Hogans Creek Park Master Plan

[sheclown]

Working to save the balustrades and the canals has to be a top priority.  Anything else is just frosting on the cake.

[Ocklawaha]

^Ock, send them to Cecil.  If we're talking about the same empty space, that's where to VA Clinic is supposed to go.  However, the plan should include how to intergrate a BRT station and associated retail/dining near the clinic and Shands.  That's something that I would suggest not leaving JTA in charge to decide.

Just reminding them of how "in the box" the city is thinking, we could do so much more. BTW, yes BRT and STREETCAR and SKYWAY (at least to the foot of the park and an at grade connection station).  Also that natural creek is going to silt up big time with the grade from 8Th to roughly Orange, the canal would probably be easier to keep swept.

Oh yeah, forgot to tell ya, the twin threads are merged.


OCKLAWAHA

[thelakelander]

Speaking of mass transit and public spaces, here is a plan for a park in Santa Fe, NM.  It is proposed around the development of a commuter rail station in a former warehouse district.

SANTA FE RAILYARD PARK

Santa Fe, New Mexico
2008

Invited National Competition Winner|
2009 AIA New York/BSA Urban Design Honor Award



The Railyard Park, a great initiative of the Trust for Public Land, will activate the last remaining large-scale (13 acre) parcel of public land in downtown Santa Fe. The design, which includes a new public plaza, alameda and expansive park will knit together a loose group of cultural and commercial facilities to form a cohesive local cultural precinct. The Park will connect neighborhoods, previously separated by the light industrial site, and provide a safe, attractive pedestrian link to downtown Santa Fe.

Water plays a major role in the park design, both visually and functionally. The harvesting, storage and distribution of water allow the park to flourish in this drought stricken region, providing an oasis that will bring the local community together. Each element of this process, based on techniques used in New Mexico over the last four hundred years, has become a feature of the park design.

A historically inspired blue water tank provides a focal point for the new Plaza, providing a collection point for water gathered from surrounding roofs, and celebrating the use of contemporary sustainable design. An adjacent water sculpture, consisting of a drip fountain and shallow runnels represents a microcosm of the water systems of the Park. Blue water storage rail cars, drawing on the railyard nature of the site, store water for distribution via runnels located throughout the Park.

A line of telegraph-style light poles capped with solar powered blue railway lights run the length of the site, demarcating the main circulation path, and forming the spine of the Railyard Park. This linear connection is reinforced by the long solar-paneled shade structure of the Alameda that will serve as a shelter for varied activities including a local farmers market. A series of programmed railway box cars, will provide sites for events.

http://www.schwartzarch.com/projects/santa_fe_railyard.html

[zoo]

Two projects with big-picture similarities also worth looking at:

Indianapolis Canal Walk
http://www.indycanalwalk.org/gallery.aspx

Buffalo Bayou (Houston)
http://www.asla.org/2009awards/104.html

(** not posted as examples of design elements or themes -- it seems clear from conceptual sketches the project is not yet at the design stage)

[chris farley]

The grant that Melissa and Lisa wrote was to repair the balustrades in Confederate and to put them around the lake.   There was much more in that grant request.They were not involved in the club when those funds came through, and the contamination problem had arisen.  It took two geologists to convince the park that we could even turn over the soil to put in the rose arbor.  That far away from the creek and where the old gasification plant once stood. The park has many problems.  When the dog park issue arose we tried to put it on the lovely strip of land between the creek  and Orange but again "soil no touch"
The health building situation was in my written proposal at the residents meeting at the Karpeles,  I am saddened by the fact that in the early nineteeen hundreds we had 42 acres of park and it has been snitched and snitched until we are down to 25.  That parking lot opposite where the Dozier apartments were is an absolute travesty,  it is projects like this that have put the flood water at the heights it now achieves. Also in about 2002 the Army Corps said it would take 8 million to dredge (hate that word the creek would have to be vacuumed so as not to break the sills) the creek, but was held up by pollution - there used to be a insecticide or or such factory up stream - this i am not sure of, but it was supposed to be polluted.  There there was a round table meeting in which the lady came from the Corps and said she had good news and bad news, the creek was not that polluted as to prevent dredging but the bad news was that the funds had been frozen in the credit pinch.  If the Corps are back in the picture maybe that money will come back
Please do not quote the ISTEA grants unless you know specifically what was written in them, it only adds to the mire.  The thing that bothers me, and I have to dig it out,  Sandra Darling when our councillor got something like a $5 million allotment, through the council, for McCoys and Hogans Creek, I do not know where this money went.  I gave a copy of the article to Mack, I will ask if he still has it. Those are two very large sums of money which were meant for our creek and parks.

[fsu813]

Even though the plan is preliminary, the vision for the plan ought to be in place.  For example, will the balustrades be removed to have a natural creek?  

