Interpretive Center on Beach? Park District Listens, Doesn’t Hear
With widespread opposition to the proposed interpretive center at Rosewood Beach, the Park District places in jeopardy an otherwise supported project.
Videos
The Park District of Highland Park (PDHP) Board held a marathon session last Thursday night to address the controversy regarding the over-reaching Rosewood Beach improvements.
Read more: Park Board Postpones Rosewood Beach Redesign Vote
The evening started with a PDHP Board show and tell session at the beach with about 20 interested residents in tow. Like a backward traveling party, we left the beach and reconvened at Park District HQ (hey, isn’t it supposed to go the other way?).
Even after several public hearings with the advisory committee, the crowd now turned out to address the Board directly. Speakers came and went and returned with more things to say. The board listened. A timer managed the speaking table covered with signs counting down the seconds remaining in each person’s turn. The signs were never raised. The board listened. And they asked questions. Sometimes pinning the ears back on speakers presenting unsubstantiated arguments. They listened. But did they hear?
The room was filled with passion. About the proposed improvements the crowd ranged from ambivalent to supportive. But, with a couple exceptions, most came to oppose the proposed interpretive center, a 1,960 square foot glass building to be built on the beach.
Septuagenarian Highland Park lifers spoke against the interpretive center, expressing the soulfulness that the beach and its natural coast brought to them and how this building would interrupt this flow. Residents who are architects, scratching for factual opposition, scoffed at early cost estimates and wagged their fingers at unrealistic timelines to completion. Finally, a great idea emerged. Separate, it was proposed, the general beach improvements (washroom, storage, concessions) from the controversial interpretive center. I know the board was listening. But I don’t think they heard.
The Park District of Highland Park has been through some rough times. They’ve built financial reserves deep enough to return $681 in cash to every city resident. They’ve overcome scandal, a matter resolved but whose stink sticks like skunk. And over years they’ve made multiple attempts to move forward on improvements to Rosewood Beach, failing each time from some fatal flaw. And now this time it seems like tone deafness might kill the Rosewood Beach effort one more time. They are listening but not hearing.
Rosewood Beach Redesign: The Story So Far
It would be a shame. Although imperfect, the Rosewood Beach plan has pretty widespread support or at least acceptance. But the opposition to the interpretive center might kill whatever momentum this project has. DNR Grants will expire while the Park District argues its way through the city traffic commission. Attention from the US Army Corps of Engineers will dissipate while the building commission dithers on granting a building permit they would never dream of issuing to any private owner for the same use. Funds will be reallocated while the environmental commission considers whether the bird-proof glass is sufficient. Appearance review commission will conduct a field trip as the present commissioners’ terms expire.
This scenario would be unfortunate. But it is one that might happen if our commissioners listen with the patience of Job but fail to hear what is said. Let’s work the plan. But leave the interpretive center on the cutting room floor.
Have an opinion about the Rosewood Beach redesign? Leave a comment or email jacob@patch.com.
For more news and updates, "like" us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.
Ed Brill
7:31 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
Sonny, I sat behind you at the Heller Center hearing on the proposal and you turned to Councilman Mandel and I and said, "I want not to like it, but I like it. It seems pretty fair." What changed?
I had to dig pretty deep into this story to figure out why a resident from the west side of town would care about a beachfront structure. "bird-proof glass" - it's about your birds again, isn't it? Did you protest the construction of the Sears Tower and Hancock Center on the same grounds? How about the private residence on the beachfront at Fort Sheridan? That one has as much glass fronting the beach as the proposed interpretive center, if not more, at the same depth and distance from the water. It's a very pick-and-choose approach, isn't it?
Sonny Cohen
12:35 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Rosewood Beach is a remarkable resource for all Highland Park residents regardless of their homes proximity to the lake. The public swimming beach and its unobstructed tree-lined coast provide all of us easy access to a resort environment. But we need a restroom. And the lifeguards need to store their gear. Improvements by the Army Corps will help stabilize the sand beach as well. These needs are essential and should be met.
The proposed interpretive center, on the other hand, is a conflict in this land use. It will generate congestion that compromises the interest of beach goers. Located on the beach, it is subject to weather and lake levels that will ultimately destroy it. Unlike actually swimming in the water or enjoying the natural environment, the uses for this facility can be met by locating it elsewhere. Its presence is non-essential.
Ed, I appreciate your activism that, like mine, stems from your interest in our community. Even more of us should be involved. Your comments, however, are about me and not the policy. As such you are off-base and inappropriate. Sears Tower? Hancock Center? Private residence? Birds? Huh? Stick to the issue.
Ed Brill
12:46 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
I think it's completely reasonable if you are going to publish your opinion for me to ask why you have changed it.
