I am in agreement with the Park Districts plan and applaud their leadership and community focused approach to the Rosewood Beach Project as I have stated before. However, I am not in favor of an interpretive center nor am I a Ravinia resident.

To me there are a couple of issues with an interpretive center of any size on the beach. First of all, who goes to the beach to visit an interpretive center? I have been to many beaches around the world and never seen or had an interest to visit an interpretive center at the beach. Our family goes to the beach to enjoy the OPEN air, sun, sand, water and have fun! We interpret the beach! My kids are not going to want to go and visit an interpretive center at the beach; they have the Heller Center for that!

Secondly, who needs another enclosed structure on the beach? Glass still needs maintenance! Can we not just have a thatched roof open air pavilion with a couple of picnic tables thus providing an open air retreat from rain as well as a wonderful place for birthday parties et al that is open and provides immediate access to all the attributes we go to the beach for? Here is an architectural concept....making the roof of this open air structure glass if glass is so desirable.

I also disagree with Ed that the center must be on the beach. Why? Do our schools need to be in Europe when studying about Europe?

I hope our Park Board will interpret the communities feelings on not having an Interpretive Center!!!

I fully support the plans for the beach. I have young children and think this will be a fantastic destination on those hot days during the summer. I'm a bit confused regarding the opposition to the interpretive center, any opportunity to explain the beautiful beach ecosystem seems to me to be a real gift. We are lucky to live on the shores of one of the largest fresh water lake systems in the world and should work hard to bring people closer to it so they may learn more about their environment rather then restrict access. I hope my children visit the beach and the center for many years to come. Kudos to the Park District in their careful and thoughtful planning!

Sam:

Agree Kudos to the Park District on this project. Also respect your feelings that an interpretive center is a benefit. However, still feel that an interpretive center would be desirable and used by a small minority, albeit a vocal one I am sure.

The real key is that this project continues on a positive and timely course so that the community will have a chance to enjoy the improvements. Also special Kudo's to Dave Fairman who always enhances any task he is given! Great job managing this project!

Ed:

How many of those 13 Illinois communities have an interpretive center on the beach? Even more complex ecosystems such as those in Costa Rica, Hawaii et al are without beach Interpretive centers. Does the Grand Canyon have an interpretive center in the center of the canyon? I suggest an easy alternative to meet everyones needs. Passive weather proof signage with interpretive information at the top entrance to the beach that will provide the valuable educational opportunity sought as well as some parental interaction for those younger learners as they enter the beach location. That seems to be the norm at most of our National parks et al. We simply do not need the structure on the beach and an open air structure described earlier would get much more use and serve our community much better.

Ed:

Just Ravinia neighbors expressing sentiments against the "interpretive center"? WRONG! You should get your facts straight before making statements that are totally incorrect! At the two public meetings held by the Park District (for which we applaud them), the presentations by the residents of Highland Park were strongly AGAINST the center, particularly at the Sunday meeting, and over half of these residents were OUTSIDE the Ravinia area! Then, if this was solely the Ravinia Neighbors Association (RNA) sounding off, why is it that we were able to turn in 966 petition signatures against the center when the total number of households who belong to the RNA is only 253?! And many of those households are outside the Ravinia area!

As the only such organization on the North Shore representing residents, now in its 14th year, the RNA is proud to represent the interests and concerns of not only those who live in Ravinia but all those who live in Highland Park.

The plans put forth by the Park District and so well drawn up by David Woodhouse are to be commended for their thoughtfulness to the environment in which Rosewood Beach resides. Take out the "interpretive center" (placement elsewhere would be logical, ideal and looked forward to), make a few tweaks such as adding bike racks or better access along Sheridan Road, then you have a great plan which we strongly support!

As I'm limited to 1,500 characters, see a following concluding comment.

I guess we were not at the same meeting. Simply asserting my facts to be wrong - as you erroneously did on my prior column - does not make them wrong.