The decision to save the canal or return it to a natural creek -- has this been decided?

From what I understood, there will be parts that are retruned to a more natural state (ie, bioremediation, natural buffer zone for flooding) and parts that are not. The ballustrades would be moved further out in places to accomdate the new design. Again, from what I understood.

Do we know if SPAR is working toward preserving the canal and its balustrades?

I do not know. I would assume they want to preserve as much historical elements as possible. You could call and ask them.

SheClown.

Zoo and FSU813 are advocates of the plan, so its safe to say that SPAR is for destroying the balustrades. After all, they are historic.

Chris Farley is the one making the most sense on the entire issue, and has presented cogent, logical points about the actual issues, and is being roundly ignored by the little coterie of omniscient ophidians---or worse: patiently explained to.

Obviously SHARP is for saving them.

But really, I think the whole plan needs scrapped.  The negatives so outweigh the positives.

Whats so funny is that the input of this group was sought and given prior to all the meetings and was online and available throughout.

Both the Shands and the FCCJ master plans were also available and online throughout and were disregarded completely.

The environmental information, obviously available and presented in person by Chris Farley, was disregarded.

Who was involved in this process?  proton experts and lawn maintenance people?

- Remember the part, a page or 2 back, when I informed you that many of your concerns had already been brought up and addressed in the various public meetings that you chose not to attend?

How someone can demosntrate that they have almost no clue about the project, but then find different ways to bash it repeatedly is quite puzzling. Wait, no it's not. SPAR had a role in making it happen, so you don't like it. You have literally no idea what information was looked at and disregarded, and what was not. Where i'm from, this is called talking out of your _ _ _.

- Ms. Farley can spot a sweet talker when she sees one. Her reputation and credibility won't rub off on you, no matter how hard you try to align yourself with her.

- Since you brought it up: Can you tell us a little more about this SHARP group that you founded? The last SHARP thread was deleted when various people became critical of thier (your) inappropriate email responses to them and posted them. Suddenly *poof*, gone.

- i support saving and restoring the orginal ballustrades as well, fyi. There's a way to go about it. Making wild guesses, incorrect assumptions, and promoting false information are not the best way to support saving the original ballustrades. Showing up the the various meetings , in person, is much more effective. See you at the next one?

[fsu813]

Corrections & observation:

- Perhaps you should start a thread to list all the various "lies" i've told. You have my permission. I'm obviously pathological.

- Of course I didn't pass judgement on Ms. Farley?

- I speak before I know what i'm talking about? (ha) That's rich. When I am wrong about something I readily admit it. (ie, the lock system possibility). You, on the other hand, produce long-winded rants about how awful the rough draft, making all kinds of illinformed assumptions, without attending 1 meeting. Heck, I corrected half of your assertions a couple pages back already, which you've yet to acknowledge.

- I'm ok with you personally attacking me. It's so ridiculous i'm interested in what you'll come up with next.

Back to the subject....

When is the next meeting about this?

[ChriswUfGator]

Since it was mentioned, what's really up with Van Winkel anyway? That eyesore is clearly included in this plan, but it seems nobody has actually gotten his consent? Geez..

So people honestly believe he's just going to let COJ take it from him without so much as talking to a lawyer? I'm not trying to start WWIII here, but I think Stephen's got a point. That just seems unlikely to say the least. COJ may be able to get away with the demolition, citing safety reasons, but that's just the beginning since the property itself clearly has some commercial value aside from the structure.

Van Winckel will probably get a building inspector who disagrees with COJ's building inspector regarding the necessity of the demo, and they'll each hire appraisers who disagree with each other on the land's value, and they'll each hire environmental engineers who disagree with each other, etc., etc. These things drag on forever, they'll probably be fighting over it for ages. In the end COJ may wind up having to pay him at least something for his land, which may be worth more than it cost to demo the building, or at least that's what Van Winckel will argue.

And Hionides is another one. If COJ wants that, they're probably going to have to pay for it. I would hope that before anyone spends any more time and money making plans that involve privately owned properties, COJ reaches some agreement with the owners.

But even so, I believe the Park View is the only real eyesore. The other buildings are historic themselves, and would make great lofts or offices. Why destroy even more density? I don't get it. Shouldn't those be excluded?

[thelakelander]

Taking the gates down would help.  However, that appears to have been included in the concepts so far, so that's a good thing.

fsu813, since you attended the public meeting, any idea of what has been proposed between Laura and Main or Boulevard and Pearl?

[fsu813]

"Is it your contention that Mr. Van Winkel has lost the property to the City?  You said he probably won't be getting it back.  Care to elaborate on this theory of yours?"