Also I still haven't seen anyone provide actual data that the weather and lake levels will destroy the interpretive center versus the other structures. It is fear-mongering conjecture. Today there are few construction engineering problems that can't be addressed -- Dubai has built islands in the sea, soaring buildings in the desert, even an indoor ski slope. I trust the PDHP to hire the right architects and construction engineers to build a structure on the lakefront that can withstand the lakefront conditions.
Sonny Cohen
1:24 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Ed, I did not change my opinion. I came to the public hearing at Heller to oppose the interpretive center in an otherwise acceptable plan. I arrived late and perhaps misunderstood when you told me there would be opportunity for more public comment. My error.
Fear mongering conjecture? Not hardly. I'm sure it's possible to build bulwarks against waves and sink caissons to anchor a building in sand. That level of engineering is not planned for this building. You know, that kind of hubris gave Japan (and the world) the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster. The interpretive center is not a nuclear power facility nor subject to earthquake and tsunami (but, yes, riptides). But there is no reason for our community to have this entirely unnecessary risk.
Carl Lambrecht
9:36 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
We have a interpretive center at Ravine beach. it just has to be put to use. The school can use this building. Where does the water come to that building. How does the sewage leave that building at the present time? Federal government and State government both are in heavy debt. They have to take care of the medical issues. Before investing in a interpretive center.
Vel
3:51 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Regarding whether the Park Board "heard," it's important to keep in mind that many, many residents have been contacting the Board with their perspectives on the proposal for a long time. They've called, emailed, and spoken in person with commissioners to express their views and ask questions. Maybe the Board will vote to approve the plan, and if they do, it's possible that this will actually reflect what they've heard from a large majority of residents (or not), even if the residents did not speak at public meetings.
Sonny Cohen
6:05 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
You couldn't be more right. That is why I joined over 1000 residents signing a petition in opposition to the interpretive center. Now there's input. I am in complete support of widespread public participation on this plan. Having attended two public hearings and one park district meeting discussing this, the support I have heard is minimal.
Anthony Bilotti
6:31 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
I am so tired of hearing about the environmental impact of the proposed interpretive center. I have been performing environmental impact studies for many years and, as a professional in the field, I can say that the impact is very minor in comparison to the benefits. That's what such studies are about ... evaluating the benefits and costs. This one has my support and it should be supported for its overall positive value to the entire Highland Park community.
Sonny Cohen
10:16 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Huh? You're a professional and think an environmental impact statement is a cost benefit analysis? That's not accurate. Might want to brush up on what NEPA requires in an EIS, particularly Section 1502.23, "For purposes of complying with the Act, the weighing of the merits and drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be when there are important qualitative considerations."
Nevertheless, nobody is really arguing the environmental impact of this proposed building. That is until the glass structure is lying under the water and creating a different kind of hazard.
Doug Purington
7:32 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
The environmental impact is only one of the many issues surrounding the ill-advised plan by the Park District to place the interpretive center on Rosewood Beach. It's an unwanted and unnecessary distraction for all those who simply want a well-maintained and minimally appointed refuge where they can swim and recreate and enjoy the special outdoors that is Lake Michigan. They don't need a building to sit in and interpret while shielded from the elements! The Park District should not be looking to turn Rosewood into something it's not meant to be by going from one extreme to another...cut the interpretive center from the plan and then move post haste with the rest of the plan which is all that is needed for "its overall positive value for the entire Highland Park community"! The residents of Highland Park shouldn't be force-fed an illegitimate structure by the Park District continuing to insist on an "up or down" or "all or nothing" vote/stance. The rampant contentiousness that the interpretive center has created, and is continuing to create, should be enough of a "red flag" to cause the Park District to think twice about their "all or nothing" attitude and then come to the wise conclusion that the Rosewood Beach plan, WITHOUT the interpretive center, is what's best for our special Highland Park community!
Susan Kozloff
8:37 am on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
So well said, Doug. We all want to know why there is this "all or nothing" attitude. Sounds as if we have a petulant child on our hands rather than a boarad member who represents the interests of the people/taxpayers. Ridiculous.
forest barbieri
3:10 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
I am more concerned with community impact and benefit than some of the other issues. I simply do not see a gain for the community in placing an interpretive center on the beach. First of all, it is called "Rosewood Beach". The Park District has moved in the right direction to finally get us a beach plan with facilities, toilets, changing room et al that the community needs and deserves. Do we need and deserve an interpretive center that takes up precious beach space and likely will be underused? Do we need and deserve an interpretive center that can to a large degree be handled by a display at the Heller Center or even cost effective with community benefit......use the building at the Ravine Beach that sits there half gutted and underserved by the Park District?
I admire what the Park District has done to this point and the issue is easily solved by not going to an up or down vote but listening and setting the interpretive center aside to immediately begin building the rest of the plan out! I guess they stick to 6 year terms so they do not have to have a sense of urgency!