The other day an e-mail arrived in my mail box with a grave warning urging me to sign a petition. Apparently, the Park District of Highland Park was up to something at Rosewood Beach. . Change is coming to , and that change could involve something as scandalous a multi-purpose beach house designed to BRING CHILDREN TO THE BEACH for educational programming.
Wow. The threat of local school children actually going to Rosewood was definitely a call to action.
I have a keen interest in all things Rosewood since I live in Ravinia and walk to the beach each day with a good friend and our dogs. We rarely see others. This beach has to be one of the most underused resources on the entire North Shore. Since I'm one of the few people who frequent this spot, I feel that I must have earned some kind of squatter’s right to the title.
So, I did heed the call to action. But instead of signing the petition condemning the beach house/multi-purpose space, I went to the Rosewood Beach Advisory Committee Planning Meeting on Wednesday night to see what exactly what was causing such a fuss.
I didn't know what to expect, but I walked away wishing they would start construction tomorrow.
Now, partly I don’t want to get too excited, because this isn’t the first time we’ve heard this. There’s always a plan to fix Rosewood Beach. And there’s always a reason it doesn’t happen.
This time though, the Park District has taken a different approach.
The plan as I understand it is twofold. The first part will completely reestablish the sandy beach, protect the shoreline, stabilize the bluffs and restore the ravines. A job like this is a massive undertaking that will take an army of workers. Fortunately an Army of engineers equipped with expertise and Great Lakes building permits, and well armed with federal funds has landed at Rosewood. The Army Corps of Engineers has a keen interest in restoring Great Lakes fisheries. Since Rosewood lacks adequate habitat for fish spawning, the Army has taken up our cause (apparently a lack of public toilets was not a reason for the Army to get involved). We owe a big debt of gratitude to those fish.
The work outlined by the Army will restore about 11 acres of coastland, reclaiming a substantial amount of beach in the process. They are still drawing plans, but some have estimated that the sandy beach at Rosewood could be enlarged by nearly 50%. This means more square footage of beach and more stable beach area. If you're wondering what kind of work the Army Corps does, you can check out the beautiful beach in Lake Forest to get an idea.
Presuming we get the federal funding, a restored beach with enhanced square footage would pave the way for the Park District to further enhance the space with some basic improvements – like real toilets. Turns out, we can expect much more.
Learning from past missteps with Rosewood, the Park District organized a citizen advisory committee which has spent the many months listening and understanding the needs of the community. In conjunction with the PDHP, the committee hired an architect, developed a site plan, and proposed development for the Rosewood property.
Some highlights from the proposed Rosewood Plan include:
- A beautiful wooden boardwalk which replaces the asphalt sidewalk and connects a series of buildings along the path
- Family bathrooms and changing areas
- A concession stand with adjacent patio seating
- Children’s playground and beach volleyball area
- A lifeguard shack with a first aid station and storage
- A fantastic glass enclosed multi-purpose beach house, with about 1,000 square feet of space available for multi-purpose programming, camps, and exercise classes – whatever they dream up. The space will be open to beach visitors during operating hours and will generate rental revenue during non-peak hours.
I pinched myself a few times and then realized that these folks were serious. The architect, David Woodhouse, has an excellent track record with projects that respect the environment, and he brought that same respect to this project.
Where the PDHP drew past criticism for “overbuilding” on the Rosewood site, this rendition breaks up a large building into several smaller components. Liberal use of glass means that instead of blocking views, you will see through buildings to the lake and bluff. The boardwalk ties the whole project together, unifies all the elements, and provides benches with seating.
Wow. Wow. Wow.
This is a game changer for Highland Park. People will no longer refer to Rosewood as the Eyesore on the Shore. Instead of giant porta potty trailer and ugly metal walls dividing the beach, we’ll have functional facilities, a restored beach, and excellent multi-purpose space. Rosewood will be the crown jewel in our park system.
Jewels always come with price tags and the cost will be substantial. The Army Corps will foot 65% of the restoration bill with federal funds, currently estimated at $6,213,000 according to the Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Program website, www.glfer.org. The Park District plans to pay for their share and additional improvements with existing grant money and reserves set aside for capital projects. No additional tax dollars will be levied to fund these improvements. Future operating costs will increase, but much of the additional maintenance costs could be covered by revenue generated from rental and concession fees.
These developments will undoubtedly bring more people to our hamlet of Ravinia, but the reality is that Rosewood Beach belongs to all of Highland Park. Highland Park’s shoreline extends more for more than five miles, yet we only have about 270 feet where people are actually allowed to swim in the water. Those 270 feet are in Ravinia.
Moraine beach is for dogs. Park Avenue beach is for boats. The undeveloped Ravine Beach (if you can find it) is for love-struck teenagers. Lake County’s Fort Sheridan’s beach is the designated resting place of unexploded ordinance.