You still haven't answered the question of why you object to the interpretive center being on the beach.

We would appreciate it greatly if you would cease and desist misrepresenting the objectives and motives of the RNA. In NO way is this a "NIMBY" issue! We want EVERY resident of Highland Park to be able to thoroughly enjoy the attributes of a SWIMMING and RECREATIONAL beach facility....NOT a programming venue! We're not against the "interpretive center" per se...it just doesn't belong on Rosewood Beach, as the residents of Highland Park have clearly stated and will continue to state.
Using the park on the bluff for placement of the center would necessitate the "interpreters" to experience the nature-laden pathways to and from the beach...what a concept! BTW, that "space" at the north end of the beach (where you say "it seems hard to imagine what the space would be useful for, if not to build a small classroom, additional restrooms and storage.") is designated in the Woodhouse plan as a HABITAT zone! And that doesn't mean human inhabitants!

As for your blatant statement, "I love the idea of having it available for programs year-round, right down at the water front. Thus far, I have yet to hear a good reason not to do just that.", it just shows that you haven't really been listening!

The building(s) architecture of the proposed project has some issues that speak to sustainability, maintenance, choice of exterior materials, etc.

Ed:

Saw your Google search. Not personal on my part but your reply is far too general, off track and fails to answer the points given to you to apply to this situation thereby being a mere distraction from the logic. I believe the answer as to how many of the 13 Illinois communities is ZERO, NONE! Next the first several of your google pages are NOT located on ta beach! Finally, many of these are State sponsored for what one would assume are State Parks

You never responded to the concept of weather proofed signage that would be at the entrance and provide the educational experience you seek. These could even be placed along the trail to further the concept of an enterpretive experience without the need for 1,000 sq ft glass structure on the beach.

I think I have adequately stated several times why it should not be on the beach but have failed to see any rational reason from you as to why it indeed should be on the beach other than you would like to visit it in January? I realize your column is your opinions but I fail to see a path of reason that would in anyway cause me to share your opinion as it relates to an interpertive center on the beach. However, I appreciate your interest and time spent discussing things of importance to our community.

In response to Mr. Brill's assertion that the large number of petition signatures are no longer relevant I would offer up the wording of the petition. It states: "It is my hope that the Park District will take into consideration my wishes for a smaller footprint that does not overwhelm the beauty of Lake Michigan and its natural setting. The permanent building need only provide for basic beach needs with other desired amenities provided on a seasonal basis." This clearly is a relevant statement made by nearly a thousand people! You are correct in pointing out that some people signed an earlier version of the petition, stating: "I am opposed to constructing any permanent buildings on Rosewood Beach other than for public washrooms" Yet this hardly helps your position at all. Clearly all who signed these petitions were rejecting plans for the larger development.

Or you can't convince everyone to think as you do:) However, one hopes they can follow the logic and there still seems no logical reason to establish an interpertive center on the beach. A free standing open air pavillion with thatched or even glass roof and picnic tables makes MUCH more sense (and shelter) to the community and will see MUCH more use! These guys seem like clever people, I have no doubt they can incorporate table signs...with glass tops even (sic) in places that are unobtrusive if we can get away from "I have to have my interpertive center on beach" mantra to a let's find a solution that suits the majority of the community that can even include interpertive:) Are you saying they will have Wi-Fi on the beach? Have a great day:)

It's surprising that you have not heard any reasons for not building an interpretive center on the beach. I believe a very important reason stated on Sunday is that this lovely beach amenity will have an additional need of much more parking availability, not only for the increased attraction for its use by individuals and families and community use, but also to accommodate the school buses which will drop off and pick up the Park District day camps and public school groups.
You must have noted during the initial talk that (in spite of this) the amount of public parking will, by necessity, be reduced. Right now the parking limit is for 55 cars. Because of the increased use more space will be needed. This beach amenity will be nestled in with vehicle traffic, noisome exhaust and buses. And parking expansion almost always also proves unsightly -- a crowded mass of parked cars is unpleasant and always mars a natural environment. Why can't the IC 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?

