Rosewood Doesn't Need An Interpretive Center
A reader responds to a Patch reader's blog to explain her opposition to the park district's renovation at Rosewood Beach.
Photos
No doubt the benefit and reward from most of the planned redevelopment for Rosewood Beach planned this year by the Park District of Highland Park presents a welcome vista for the near future of our community.
It's certain a great idea for Rosewood to have, for the first time, permanent restrooms, a children's playground, revamped picnic area, a concession area, new naturalistic wave breaks to stabilize the sand, etc., -- all while combining the environmental and aesthetic needs of this very special beach.
But the inconsistent idea of adding a "multi-purpose beach house" structure -- ("fantastic" as enthusiasticly lauded by Ms. Holleman) is contradictory and incongruous to the whole confident conception the park district presents.
This proposed structure of 2000 sq. ft. -- as confirmed by its architect at the last PD staff meeting -- (not 1000 as Ms. Holleman states) -- is to be an "interpretive center", with conference room, a children's camp in the summer, with school buses delivering and picking up each day, and rentals of the space for "specified events" and for "special groups."
It's difficult to envision how the increased traffic and exhaust of school buses barreling down into a natural beach would enhance the special and benign environment of this once peaceable spot. Also there is no way to create more parking area without taking more beach away.
Consideration is given to the Park District mention of an extension planned for the beach area. That's fine. But that would presumably already encompass the new space for all the exciting aforementioned new projects of playground, sand volleyball area, enhanced picnic area, concession stand with patio, and of course the permanent restrooms, lifeguard storage area and walkways, etc.
All of those new units are obviously an enhancement to the purposes of the only swimming beach in Highland Park. An "interpretive center" with rental goals of income to pay for its perennial maintenance has no relation to the scope of a neighborhood swimming beach. It's wasteful and redundant also in duplicating restrooms which are planned separately nearby, would be rarely used 2 seasons of the year, would need extra security costs all year, and would be obtrusive on this beach.
This picture of a crowded beach congested with school buses, a large structure impinging on the intrinsic horizontal scale would change the peaceful, formerly natural and public-serving purpose of this swimming spot -- ESPECIALLY since there are at least 7 other places at or near the lake where this "interpretive center" could be placed that would be less disruptive to the final project of Rosewood beach -- (all of those places cavalierly dismissed, no reasons given, by Ms. Holleman)
These places are listed in my previous article.
The whole question of the prospective cost to the taxpayer I leave to others, although I'm wary of the PD's pre-emptive assurance of "no taxpayer cost." Another question is the appropriateness of rental to private parties of limited public space.
The public now has only 2 percent of its shoreline open for public use. This rental structure would mean a loss of lakefront space, further compromising the public's use of its prized proximity to Lake Michigan.
Place this "interpretive center" (if needed) elsewhere.
Peggy L.
9:04 am on Monday, April 30, 2012
It puzzles me as to why the opposition believes there is no reason to come to the beachfront - and even remain and learn a bit at this interpretive space - all year long. To all you naysayers - I look forward hearing what you have to say AFTER the Park District's presentation.
David Greenberg
1:21 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
Reasons not to come to the beachfront in the winter: Cold, Arctic blasts of wind, ice, snow, frozen tundra of lake, ice on sidewalks from spray off the lake, trecherous paths that have to be frequently salted (isn't that just an interesting thought - pouring salt and deicing chemicals on the roadway and sidewalks, right next to a main, major body of FRESH water), threcherous roadways - it's going to be interesting getting in and getting out. I wonder what the children in the back seat of the minivan will interpret their parental unit's utterances as?
People RARELY go to the beach during the winter. Well, maybe those Polar Bear clubs, but I seriously doubt they'll kick in enough revenue to support the maintenance and operational needs of the building...
David Greenberg
1:30 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
"No taxpayer Cost": Whenever you hear this folks, make sure you take another drink of coffee and get your antennae up, because the explanation's about to get very interesting and convoluted.