Rosewood is for people.
I realize we have an obligation to respect the environment and the beauty of this natural space (and let’s not forget those fish), but we also have an obligation to use our single people beach for the benefit of all our citizens.
The problem with people is that our needs change over time. What we need today may be out of fashion tomorrow. Ravinia Festival used to ban alcohol and housed a Casino – that’s unimaginable today. We can't anticipate every possible use or define every possible programmatic function for this proposed building – and that’s fine. We just need to make sure it’s flexible enough to adapt when needs change.
We can’t be shortsighted. If we’re addressing basic infrastructure needs for Rosewood we can do more, we should. We should enhance the area with a multi-purpose year-round building which offers long-term flexibility and short term income - it’s a win for everyone.
Ravinians have always been a welcoming community. We live in the shadow of one of the world’s great music festivals, which brings thousands of people to our doorstep each night of the summer. We take it in stride and appreciate the perks that come from sharing this treasure with the world. It seems to me we could apply the same principle and welcome the additional Highland Park residents who might visit our community when they drop off their kids at a camp, enjoy a yoga class, or come down to the beach to enjoy the view. Maybe they’ll grab a latte at Java Love or a cupcake at Baker Boys on the way home.
Our greater community has consciously decided that Rosewood Beach is the area to be developed for people – for swimming and recreation. The Army corps has offered funding and expertise. Now is the time to act decisively to address community needs. We cannot miss this opportunity to revitalize and enhance Rosewood.
Yes, more people will come, and of course a more developed beach is a game changer for those of us who do visit regularly. We may soon cede our squatters rights to the title. We may walk down the stairs and find the sands filled with kids enjoying the water, teens playing volleyball, and adults escaping for a quick lunch. The beach will no longer be ours alone, but we’re Ravinians, and we’re used to sharing our neighborhood with friends we have not yet met.
See you at the beach.
Public Meeting
If you want more information about the park District’s proposed plan, you can attend the public meetings
Wednesday, May 2, 7:00 p.m. at West Ridge Center, 636 Ridge Road
Sunday, May 6, 1:30 p.m. at Heller Nature Center, 2821 Ridge Road
Don Miller President, Ravinia neighbors Assn.
The Park District is going to present its new conceptual Rosewood Beach plans to the public Wednesday, May 2, 7:00 p.m. at West Ridge Center, 636 Ridge Road Sunday, May 6, 1:30 p.m. at Heller Nature Center, 2821 Ridge Road. The Ravinia Neighbors Association Board favors the new Park District naturalistic design which incorporates a wood walkway to replace the current asphalt walk and the use of wood for restrooms, a lifeguard station and a concession area. We would like these elements to have the smallest possible footprint. We object strongly, however, to the inclusion of a proposed "interpretive center"—a relatively large building (in the range of 2000 sq. ft. as proposed) for this small beach, with no fully defined use, which would be out of scale and would have no direct relation to the functions of the only swimming beach in Highland Park. We consider it a costly and wasteful expenditure of money, to be redundant in duplicating restrooms (planned separately nearby), would be rarely used, expensive to maintain, and would obtrusively spoil and distort the natural scale and contour of the beach. Here is a link on our website where you can download and sign the petition: http://www.ravinianeighbors.org/petition.html
We don't need wood walkways. We don't need volleyball areas - people who want to play volleyball can bring a net and set it up. We don't need ANOTHER playground - kids can bring a bucket and play in the sand as they've done since time immemorial. And we sure don't need an "interpretive" center of ANY size in an environmentally active zone that will result in a never-ending need for maintenance and repair. Again, what's the TOTAL COST of ownership of that building over it's expected lifetime? We already have too many facilities in the Park District, we don't need more to own, operate, and maintain. We need LESS. And just because we can pay for something out of reserves, doesn't mean we should. Reserves absolutely should NOT be used for adding new facilities. That we have such large reserves only indicates that we give the Park District too much money. They should have to ask for money to build something.
However, this new plan in some aspects is fine, except for the ill conceived, large building at Rosewood beach named the "interpretive center". It is too large a footprint on this small space. There are other areas that could house this center: eg. the Park Ave. boating beach, whose yacht club structure needs rehabilitation, and is already a place that welcomes children groups in the summer months. Fortunately, the Army Corp of Engineers is planning a much need input of sand and ecological development which we can all cheer and of which the Park District is paying a proportion. This is a good expenditure. Who believes that the large interpretive center, as conceived, will generate attendance in the winter months? Therefore, its upkeep will not pay for itself with the presumed rentals and classes. So who will finally bear the cost. You guessed it. The community will have an opportunity to express its opinion in the two upcoming meetings this week. Try to be there and see whose listening!