By the way I looked at the online petition, e.g. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/rosewoodbeach/signatures/page/4

Signatures 179-188 are all the same, 191-196 are the same, many on the first page are anonymous, the question has changed over time since the collection started in 2010, and exactly 11 signatures have been contributed since the Park District unveiled the revised plans for the beach.

Just to confirm -when Doug says "we" he is expressing the opinions of some of members of the RNA. Not all members of the RNA are against the IC. I am a member and support the plan. At the earlier meeting there were at least 10 RNA members in attendance who supported the plan.

Also, I think we can discount the results of the RNA survey for two reasons 1) it focused on the old plan, and 2) it was conducted by an non-objective entity. The survey was not designed nor conducted as a means to solicit objective community feedback. It was designed and conducted to protest the previous plan. To now present it as an objective measure of community opinion is erroneous.

Describing the meeting as "STRONGLY against" the IC is misrepresentation. I thought opinions were mixed and compelling arguments existed on both sides.

Finally, Doug's comment "if all the objections put forth so strongly and well by so many people throughout Highland Park haven't gotten through to you by now". It seems like that comment can run both ways.

I am so happy the beach is getting the attention it deserves. I love the idea of an enclosed glass room for winter usage for exercise, parties and year round education.
Enough discussion! Let's move forward so our kids ( and grandkids) can enjoy.

I think the revised plan is great and very appropriate for our treasured lake front. My only complaint is that it won't be done for the 2012 season.

Hopefully no one thinks our current trailer toilets in the parking lot and rusting steel breakwaters make sense - status quo is neglecting the gift given to city by the Rosenwald family.

The new plan incorporates the feedback from the community after the original plan. The smaller footprint and dividing space into smaller buildings will make the required infrastructure blend in more naturally. Plus we get a MASSIVE increase in beach size.

I know the multi purpose building remains a controversial issue but I think it is needed, well designed and will be an improvement that we will be proud of in the future. I don't care that others don't have one - that isn't proof it isn't needed. I look forward to my children being educated in that room and attending birthday parties there. I just hope that the HPPD Board has the leadership to cut through the noise and build this plan.

I do have a few minor recommendations to improve this plan:
1. Improved pedestrian/bike access along Sheridan Road - work with the city/state to build sidewalks. This is a big safety issue.
2. Secure bike racks at the beach
3. Enforce parking rules - too many cars without city stickers currently park at the beach - not fair.

I look forward to the new and improved Rosewood Beach

I, too, look forward to a new and improved Rosewood Beach with an open-in-all-seasons (including, I must add, restrooms!) Interpretive Center. I urge the Task Force to take a stand for progress and vote "yes" to this Center, which will entice residents to come to our beachfront in all seasons, rain or shine, snow or sleet, blistering heat or chilly winds. Appreciation for nature can come not just from being in it, but from learning about it while one is enveloped by a safe haven that serves as a viewing point. And, finally, why should not the rest of us enjoy what the Rosenwald family enjoyed in the past, and all the fortunate lakefront dwellers with riparian rights enjoy now?!

I say…let us get on with living our lives and let those who have spent many months evaluating all iterations of these plans have their say. I trust them to make a decision that looks to the future and will serve us all well.

I agree with everything said by Doug Purington, Amy Lohmolder, Annette Jacobson & most of what Forest Barbieri said; but nothing Ed Brill has said. about the Interpretive Center [“IC”].
The IC does not belong on Rosewood beach.
The Mayor sat right behind me on Sunday. She just listened and left before everyone spoke.
Mr. Woodhouse mentioned on Sunday for the first time that parking spaces would be LOST on the beach; and the IC will draw some spaces from those who just want to use the beach for its real purpose, to swim, relax and enjoy the surroundings of our only swimming beach
The Park Board [“”PD”] has never indicated it considered other places for the IC. A perfect one, [that Annette Jacobson tried to mention on Sunday but was cut off somewhat rudely at the end of her 3 minutes when others spoke longer than 3 minutes and were not cut off] is the property for sale that is contiguous to and just north of Rosewood, high on the bluff overlooking the beach. It would also permit an increase in the size of Rosewood Beach, a double plus; and has ample parking. Annette also mentions in the current RNA Newsletter six other possible sites, including the Schaffner estate which the PD owns. It is high on the bluff with attractive habitats and has easy access.
Finally, the petitions signed by almost 1000 residents within the last year are still relevant because they oppose any kind of an almost 2000 sq. ft. IC on Rosewood Beach.
Aaron Wolff

