Inside the Park View Inn

[thelakelander]

I'd be just as concerned about the other uses that took place on that site before the hotel was build there and the sites surrounding the hotel.  The gas works was one of many "dirty" industries during a time when the environment was not a real concern.  If something (gas, paint, car oil, human waste, whatever) has contaminated the ground in the general area, there's a good chance that contamination is not confined to one particular block.

true but given the history, it is at this point the least likely to be the most significantly contributing property.

Actually considering that remediation has already taken place, this property has the potential of being the least contaminated of all of them.

FYI, because of the poisonous nature of the gassification plants, it was the first industry to have national environmental regulations created for it.  They date back to the 1880s.

When did remediation take place on the Park View site and the blocks surrounding it?  Is there anything on record that we can upload for all to see?

[stephendare]

Thanks Lake, I really think this 'problem' has a lot simpler solutions than declaring war on all the landowners, and then waiting on the 'guv'ment' to cough 10 million dollars to dig everything up, taking up another 15 years of foot dragging and bullshittery.

I don't think we'll get any where blaming downtown advocates that want to see the park and creek restored.  Without them and their passion, the park system would still be as poorly maintained as it was five years ago.  The difference in what it looks like today and what it was in 2003 is night and day.  Also, as I understand it, a good portion of money set aside to restore the creek, ended up being shifted to Iraq.

As for the Park View, if the site has a clean bill of health, then there's little anyone can do to hold up or deny redevelopment if a developer is serious about investing in it.  Quite frankly, there's no reason for someone not to be in favor of improving the site.

No one is blaming any advocates of the parks, Lake.  The criticism is about the defacto strategy of all the divergent groups.

a.  The City bulldozing properties.
b.  The Park Commission not looking at new technologies and methods.
c.  The Downtown and Springfield stakeholders simply waiting for the Feds to do it.

Regardless of the Park View Inn, the Hogan's Creek Park system does have contaminants that legitimately need attention.

And there are multiple other options than waiting for the Feds.  The options also happen to be millions of dollars cheaper.

[stephendare]

I'd be just as concerned about the other uses that took place on that site before the hotel was build there and the sites surrounding the hotel.  The gas works was one of many "dirty" industries during a time when the environment was not a real concern.  If something (gas, paint, car oil, human waste, whatever) has contaminated the ground in the general area, there's a good chance that contamination is not confined to one particular block.

true but given the history, it is at this point the least likely to be the most significantly contributing property.

Actually considering that remediation has already taken place, this property has the potential of being the least contaminated of all of them.

FYI, because of the poisonous nature of the gassification plants, it was the first industry to have national environmental regulations created for it.  They date back to the 1880s.

When did remediation take place on the Park View site and the blocks surrounding it?  Is there anything on record that we can upload for all to see?

I truly can't formulate a guess for the sites surrounding the Park View.  I do know, and most of the residents remember, that the dirt all had to be removed from the ground when they built the hotel.

[thelakelander]

Luckily no one is standing pat.  Since I moved to town and purchased property in Springfield, progress has been made.  These would include the Hogans Creek Greenway (hasn't started, but the money has been set aside by the State), the dog park, the rose arbor, better city maintainance, the improved baseball ground, restored gazebo and Dillion fountain at Klutho Park.  Plus its not a homeless campground anymore.  In the meantime we all just have to keep plugging along and taking advantage of these many options when they present themselves.

[stephendare]

Luckily no one is standing pat.  Since I moved to town and purchased property in Springfield, progress has been made.  These would include the Hogans Creek Greenway (hasn't started, but the money has been set aside by the State), the dog park, the rose arbor, better city maintainance, the improved baseball ground, restored gazebo and Dillion fountain at Klutho Park.  Plus its not a homeless campground anymore.  In the meantime we all just have to keep plugging along and taking advantage of these many options when they present themselves.

lol.  to some extent.
The park could be completed with local money in half the time and none of the intrusive heartache simply by entering the 21st century.

[downtownparks]

Cool. Handle up.

[heights unknown]

I'm with you on the Movie Theatre downtown, but not there - Ideally, a movie theatre would be somewhere near Bay St, so it can create a synergy between it and the venues that are already there.

In the past, we've done a bad job of locating nodes of activity far apart form each other, and it doesn't allow for good infill.

How about two movie theaters, a large one (12 to 24 screens) on Bay Street, and a smaller one on the Park View location (6 to 12 screens for Springfield, Eastside Residents); then you'd have enough theaters for downtown for the present.

