like river access and sports facilities. Of course if you want a larger bike park, as we’re certain the local BMX community would after seemingly being boxed out of these facilities in the recent vision plan for John Treviño Jr. Metro Park, you’ll have to instead support Concept B. Either way, go give the city your feedback on its new survey and we’ll see if any of these ideas make it to the finish line.