I concur with both Ed Brill and Paul Wehner. Like Paul, I am an RNA member who supports the Park District plan.

I've listened to opinions from many residents, both Pro & Con, what they all have in common are thoughtful & valid concerns. My current school of thought is "Let's Agree to Disagree". The Park District Board represents ALL residents. They listened, they revised & listened again. It's NOW time to let our elected officials arrive at a decision so we can move to the next phase: providing us with a better beach than we currently have.

How can you say the PD represents ALL residents? Nothing could be farther from the truth! Listening to ALL the comments should make that very clear! In the end, the PD, who has their own agenda, will have their way to the disappointment of MANY residents. I can only hope that's not the case!

Doug - the PD does represent ALL residents but they will have to make a decision that disappoints some of them. Your notes continue to sound as if all of the speakers at the meeting were against the IC (not at all true) and that all the comments on these forums are against the IC (not at all true). See Ed, Sam, Bryce, Paul (x2), Jill, D, & Peggy above. If the PD decides to build the IC they won't be guilty of not listening to the residents. They will simply be guilty of listening to the residents who don't agree with you.

Paul:
You hit it on the head exactly! That was my point several posts ago. No matter what decision the Board makes, it will still make some residents unhappy. I, too, am an RNA member & the RNA does NOT represent the community as a whole although Mr. Purington seems to think so. I will respect the decision the Board makes EITHER way. Ironically, as the Publicity Director of the RNA, Mr. Purington's rather militant stance does not reflect favorably on their image as a group.

I also agree that the RNA does NOT represent the entire community. Their views represent some of the community. They don't even represent the views of all of the members of RNA. It seems to me that they are just throwing their name around as if that magically means more than it does. There are numerous articles on their website that have inaccurate information about the proposed improvements. The size of the IC is wrong by about a factor of 2x, there is discussion about adding more parking at the beach which is not in the plans, etc. Then there is discussion of this petition that in most cases was signed before the current plans were done. Based on the dates seems the petition is about the old plans which are no longer up for discussion. Not sure how you can be opposed to plans that didn't exist yet.

Anyhow, everyone is entitled to their own opinions but lets not make up the facts.

Let me just clarify that I favor both the process and the plan put forth by the Park District. I think we have come light years in terms of leadership and community involvement with the HPPD's new leadership.

Also, while it is always good sporting fun to disagree with Ed, I truely am not a fan of the IC as stated. Now that the IC seems to be shifting to being called a beach house for activities, parties et al making it a softer more palatable image. I still would like to see it's footprint off the beach and prefer a passive approach to interpretive as I believe the whole point of being at the beach is to physically and mentally interpret the beauty, open air, sun and fun on a personal level.

Having said that, I look forward to the final plan and even more so to the completion as wherever we end up, the community wins. Let's build this thing:)

Just to once again verify the size of the IC building. Despite various references in the media and by the Park District as being 1,000 sq ft, the actual footprint is 1,950 sq ft to include the IC room, bathrooms and machinery for heating and cooling. BTW, if the PD is totally listening, then, by now, they would be investigating the viabilty (or not) of the 7 alternative sites that have been suggested for the IC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen no evidence of that. The RNA may have implied that we represent all of the RNA and all of the community of HP. We know that is not the case. However, we speak for a substantial number of residents who question the IC as part of the overall plan for Rosewood and simply want the PD to consider other options for its placement. We're anxious for the Woodhouse vision for Rosewood to move forward quickly...just without the IC.