- No, it's my contention that the chances of him losing it are greater than him keeping it. Hence, "probably". No, I don't care to elaborate on who discussed this with me. His situation is not a secret though.

"What is the basis of you making the claim that Mr. Van Winkel is 'on shakey ground with the city"?  First of all, what the hell does that mean?  Are you making potentially libelous statemtents against Van Winkel?"

- The basis is hearing it form somebody that is familar with the situation. It means that he has a history of issues with this property and the city and it's touch and go whether he will end up retaining it in the end. You throw the labels of "libel" and "liar" around a lot, i've noticed.

"You claim to have an assumption that the city doesnt consider taking the rest of the private property a big deal.  What is the basis of that assumption?  Were you told that?  Will the city be simply 'taking the property"?  Are the owners indicating that they are going to give the property to them?  Were you told that there is a budget to handle acquisition of private property?"

- I didn't use the words "big deal". Taking an educated guess, PPS and the park planners were given boundaries on what areas may be used for the park system. If these various private properties were off-limits or had little chance of being converted, then they wouldn't be even be considered. Just a guess.




Lake,

I'm not sure what areas you are referring to. Could you give cross streets? I don't have any special insight to this plan, just info from attended the various meetings.

[thelakelander]

5 and 3 on this aerial:



Here is what they look like today:

No. 5




No. 3

[zoo]

No. 5 area will have pond returned (with preserved balustrade), as water storage is a key functional requirement for the system. Various associated recreational and beautification ideas are being considered, but will not be firmed up/designed until the design phase of the project.

No. 3 area... geez, just looking at that photo of what JEA has done with the multiple sets of pipes crossing over the Creek and through the balustrade makes me nauseous. JEA had multiple representatives at the stakeholder meetings, they toured one of the activity groups through the block, and they seemed open to some of the planning team's suggestions.

[thelakelander]

"Is it your contention that Mr. Van Winkel has lost the property to the City?  You said he probably won't be getting it back.  Care to elaborate on this theory of yours?"

- No, it's my contention that the chances of him losing it are greater than him keeping it. Hence, "probably". No, I don't care to elaborate on who discussed this with me. His situation is not a secret though.

"What is the basis of you making the claim that Mr. Van Winkel is 'on shakey ground with the city"?  First of all, what the hell does that mean?  Are you making potentially libelous statemtents against Van Winkel?"

- The basis is hearing it form somebody that is familar with the situation. It means that he has a history of issues with this property and the city and it's touch and go whether he will end up retaining it in the end. You throw the labels of "libel" and "liar" around a lot, i've noticed.

"You claim to have an assumption that the city doesnt consider taking the rest of the private property a big deal.  What is the basis of that assumption?  Were you told that?  Will the city be simply 'taking the property"?  Are the owners indicating that they are going to give the property to them?  Were you told that there is a budget to handle acquisition of private property?"

- I didn't use the words "big deal". Taking an educated guess, PPS and the park planners were given boundaries on what areas may be used for the park system. If these various private properties were off-limits or had little chance of being converted, then they wouldn't be even be considered. Just a guess.

The answer to the Van Winkel situation is a short one.  The consultants are under contract with COJ.  Since when has COJ ever worried about private property in developing master plans? 

Need a history lesson?

Exhibit 1

Peyton's Big Idea


1. A "maritime park" where Hyatt currently stands
2. A "harbor town" where River City Brewing is, despite them having a 99-year lease on site.
3. A demolished and rebuilt Landing, despite Sleiman owning the structure.
4. Taking a lane off the Main Street bridge, even though its not a local road.

Exhibit 2

Main Street Pocket Park


Only the founding members of MJ remember this one.  Anyway Paul Crawford and Jack Diamond came to a MJ meeting before breaking ground on the Main Street pocket park.  They tried to convince us of a plan that called for the Main Street pocket park taking up the entire block (half the block is owned by Salvation Army), a hotel going on a privately owned parking lot across the street and a land swap with the Cathedral.

In short, if COJ is paying the consultants, most of the stuff on the plans probably come from the directions of COJ, not fsu813, SPAR or any other small player in Springfield or the blogging world.

[fsu813]

i'm exceptionally small =)

[sheclown]

In short, if COJ is paying the consultants, most of the stuff on the plans probably come from the directions of COJ, not fsu813, SPAR or any other small player in Springfield or the blogging world.

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. 

Springfield has a long history of fighting the city regarding preservation issues.  This is not new terrority for the community or its residents who have literally stood in front of bulldozers aimed at homes.  Just because COJ wants to do something, doesn't mean that we need to stand by and watch it be done, helplessly.

Sounds like a bit of seduction here.  Let us have your historic canal and we'll give you a kid's park.

And...how many times has the city, or private developers for that matter, said that they are going to tear something down and replace it with BLING... only to have a slab scab left?