Heights Unknown

[heights unknown]

My firm worked with a developer who wanted to demolish the building and construct a 25 story tower with a Walgrees on the corner of Main & State, back in 2003/4.  Although its not a superfund site, contamination was certainly an issue at that time from the environmental reports they had done and the ultimate reason on why they passed.  Sanborn maps also indicate that the site was indeed a coal glassification plant at one time.  I'll see if I can dig up the old files on Monday for proof.  Stephen, in the meantime, see if you can dig up documents from the owner that indicate the site being free of contamination.

Lakelander.......peacemaker and mediator!

Heights Unknown

[heights unknown]

I don't think its a us vs. them issue with the Park View.  People are just frustrated with the condition of the structure and lack of progress.  From a development standpoint, there's nothing you, me or anyone else posting can do to keep big developers from doing their homework.  I can't speak for the others but I vividly remember environmental issues being one of the reasons that project did not move forward.

And.......in the meantime the old, dilapidated, broken down structure is just sitting on top of contaminated property rotting and doing nothing but providing an ugly picture for that end of downtown and Springfield; so, in my opinion, the smart thing for the Owner to do (maybe someone should tell him this cause maybe he's too old to understand), is to tear it down, clean-up the contamination if there is in fact contamination, and put it on the market for the City or a private developer to buy; otherwise, the City will do the tearing down, contamination cleaning, and bill the Owner...and who knows how much the tab will be...probably more than if the Owner did it himself.

Heights Unknown

[heights unknown]

So it would be safe to assume that the maximum time that the gas works was open was from 1874 to 1896.  22 years.  And the plant ceased operation 112 years ago. 

If Van Winkels position is correct and 20 years of the plants operation was not gassification, then the amount of time that the 'blob' might have accumulated from 'gassification' would be even briefer.

Well at least we have a bit more in the 'factual' arena to work with now.

Thanks Lake for taking the time.   That took only one day?

It's amazing what a little "teamwork" and "mutual cooperation" can do.

Heights Unknown

[downtownparks]

Aside from some posters personal indignation on behalf of the fair and decent downtown landowner, none of the questions have been answered.

[stephendare]

I dont think anyone has personal indignation on behalf of Robert Van Winkel.

There have been some fairly insulting imprecations hurled in his general direction however.

Bully for Mr Van Winkle and his over grown, nasty lump of a building. Maybe if he would mix in the occasional mow, clean the occasional litter, and maybe slap on a coat of paint, it could stand empty for another 10 years.

I agree, it would have been great if rather than sit on the property, it were developed starting soon after it was condemned in 1999, but the owner chose to let it sit and countless fires (and a couple of career ending injuries) later, it is nothing but an eye sore with no end in site.

If almost 10 years isnt enough to come up with a plan, I think the city is justified in tearing down this non-historic, non-contributing strucutre.

Good riddance.

Aside from the troubling blows to the ideas of property rights and private ownership, this seems to be the sentiment most often expressed.

However, there has been a double story line going around about this property for a while, that has existed in a near perfect vacuum of facts.

I think we have at least established the following:

The claims that present against the property seem to be based on its use as a coal gassification plant.

The contamination I have always been talking about is oil contamination and it is at the bedrock level and slowly migrating downhill (The creek, park and moving ever so slowly to the SE under the creek). This is documented with several environmental agencies and the city. Soil contamination may ALSO be an issue, but its not the issue that held up site development so far as I understood it.

As far as what I have and haven't done, Doug and I have met with DEP, DCHD, the ACoE, and the COJ in regards to this parcel. So my foot work, while perhaps shy of taking soil samples myself, has been pretty thorough, including looking at historical data. The facts are, it was a coal gasification plant, it was also later used for Auto upkeep and repair. It is proven to have petroleum contamination, and that contamination is now polluting the creek and the park, and slowly working its way down hill.

But from a little actual research we discovered that the site was only used for this purpose briefly and the last time it was used was more than 112, possibly 132 years ago.

The main pollutant which most environmentalists worry about in gassification sites is the presence of benzenes, and none of the studies listed mentioned any benzene contamination.

As demonstrated by the information in the article about the much larger Seattle Gasworks that was in operation for many decades longer, and more recently, the ground has a tendency to remediate on its own.

It might still be that there is contamination on the site.  Although the landowner has stated that the latest round of testing proves that there isnt anything significant.

But in the absence of testing either way, the case for contamination has been largely exploded.

[thelakelander]

Any update on gaining access to the latest round of testing?  It would greatly benefit the land owner to display proof that site contamination isn't a significant issue with his property.

[stephendare]

Truly.  And apparently the testing that was undertook was the same testing referred to by the state.  It seems like that would be available to anyone.

[thelakelander]

So how do we get a copy?  Since you personally know the owner and have a good relationship with him, can you talk to him about it?  Or do we have to go through the state?