Don't you believe it's free.ANYTHING that ANY public entity builds has to be funded with tax dollars that come from somewhere.In this case, some comes from "Grant money" - sounds wonderful, sounds free! But it isn't. It's a State grant that comes with many restrictions, and some risks. The grant doubles what we kick in from our, ahem, tax dollars - up to a max doubling of $400K. So if we put in $400K, we get a total of $800K to work with. Note: The State only pays 90 days after we expend the money (if the nearly bankrupt, behind in it's bills State of Illinois chooses to pay at all), so we're on the hook for the whole $800K until the State, if the State, pays their share.
The rest of the money comes from "reserves". This too sounds wonderful, until you realize that We, The People, let the Park District build up those reserves so they would have money to fund future repairs, maintenance, and eventual replacement of the existing facilities.We did not give it to them so they'd have a honeypot of money to draw from whenever they decided to build something new. Think of that reserve as your Savings Account. If you have money in savings, and you buy something - it COST YOU MONEY - it wasn't free.We don't need to spend $2.7 million, and we don't need an "interpretative center".Say no!
David Greenberg
1:37 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
Let's also continue to talk about costs. The Army Corps of Engineers proposes to build a whole bunch of stuff with the idea that it will grow the beach, protect the beach, etc. That too sounds wonderful, until you review other past projects on the Lake constructed by the Corps and realize that they didn't work out as planned. Beaches shrunk rather than grew. Maybe they learned something from those boondoggles, maybe Nature being Nature had other plans? Regardless, what I do know is that WE, The People, the taxpayers, are on the hook for a certain percentage of the building costs incurred by the Corps, and we're also on the hook for the the costs to MAINTAIN what the Corps build for 50 years! Wow. Just wow. Think about it folks - if the lake levels shift, and the whole thing falls apart for some reason - we get to rebuild it and make it bigger, stronger, more expensive. If there's some event in the Lake and the Corps construction is damaged, we get to pay for it. How much is this? What's my risk? Can I get insurance against this possibility? What's that insurance going to cost over 50 years? If I can't get insurance, how much do I have to set aside in reserves for a potential problem? If the District sees something new that they want to build, and tap the reserves that were held back for potential damage, and potential damage occurs, then where does THAT funding come from? (kinda sounds like the IL pension funding mess we're in now, eh?).
David Greenberg
1:45 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
More on costs: We all know the Lake has some incredible weather. High waves, low waves. High winds, low winds. High water levels, low water levels. Hot temperatures, cold temperatures. Humidity that varies all over the place. The Bluff adjacent to the beach is also quite active and diverse. The foundation is SAND, right next to a body of water, so there's a deep water table to contend with.
This all adds up to high construction costs, and high risk to deal with the potential for flooding, bluff side slippage, etc. Construction being the black art that it is, many issues aren't discovered until things get opened up, and then remedial work needs to be done at-you guessed it,ADDITIONAL COST.
Let's assume for some reason that the Board ignores the wishes that the Community has made for the past several years,and chooses to build this boondoggle anyway. Now we have high maintenance and operational costs because, volia! the building is sitting on the lakefront-not up on a bluff somewhere,but RIGHT ON THE BEACH NEXT TO THE LAKE. It's a never-ending pummeling of the building not only by the elements,but by sand whipped up by the wind coming off the lake, hitting the Bluff, and reflecting back onto the building. That adds up to high maintenance costs for the building exterior, window replacements, painting, etc...I seriously doubt the building will support itself, and if it doesn't we can't just sell it to someone-it's public property. It costs too much, and we don't need it.
Jeffrey Stern
9:50 pm on Monday, April 30, 2012
With the Obama Administration continuing to pile up deficits of $1 trillion annually, new projects like the interpretive center along a beach that could easily be washed away only add to the list of things various levels of government think we must have in order to jusitfy their existence. It's time to say "no" to feel-good projects we really do not need and can't afford despite the Park District's assurance that "there will be no additional taxes levied." Are they kidding? We have all contributed to this project indirectly already. It's time to distinguish between what is really needed and what is being forced upon us because some agency won a grant they feel they must spend or lose to some other possibly more worthy cause.
