Hogans Creek Park Master Plan

[thelakelander]

Here's the FSCJ Downtown Campus Master Plan:



The creek can be seen in the northeast corner.

[stephendare]

Lake, all of these things have been available for a while havent they?

Both the Shands and the FCCJ Masterplans?

[thelakelander]

^I pulled them from old MJ threads.  Both have been around for at least three years or so.

[stephendare]

So you mean, they were available to the hogans creek proposal committee?

[GideonGlib]

If someone brought up this point and I missed it, I am sorry, but is no one else seeing it as a problem that they are taking a brand new 3 acre dog park, that is actually now not only seeing neighborhood folks in Springfield and Downtown using it daily, but also bringing in folks from Arlington, San Marco, and Riverside and condensing it to a small plot on the edge of this plan?

I use this dog park 4-5 day a week, every day I am there and talk to people from all over town who are just now discovering it, and loving it. People through this park see Springfield in a new light, and it is constantly giving me an opportunity to talk up the neighborhood and other assets like Uptown Market, 3 Layers, Walkable nieghborhood, etc...

My point in this large park, nicer than the dog park in Atlanta's Piedmont Park is working to bring people and life into Springfield, if anything it should be expanded not made smaller and relegated to a far corner of this new plan. Any new plan should look at this as something that is working and expand upon that idea as a way to make this park system even more accessible to more people (and dogs).

[stephendare]

Thats right Gideon.  They are moving the entire dogpark.

Besides you and Tommy, (i don't know your dog's screen name)  how many people are usually in that park when you take him to play there?

[GideonGlib]

When we first started going months back, it was few, it seems now as word is getting out every time that we go we are seeing more and more people there. Last time we went (Wednesday) there were at least 15 dogs with their owners there (I know at least two were from Riverside and one from San Marco). On an average evening there will be 5-10 Human/Dog park users, and sometimes more, on a nice weekend day the park is well used most of the day.

The Piedmont Dog Park in Atlanta http://www.piedmontpark.org/do/dogpark.html when I lived there was THE place to go for young professionals with pets after work.

It is really exciting to see the Confederate Dog Park here in Springfield starting to become as popular.

To make it smaller and move it would be a disgrace, if anything it should be expanded and promoted even more heavily. This could be part off the puzzle that finally brings Springfield up to it's potential from it's long standing faded glory.

I would write more, and might later, but as it happens Tommy-Peterson (my Italian greyhound) has a play date with Hanna (the mini-pin) and Sharky (the pug mix) (from Avondale) in just a little white.

[Ocklawaha]

Here's the FSCJ Downtown Campus Master Plan:



The creek can be seen in the northeast corner.

Can't see all of the lettering, but is that a "working" transportation building proposed for Pearl St? If so why not the Rosa Parks?

The other one is easier to spot, they want to put a garage so that it will take half of the available Skyway right 0f way! That one without a station is dumb as a bag of glass.

OCKLAWAHA

[GideonGlib]

while...in just a little while.

[stephendare]

Unless you did what Imeson did that kept the river and the tides out, no plan will work - and if this is not done and walls and ballustrades are removed, then "nature will out" you will be back to a swamp with 100 year old garbage floating in the river. The plans do not allow for the 15 to 20 acre lake we have during heavy rain and high tide. You can tell when the tide is in by the water in Market Street.  The swamp underneath the park is tidal.  I have said this at every meeting at which I have been present.  Again,  they dredged and bulkheaded the creek in 1906, it lasted about 3 years, and that is when the Woman's Club started campaigning to get the problem fixed once and forever.  The forever lasted until there was gross neglect by the city and the flood gates at the river were removed. If you walk the creek you can see where more and more walls are in trouble.  Also note there are no trees along the creek per se, the tree line is about 100 yards away, the land will not hold trees, even now we see them topple during floods near the ball park. We know the oceans are rising, if Italy can build huge locks to keep the water out of St. Marks Square in Venice(it was getting to be 14 inches in high tides)
and Holland can build even more gigantic  ones to keep the North sea from taking back land, couldn't we get one little lock to stop the incoming water, then talk about spending millions on the park.  The river groups and people are against this, so I do not think it will happen, it is sad that the wet lands and swamp are mid-town and so collect garbage, carts and maybe bodies, they could be left natural like the inlets on the way to Fernandina, but then the parks would be lost.  The powers that be have to decide that they will keep spending in the years to come or let it all go  au naturel,  sorry I am in a bad mood tonight.  Also any removal probably would need consent of the Historic people, and Klutho considered the Venetian Waterway, his greatest achievement.

