Task Force Takes On Rosewood Beach Concerns
After hearing residents out at two community meetings, task force meets to figure out what's next.
As the debate over the Rosewood Beach renovation wages on, one element of the discussion remains constant: the Park District is listening.
After holding two community meetings at the beginning of May, park district staff brought a list of questions asked during the meetings by residents to the Rosewood Beach Task Force, which met Monday.
Want Highland Park news in your inbox every morning? Subscribe to Patch's newsletter.
"We wanted to make sure this is a project people could participate in," Park District Executive Director Liza McElroy told Patch last week. "We're still strongly encouraging people to weigh in online."
According to McElroy, a majority of residents favor the proposal, with one caveat: the beach house, a small structure that would be located on the beach and made available for rentals and programs throughout the year.
"Some people don't think it belongs on the beach," McElroy said.
At its meeting on Monday, the task force discussed what they heard online and at the community meetings. The group's chairman, Dave Fairman, requested more analysis about the shelter's proposed programming, as well as the feasibility of the alternative sites, according to a statement issued by the Park District Tuesday.
“We need to be sure that given its purpose and function, Rosewood is the best location for this beach house,” Fairman said. “We’re not just looking for a place to put it, we’re looking for the best place for its intended use.”
In light of the mounting concerns over the structure's environmental footprint and the potential for blocked views, the task force has agreed to hold its May 21 meeting at Rosewood Beach, according to the statement.
“We owe it to the community to really take a good look and understand fully what the views will be from each point on the beach and parking lot,” Fairman said.
Those opposed to the beach house have been blogging and commenting on Patch, in addition to voicing their concerns at the community meetings. Some readers, like Peter Lucas, think that the beach house, which has been frequently referred to as an interpretive center, might be better suited somewhere else in the community.
"The Ravine Drive Beach structure would be a good alternative," he wrote. "Why not make better use of a structure at Ravine Dive that has withstood the test of time and the forces of the lake and keep Rosewood a swimming beach?"
Annette Jacobson wondered in Patch's comments section whether or not the shelter would be better suited on a beach where it could be the sole draw.
"Why can't the [interpretive center] be located at a better place devoted for its sole use, with open uncrowded views, its own natural surrounding, a place for contemplation, rather than on a crowded recreational-use beach?" she wrote.
City Councilman Steve Mandel called the Rosewood proposal "almost perfect" on his own blog, but wondered if the beach house should be put somewhere else.
Others, however, are in favor of the entire Rosewood plan. Ed Brill wrote a column for Patch outlining why he supported the plan, and Highland Park High School senior Bryce Robertson explained his support in the comments section of Brill's piece.
"My own research backs a useful need for the interpretive center, and frankly, would be a welcome addition to the otherwise lackluster and boring Rosewood Beachm" he writes. "Highland Park's high school and young adult population would love a usable beach."
According to McElroy, the task force hopes to make its recommendation regarding Rosewood to the park board in June. No construction will begin until the end of the summer.
"Nothing will happen in advance of the fall," McElroy said. "We want to try and limit disruption to the beach season."
Regardless of how that recommendation ultimately looks, the park district staff is thrilled at the public involvement in the project's development.
"We put a call out for comments and we got them," said Margaret Gienger, the Park District's Director of Communications and Marketing. "It's a welcome surprise."
For more Rosewood Beach news and updates, "like" us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.
Doug Purington
9:45 am on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
First, I want to applaud the Task Force for truly listening to the public's comments and moving forward with further analysis of the Rosewood Beach proposal toward making a recommendation to the Park District that will work for all residents of Highland Park.
However, I want to address several misconceptions in Jacob's article:
1) The interpretive center (now labeled as a "beach house" to help quell the public's concerns) is NOT a "small" building! Its footprint is 1,950 sq. ft. (verified by the Park District and the architect) with 1,000 sq. ft. being the interpretive room and the remaining 950 sq. ft. being the bathrooms (in addition to the ones on the beach) and an area to house the equipment necessary to heat or cool the building.
2) Contrary to what Bryce says, after the Rosewood Beach project is a reality, it will no longer be an "otherwise lackluster and boring Rosewood Beach" and it doesn't need the presence of an interpretive center for this to be the case. In fact, it will be a very "usable beach" for all comers, young or old!
Thanks again for a process that is working as it should, regardless of the final outcome. Kudos to the Park District Board and the Rosewood Beach Task Force!
David Greenberg
4:17 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
"the beach house, a small structure that would be located on the beach" - well, I suppose that 1950 sq ft could be considered a small structure, when compared with something that might be larger. But honestly, 1950 sq ft is larger than some houses in Highland Park. So what we're talking about is dropping a STRUCTURE that's larger than a house on the beach.
It's not a small structure, it's a house. It certainly costs as much as, if not more than, a house. So let's call it what it is, and stop trying to sugar coat it by calling it an Interpretative Center, Beach House, Small Structure... etc.
Whatever the size, whatever the "programming" that's planned for it - we don't need it, and especially on the beach.
Steve Firestone
10:35 am on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
So, Bryce thinks the beach is "otherwise lackluster and boring Rosewood Beach". Do we really want people that don't like beaches to clutter up the beach and parking lot? Bryce can go to the water park, and it has a large parking lot. Maybe the "beach house" should go there.
Bryce Robertson
6:07 pm on Thursday, May 17, 2012
Steve - don't recall saying I didn't like beaches. Actually, I expressed the complete opposite sentiment. I've grown up where visiting the beach was a once or twice weekly occasion. Nobody ever said the interpretive center was ever going to kill usable space in the parking lot, and I'm not sure where that comment came from.
I've been doing quite a bit of research and I think the PD should look into a very viable option - but NOT act on anything until the ENTIRE plan has been thought out. The interpretive center could be expanded to be a full-size beach building (about 3000 sq. ft from original calculations) and replace the underused/dilapidated yacht club building at Park Avenue. If the PD were to just slightly expand the bathroom/concessions building, they could easily fit the outdoor programming needs they're looking for. I agree, indoor programming on a beach doesn't make a ton of sense. But an outdoor conference room of sorts, even rented to the public, would be fantastic. They have them all over beaches on Hilton Head Island, talk about comfortable office space.
forest barbieri
4:33 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
I am happy to see a High School student interested in the process and having kids myself, I can smile at the "otherwise lackluster and boring Rosewood Beach" comment. I have no doubt that regardless of the outcome, our beach will become more interesting and welcoming to the entire community. Who knows, there may even be some fun and excitment:)
I believe the community has spoken, some louder than others and as to myself, I prefer the beach house, small structure or IC to be placed other than on the beach. However, I leave it in the good and capable hands of Dave Fairman's task force and the elected Park Board to bring it to a welcomed final decision that will enhance our community regardless of their decision.
kathryn pomerantz
8:04 am on Monday, June 18, 2012
Rosewood Beach is a lovely, natural area not a theme park. It is a quiet haven in a busy world. We should respect the beauty of our shoreline. We should protect this area for its restorative quality not contort it in a quest for more, bigger, and busier. Just let our children be happy in a nice place. Kathryn Pomerantz
Doug Purington
8:33 am on Monday, June 18, 2012
Kathryn:
Thank you! Well said!