Residents Craft Vision for Future of Sedona Cultural Park

The city of Sedona convened its first public meeting on October 24 to gather input from residents regarding the development of the Sedona Cultural Park. This meeting, held at the Sedona Posse Grounds Hub, comes nearly two years after the Sedona City Council approved the purchase of the site and committed to engaging the community in shaping the park’s future.

City officials have outlined a strategic communication plan for the Cultural Park master planning, which seeks to explore various concepts for community evaluation and potential adoption. Dig Studio, a Phoenix-based consulting firm, is spearheading the planning efforts.

The meeting featured two identical sessions, drawing approximately 80 attendees to the afternoon round—nearly double what Jay Hicks from Dig Studio had anticipated. An additional 15 to 20 participants were expected for the evening session.

Initial feedback suggests a desire among Sedona residents for under 200 housing units, along with a recreation center and an event venue as key components of the Cultural Park’s design.

Interactive Charrettes

During the first segment of each session, attendees ranked their preferences for nine infrastructure types and five corresponding use categories using charrette boards. The options for infrastructure included small public spaces, community parks, an entertainment venue, various types of housing, shops, and a recreation center. Use categories encompassed art events, movie screenings, music and food festivals, healthy community initiatives, and family-centered programs.

Apartments emerged as the most popular infrastructure choice with 29 first-preference votes, followed by an event venue (18 votes) and a recreation center (14 votes). The reactions to use preferences revealed arts events garnered eight first-preference votes, shared equally by music and food programs, and healthy community activities, each receiving four votes.

Applying the Borda method for scoring, preliminary tallies showed the following results for infrastructure:

• Apartments: 233 points
• Recreation center: 175 points
• Event venue: 150 points
• Community park/plaza: 134 points
• Small public spaces: 111 points
• Missing middle: 107 points
• Community center: 98 points
• Single-family homes: 82 points
• Shops/restaurants: 75 points

For use preferences, the scores were as follows:

• Healthy community events: 154 points
• Art events: 101 points
• Music and food: 69 points
• Movies and theatre: 62 points
• Family programs: 38 points

Mapping Exercise

The latter half of each session involved a bubble mapping exercise where attendees used adhesive cutouts representing different uses on a scaled map of the Cultural Park. A variety of public space options were presented, from performance venues of differing capacities to community gardens and dog parks. Notably, the 5,000-seat venue option would require 15 acres of land and ample parking.

Of the 82 maps completed by participants, the concept of a community park was most prevalent, requested 51 times, followed by community gardens (47 mentions) and an event venue (42 mentions). A split emerged regarding the desired size of the performance venue, with varied support for 1,000, 2,000, and 5,000-seat options.

In the commercial sector, the community center was included 34 times, while the recreation center received 26 mentions. Interestingly, a new grocery store received 15 requests despite existing options in the area.

When considering housing types, the 25-unit townhome cluster appeared most favored, requested 31 times, with larger apartment complexes met with mixed responses. Overall, attendees suggested an average density of 172 units across the 41-acre site.

Some residents proposed unique options not initially included in the planning framework, such as a museum and a senior living facility. Others opted for traditional amenities like parks or even left a map blank with suggestions to leave the area unchanged.

Community Feedback

Comments during the meeting reflected a diverse range of opinions on the project. Residents voiced the need for a blend of arts and performance spaces, with suggestions for outdoor venues and community gardens. There were also calls to limit further housing development and to enhance public transit accessibility.

Looking ahead, an online survey regarding the Cultural Park has been launched and will remain active until November 30. The next public meeting, during which Dig Studio will present alternative designs, is anticipated in December, while further discussions are scheduled for February.