Everytime HP has wanted to improve the beach, it's been stalled ,mostly due to the economic difficulties of the times Now that we have a grant and the resources to do so, let's move forward. One of the reasons we moved to the Ravinia neighborhood is the proximity to the beach. It's something we really have to do for the next generation and generations to follow. We need to be able attract younger families to the area and having a restored lake front would certainly be an enticement.
But here we're talking about the Park District and the short answer is that we give the Park District too much money. We need to give them just enough to operate what they have, and when they want to build a new facility - they should have to come to the taxpayers to ask for permission and for the funds to do so. Simply having a giant honeypot of reserves seems to be irresistible and results in an ever-increasing amount of facilities which require tax dollars for operations and maintenance. Anyone recall the $220K/yr for Sunset Valley Golf Course subsidy because the rounds played don't support the costs of the course? Comes out of reserves...
That $800K grant is comprised as follows: * Park District of Highland Park Funds: $400K * State of IL Matching Grant funds, dollar for dollar: $400K. The "dollar-for-dollar" match is up to $400K. So if we kick in $400K, we qualify for $400K. The grant dollars are only paid out 90 days AFTER the work is done, if it's in compliance with the grant requirements, etc. In the meantime, we're on the hook for the full $800K. So if the State doesn't pay, we get to eat the full amount. If the State decides to pay more than 90 days out, we eat the full amount until the State does get around to paying. The amount of the possible grant by the State is a small percentage of the full $5.9 million amount of the work proposed. Young families aren't going to be attracted to this community until the tax burden is reduced. Realtors all over will tell you that buyers are excited about properties and the community until they see the tax bill. Then they look to other communities with perhaps more property for a lower tax burden. We reduce our burden by managing our costs and not over building just to keep up with the Jones' (Lake Forest)
I get my philosophy from the Boy Scouts – you should always leave your campsite in better shape than when you arrived. This applies to the community we live in as well. I think one of the things that distinguishes Highland Park is our willingness to re-invest in our community. I don’t want to live in the cheapest community I can find with the fewest public amenities – how depressing would that be. The reason why places like Highland Park command high property values is precisely because of this re-investment, not in spite of it. Does this mean that every public works idea is advisable, beyond criticism and that money should be “no object”? Of course not. But, in my experience, the best institutions in which to work, live and go to school are categorized by a desire to constantly improve, grow and reinvest. And that is the way Highland Park should continue to be.
And no cost to the taxpayers... uh huh. Not even remotely close to the truth. It's going to cost us now from our savings (reserves), and it's going to cost us for at least the next 50 years.
However, by your logic - the Scouts would eventually be cutting down trees, building permanent shelters, adding roads, and they'd end up destroying everything that makes camping in the forest so wonderful to begin with. Do I want to live in the cheapest community? No. Do I want some facilities? Yes. Do I want to live in the most expensive community? No. Do I think we need a particular facility just because some other community has it? No. We're not in a competition. And the things that make our community great and attractive have a price tag associated with them. That cost is paid through our taxes. I'd argue that we've reached a point of diminishing returns when potential homebuyers are turned off by the tax burden-especially when they can go to other nearby, lower tax areas, get a bigger house and quality facilities. Then they can come here and use our facilities at our expense (or for a minimal expense of a parking sticker). It already happens... Constant improvement, and reinvestment doesn't mean we have to add additional tax burdens-we have to temper our jealousy and egos.
Your analogy about the Scouts building roads, permanent facilities is unpersuasive. Building roads and permanent structures is to a campsite like building a 10 story resort condominium is to Rosewood Beach. Building a fire pit or making a trail is to a campsite, like, uh, I don’t know, building a concession stand, bathroom, playground (and perhaps a year-round building) is to Rosewood Beach.
Whether one agrees with the beach house or not, the proposal overall doesn’t seem extravagant. The beach is an under-utilized asset which could be more extensively used by the 33,000 people who live in Highland Park. Funds will come not from a bond issue or a tax increase, but from reserves. Decrying the use of reserves to carry out this project is particularly hypocritical because that is exactly how you want District 113 to fund its work – out of money saved up over time. You can’t logically have it both ways
Unfortunately for the taxpayers of Highland Park, we have competitors to our new expensive Rec Center, and if the members don't pay the bills, the taxpayers will be expected to pick up the slack. We need to remain competitive in order to attract and retain members, so as to limit the burden to the taxpayers. If we can't remain competitive in the face of other facilities such that our costs are 100% covered, then I argue that we have no business subsidizing the facility and should either close it, or put it up for sale so the taxpayers can recoup their investment. The cost structure of a Rec Center is arguably different from that of a Park, and whereas a Park District would typically expect to cover a substantial amount of the costs of maintenance and operation from tax dollars for a PARK, one would not expect the same of a facility such as a Rec Center which is an indoor facility filled with equipment that has relatively short lifespans (such as workout machines, and the like).