[fsu813]

Stephen,

Perhaps if you actaully attended any of the various public meetings you could have provided input. Where were you? If you had attended any of them, many of your questions would be answered....not by me, but by the PPS group and the city planners. Since you didn't choose to attend any of them, perhaps you shouldn't be so eager to critisize. Show up next time!

Off the top of my head (from attending the public meetings) here are some answers to your questions and assertions:

1) Van Winkel is on very shakey ground with the city and probably won't get his property back, last I heard. As far as the other private property goes, i'm assuming that the city feels it won't be too much of an issue. If it turns out none of the private propety can used, fine. There are 100 other good visions for the park system. This a rough draft...revisions will inevitabley will be made.

2) You don't have to watch Van Winkels, Hionedes, etc backside for them. They are grown ups. They can speak for themselves.

3) Quick mud? From digesting your quick history of the notorious quick mud epidemic (sarcasm intended), it seems like you are against changing Klutho's orginal design because you are concerned about people dying in the mud. (ha). Ok. Well. Besides that rather outlandish concern, there are other legitimate reasons why one wouldn't want to change Klutho's designs. Quick mud? Not so much. The actual basustrades have nothing to do with quick mud and don't act as a barrier of any kind obviously. The landscape that they lie on might, but not the artifact. Again, plenty of legit reasons why one wouldn't want to move or get rid of the balustrades besides the "Your kids might die!" sensationalism.

4) PPS knows what they are doing. They are a highly successful organization that has transformed urban parks around the world. If you cared to attend any of the meetings (hint hint), you would already know that this is not meant to be a "passive" park system, but an active, destination driven park system. Bike baths, jogging paths, skate park, sports courts, water features, public art, interactive water features & interactive public art, mixed use, bioremediation, Shands & FSCJ usage, public event spaces ARE ALL IN THE PLAN AND HAVE BEEN OPENLY DISCUSSED. If you bothered to attend any of the meetings (broken record, anyone?) you would have known about it and been able to participate.

5) Revisions and research are expected as the process moves forward. A lock/pump system is not out of the question, from what Zoo said earlier. And Zoo would know.



Gideon,

I don't quite understand why they would want to move the dog park either, instead of just incorportating the current one. However, i don't think it would be smaller....just moved 1 block over. While it might not make much sense to me, I don't see the harm in it.



Lake,

I think having them take a look at Shands & FSCJ's "master plans" would be great, if they haven't done so already.

[GideonGlib]

The plan posted clearly showed an area that was only about 1/3 to 1/4 the size of the current dog park . I just think right now it is the only thing really working in that park system (and barring the riverwalk any park in the urban core) I don't see why they would mess with a good thing.

[stephendare]

I am fairly certain that the posters on this forum do not need advice from other posters on when they should or should not offer criticism on the topics we choose to cover.

The plans are horrible, they rely on the permission of landowners who werent present to contribute and klutho's designs, believe it or not, included more than the balustrade.

Not knowing the history or topography of that park has broken the nose off the arguments of other springfielders on this forum, an example that might be helpful to new posters before they embarrass themselves with statements that they don't have the facts to back up.

Ock you are exactly right about the quick mud in Ortega.

[Lunican]

What happened to the concepts from the visioning process that went on with the Army Corps of Engineers about 5 years ago?

[sheclown]

If the park were say...a historic house that needed restoration... one would have to repair original components, or replace with like materials not changing the style.  The neighborhood is full of people who have taken this kind of care restoring their homes.

 For the city to suggest taking the most significant historical feature of Springfield and drastically altering the style, is insulting to all of the people who love the historic nature of the community. Not to mention a slap in the face to homeowners who have paid extra for appropriate materials and painstakingly brought components back to life. 

As for not going to public meetings?  Sh*t!  Who would have guessed anyone was seriously suggesting removing the canal from the neighborhood?  

Does SPAR support this plan?