Ed, -There certainly are proposed alternative sites and in some cases, these properties are already owned by the PD. Why not reuse the old water treatment plant at the base of Ravine Drive? An adaptive -reuse educational facility here might be really cool. Or how about better developing the Park Ave. beach? How about the Schaffner estate at Millard? Wouldn’t caring for and utilizing what we already have be a better use of both taxpayer and natural resources? THIS is the way to honor nature and the better lesson to hand our children. Why tear into undeveloped beachfront for the interpretative center when the PD already owns underutilized property along the lake that is in need of repair?

Regardless of the fact that Rosewood happens to be in the Ravinia neighborhood, this is a beach for the entire city of Highland Park. So, the RNA is "suggesting" other sites, which happen to be in other HP neighborhoods. Sounds like a case of "NIMBY" (not in my backyard). What's to keep those neighborhoods from deciding the same? Again, I will look to the elected Board to decide the outcome.

Ed:

We're not expecting the "Task Force" to explore alternative site locations as you properly state that it's not their responsibility. However, we do expect that the PDHP, having heard enough concerns expressed about the location of the IC, would already be researching the suggested alternatives, some of which are already owned by them. These alternative sites may or may not be suitable but the PDHP has a duty to check them out rather than summarily dismiss them as possibilities.

Ed:

Your "on the record" is quite clear and that's fine. However, what about all the other residents that believe as you do but haven't exercised their voice? Versus the entire population of HP, their has been a limited number to have spoken up one way or the other. I'm no pushing for another referendum, would just like a clearer picture of where the residents in toto really stand on the issue of the IC. Right now, it's rather limited to the precious few of us that are standing up for either position. I know that there appears to be a huge consensus for the rest of the plan, the RNA included. As for the IC, I haven't seen much in the way of a convincing argument that it belongs only at Rosewood!

Seems to me that although this beach falls within the Ravinia "neighborhood", it is a beach for ALL Highland Park residents. So, the RNA "suggests" 7 alternative sites for the IC. Those sites just happen to be in neighborhoods OTHER than Ravinia? Hmmm. COuld this be just another example of NIMBY (Not In My Backyard)?

I just reread one of the many comments by Ed Brill, this on one of the other blogs concerning Rosewood Beach. And I quote:

"I am also offended that you and others keep representing that the two public hearings came out against the interpretive center. The numbers published above show 3x as many people attended as spoke. Most people wont waste time in a forum like that expressing support - including me."

Waste of time? WOW, what an attitude! What if everyone thought that way?! No wonder it's a slam-dunk appearance that the IC is not wanted at Rosewood Beach! It's nice to see that the "silence" of the IC proponents will very likely doom the IC at Rosewood. So, PDHP, let's move on and approve the beautiful Woodhouse visionary plan SANS the IC! The time to do so is now so that work can begin in 2012!

I am in complete favor of everything that has been offered. Why? Yesterday we were actually at the beach. A group showed up with a handful of little ones. They were ready to go into the water *yes it was very cold, but kids love it* They were actually told they kids couldn't go in. Why? I'm not sure, it was getting a bit windy and as I said the water was cold, but I'm not sure why. Needless to say, they weren't there very much longer. The kids played for about 30 min and they left. I feel if there were more things especially a center the kids could enjoy when they can't go in the water *for whatever the reason* more people may come and enjoy this great beach (well great except for the awful pebbles everywhere)! We need to make this beach more inviting to the families with little ones. As I said we were there yesterday mid day (2-530) and it was quite empty for such an amazingly hot day.

I think one reason that most residents don't speak up is because they don't utilize this beach and one reason may just be the quality of the beach (rocks, sticks, garbage). We are so lucky as a community to have this amazing body of water and we need to teach our children about it so it's there for their children.