It's time that we had a beautiful beach, and interpretive center for all of Highland Park residents to use. Very well stated. Cheryl B

"The Woodhouse plan offers three separate, small and harmonious structures to be nestled along a wooden boardwalk south of the parking lot." - Sorry, I'm not buying into the marketing-speak, we don't need an interpretative center of ANY SIZE at Rosewood Beach. We don't need more facilities to operate and maintain, we need LESS. We have more than we need already.

We don't need to maintain something put in by the Army Corps of Engineers for the next 50 years. One need only look to other Army Corps projects designed to "revitalize beachfronts" to see how they didn't work out as planned. We don't need to recreate any rare microclimates either - the climate at the water's edge and across the lake is ever-changing and can be quite brutal - what's it going to cost to deal with, and maintain a "rare microclimate" at the Beach?

We need some toilets. We need some more sand. We need a lifeguard shack. We might be able to use a small concession shack. That's it. We don't need anything else to operate and maintain - especially anything in such an environmentally active area.

Imagination and interpretation doesn't require physical, man-made structures. The best interpretative center at the Beach? Sitting there, watching the waves, and contemplating the multiverse. I can do that with, or without a chair, towel, building, or marketing plan.

David Greenberg's comments are 100% correct. Whether it is 1000 or 2000 sq. ft., we don't need an interpretive center on our only swimming beach.

All I can say is that when you come to the upcoming meetings, you will hear what the Park District has to say about the plans, which are being carefully vetted by the Park District, their Board, and the Task Force. The Interpretive Space has always been an integral part of this due to its intended use, something not mentioned by those in opposition.

David Greenberg is spot on concerning Rosewood. Yes to restrooms, lifeguard shack, concessions, more sand. We don't need a "warm" building to enhance nature. Keep it simple. Less is more for Rosewood.

Its still taxpayer $$ whether reserves or not--its not affordable or desirable to have the IC at Rosewood Beach. Other aspects of the plan are proper and we look forward to them.

I am with David Greenberg on this one. Less is more.

I agree with Peggy. Thanks for your chronology of the process. I hope folks will realize that with 50% more sand on our beaches we have a whole new canvas to work with and will give the plan a chance before dismissing it.

Thank you Peggy for a well written informative article. I've lived in Highland Park since 1957 and remember birthday parties, picnics, a concession stand, bathroom/changingrooms/showers, etc at the old beach house. I still include the beach frequently on my walks. How nice it would be to have it improved and to have restrooms instead of the porta-potties. The beach is a hidden asset for Highland Park and I firmly believe that we should have full access in at least one location! It's time improve our beachfront for all to enjoy.

Thanks, Alison. So good to remind those who have not grown up in Highland Park that there are fond memories of the long gone beach house. Though we did not grow up here, I remember hanging out at the top of that beach house and watching the waves roll in and kids playing in the sun. Magical. Wait til folks see the plans for the new "beach house" aka "Interpretive Space."

David,
We've lived here since 1973 and I only remember good things about the Beach House. It was demolished because it became unstable. And, if we worry about vandalism, lets forget about any beachfront improvements! No wait! How about we help the PD figure out how to prevent such acts? And the new structures - all of them - will be more protected than the beach house was in the 60's or 70's, or whenever the beach started to disappear. Further, what makes you think the Corps has not learned how better to preserve the beachfront in the time since the groins were plunked in all along the lakefront?! I only wish your schedule allowed you to be at the presentations, because you would have a better understanding of these plans, which, as we all now know, do NOT include a 3,500 sq ft structure in the middle of the beach.

Calm down, dear sir. Regarding posting plans on the web, surely this will be done after the community comment period.

They already are...check out http://www.pdhp.org/index.aspx?page=116

David, vandalism did not cause any problems of substantial consequents, the foundation was undercut by erosion both from above and the lake. I guarantee that building was built from the strongest Portland cement available. Please stick to your point and stop you endless posts, you are in the right on this one so remember less is more..P.S. there is no way we are going to be responsible because someone falsely wrote in there grant the words “interpretive space”..

Any structure that’s built down there needs to have pylons that reach bed rock or the structure will float. Please just build a bathroom in the natural cut, were the pump station sits..

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!

It is simply wrong to make the tax payers of Highland Park responsible and beholden basically because the grant writer found the words “interpretive space” had grant money behind it. The board must be copasetic of are wishes. We already have a wonderful water park and recreation center that a good many Highland parkers struggle to pay for.

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)!

I walk all times of year and would appreciate a destination spot to warm up in winter. Addressing Mr. Greenberg's fear of tax-payer burden, info on the Park District website includes an estimated net revenue of $10,000 per year for rental. If it's a nice facility, it will more than pay for itself.

I fully support the Park District's latest proposal for Rosewood beach and I do not understand the vocal minority who thinks the lovely shelter is a bad idea. The original proposed building was too big but the new one on the north side of the parking lot seems just right and with the glass walls would be a great spot for various activities 12 months out of the year. Rosewood has been the crummiest beach on the north shore for the 20 years that I've lived here and I hope that the Park District does not bow to the naysayers who don't want progress. Let's have a nice beach for a change!

Please view the drawings at the District's website (link below). It should be noted that those opposing the shelter were doing so even before these drawings were posted which tells me they do not have an open mind.
http://www.pdhp.org/index.aspx?page=116

We DO want progress, meaning a lovely beach front at Rosewood, something that I too have waited 20 years for. Plus, we're hardly a vocal minority! The online poll is just about split 50-50 and we will pass 1,000 signatures soon...not against the entire proposal...just the "interpretive center, shelter or whatever one wants to call it! The appearance/design of the "shelter" is not the issue. In of itself, it can be viewed as aesthetically pleasing...but NOT on Rosewood Beach! And we do have open minds...just not for this shelter! Please, enough of these generalities!

The online poll is meaningless as it allows people to vote more than once. Patch - you should not post polls if your systems can't prevent ballot stuffing.

Doug - if the appearance/design of the shelter is not the issue, what is? For all the posts on patch from you and David Greenberg, I have yet to read a compelling case for why it shouldn't be there. I agreed with the RNA's opposition to the original proposal for the large building south of the parking lot but why oppose this much smaller building that will bring people to the beach year round?

And Doug, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you don't have an open mind for the shelter.

The "shelter" is a nice concept; however, there's no place for it at Rosewood. If it finally ends up at another location, we will strongly support it! Issues like insufficient parking, maintenance costs, interference with the habitat zone, and not to mention the "hotbox" effect of the design with no breezes or sounds of the crashing waves permeating the edifice, all prevent us from supporting this portion of the project. People don't need a structure to enable them to "interpret" nature!