J.L. Stern, Highland Park
Doug Purington
10:01 am on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Annette:
Your remarks are right on! If not for the inclusion of the "interpretive center", the Park District's plan for Rosewood Beach has lots of merits which the RNA fully support. It has been confirmed by one of the Park Board members that this proposed edifice (unwanted and unnecessary at Rosewood) could very well be located elsewhere. If it was removed from their current proposal, the support by the residents of Highland Park would very likely be overwhelmingly in favor. Come on, Park District, let's have a plan that everyone in Highland Park can support and enjoy to its fullest!
S
12:49 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Rosewood Beach needs improvement, and the plan is great, minus the interpretive center. Not a good use of reserve funds. Note to Jeffrey Stern: your first sentence is ridiculous.
Peter Lucas
1:05 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Park District hit the nail on the head on its web site about how to properly renovate Rosewood: “…residents want the beach development, but improvements need to be minimalistic in scale and naturalistic in appearance.”
It is important to keep those considerations in mind. At Ft. Sheridan, the Lake County Forest Preserve District and the open lands association have done a great job minimizing the impact of their restoration efforts and maintaining the natural beauty of the bluffs, ravines and lakefront. It’s a blue print the Park District can learn from.
Rosewood is essentially unchanged since I was a lifeguard there in the 1980s. As the only swimming beach left in town it’s time to upgrade Rosewood’s facilities, but there really is no need for an interpretive center, especially when it mares the sightlines of the shoreline and its proposed location is highly questionable. The lake’s isles and bays may be for sportsman, but the fury of its waves has been known to consume large chunks of shoreline in a single bite. Why put the interpretive center in their path?
The lakefront is one of the most precious jewels the community has and beach lovers enjoy the shoreline year round, regardless of the weather. Upgrade the facilities to accommodate visitors, but keep the shoreline in as natural a state as possible so everyone can fully enjoy the recreational opportunities it provides and the full splendor of its beauty.
Doug Purington
3:11 pm on Tuesday, May 1, 2012
We all want and deserve a beach in Highland Park (Rosewood) as nice as the one in Lake Forest and with the naturalistic designs and amenities proposed by the Park District. That said, in no way is an "interpretive center", or "beach shelter",or whatever one wants to call it, necessary to accomplish that. Again, the 7 or so alternatives that have been suggested for that building make so much more sense. The primary focus of the restoration of Rosewood Beach should be to provide a beautiful, comfortable, accessible, natural in concept venue for all families in Highland Park to be able to enjoy all year-round, something that we've been without for years and years. This proposed structure is in no way necessary for that premise to be realized! An "interpretive center", in of itself, is a wonderful concept...it just needs to be properly placed. According to one of the Park District board members, that placement can be elsewhere without sacrificing the matching grant monies. So, let's support the Park District's plans sans this unwanted and unneeded building (at Rosewood)!
forest barbieri
9:40 am on Thursday, May 3, 2012
I attended the meeting last night, unfortunately it was my soccer car pool night and I had to leave before the end of the Park District presentation and Q & A for an 8:00 pick up. What I saw I liked, the exception being the "Interpretive Center." I did hear the call for teaching and using the beach as an educational opportunity for the public and students. However, I am still 100% comfortable that my children could care less about an interpretive center and are MUCH more interested in an accessible, safe, fun beach experience. Just as they do not go to summer camp for extensive studies of mathematics and reading the classics, they do not go to the beach for an education.
I would much rather see a structure with a thatched or similar roof, (Perhaps one like the ones at Sunset Park) freestanding, that would compliment a beach environment without walls or sides....no need for the impediment and maintenance of glass on this particular unobtrusive structure....containing some picnic tables. This would encourage picnics, birthday parties and enhance the overall use of the beach in a somewhat sun and rain protected environment. Interpretive would be the open air, beach and fun experience of having a beach that our community can be proud of and utilize. Hopefully that was expressed and the Park District can interpret the communities lack of interest in their interpretive center but support of the rest of the project.