Hogans Creek Park Master Plan

[fsu813]

Even though the plan is preliminary, the vision for the plan ought to be in place.  For example, will the balustrades be removed to have a natural creek?  

The decision to save the canal or return it to a natural creek -- has this been decided?

From what I understood, there will be parts that are retruned to a more natural state (ie, bioremediation, natural buffer zone for flooding) and parts that are not. The ballustrades would be moved further out in places to accomdate the new design. Again, from what I understood.

Do we know if SPAR is working toward preserving the canal and its balustrades?

I do not know. I would assume they want to preserve as much historical elements as possible. You could call and ask them.

SheClown.

Zoo and FSU813 are advocates of the plan, so its safe to say that SPAR is for destroying the balustrades. After all, they are historic.

Chris Farley is the one making the most sense on the entire issue, and has presented cogent, logical points about the actual issues, and is being roundly ignored by the little coterie of omniscient ophidians---or worse: patiently explained to.

Obviously SHARP is for saving them.

But really, I think the whole plan needs scrapped.  The negatives so outweigh the positives.

Whats so funny is that the input of this group was sought and given prior to all the meetings and was online and available throughout.

Both the Shands and the FCCJ master plans were also available and online throughout and were disregarded completely.

The environmental information, obviously available and presented in person by Chris Farley, was disregarded.

Who was involved in this process?  proton experts and lawn maintenance people?

- Remember the part, a page or 2 back, when I informed you that many of your concerns had already been brought up and addressed in the various public meetings that you chose not to attend?

How someone can demosntrate that they have almost no clue about the project, but then find different ways to bash it repeatedly is quite puzzling. Wait, no it's not. SPAR had a role in making it happen, so you don't like it. You have literally no idea what information was looked at and disregarded, and what was not. Where i'm from, this is called talking out of your _ _ _.

- Ms. Farley can spot a sweet talker when she sees one. Her reputation and credibility won't rub off on you, no matter how hard you try to align yourself with her.

- Since you brought it up: Can you tell us a little more about this SHARP group that you founded? The last SHARP thread was deleted when various people became critical of thier (your) inappropriate email responses to them and posted them. Suddenly *poof*, gone.

- i support saving and restoring the orginal ballustrades as well, fyi. There's a way to go about it. Making wild guesses, incorrect assumptions, and promoting false information are not the best way to support saving the original ballustrades. Showing up the the various meetings , in person, is much more effective. See you at the next one?

[stephendare]

Fsu813.

I am hardly the "founder of SHARP", nor did I send you any emails.

I will be one of the charter members however.  the organization supports things that I and many other people in the neighborhood believe in.

This type of lying that you constantly do on these forums is why I try as best as I can not to have any conversations with you.

Unlike you, when I agree with someone, I am not 'sweet talking' them.  This is something that would only occur to someone as inexperienced and basically calculating as you are.  In any case, you are certainly in no position to be able to pass judgement on either Chris Farley or myself.

Time after time, it has been demonstrated on this forum that you speak before you know what you are talking about, so I will not dignify the rest of your post with a response.

If you want constructive help on this project, then perhaps your betters should step in and prevent you from making the issue such a mass of personal attacks that it poisons the ground water?

[fsu813]

Corrections & observation:

- Perhaps you should start a thread to list all the various "lies" i've told. You have my permission. I'm obviously pathological.

- Of course I didn't pass judgement on Ms. Farley?

- I speak before I know what i'm talking about? (ha) That's rich. When I am wrong about something I readily admit it. (ie, the lock system possibility). You, on the other hand, produce long-winded rants about how awful the rough draft, making all kinds of illinformed assumptions, without attending 1 meeting. Heck, I corrected half of your assertions a couple pages back already, which you've yet to acknowledge.

- I'm ok with you personally attacking me. It's so ridiculous i'm interested in what you'll come up with next.

Back to the subject....

When is the next meeting about this?

[stephendare]

Last words seem to be important to you, fsu813.

Most of your input on springfield has to do with the people you don't want in the neighborhood,  and the businesses you don't think should open.  The rest of it has to do with 'supporting' the demolition crew at SPAR and making comments about my character.  Making statements like '

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.

dont 'address' the issues.  It merely makes you feel like youve made a response.  No matter how divorced from reality or stupid the statement itself might have been.

Where to begin with the number of outright fabrications in that statement?

Is it your contention that Mr. Van Winkel has lost the property to the City?  You said he probably won't be getting it back.  Care to elaborate on this theory of yours?

What is the basis of you making the claim that Mr. Van Winkel is 'on shakey ground with the city"?  First of all, what the hell does that mean?  Are you making potentially libelous statemtents against Van Winkel?

You claim to have an assumption that the city doesnt consider taking the rest of the private property a big deal.  What is the basis of that assumption?  Were you told that?  Will the city be simply 'taking the property"?  Are the owners indicating that they are going to give the property to them?  Were you told that there is a budget to handle acquisition of private property?

In two short sentences you managed to make at least ten false statements.  And this is your idea of 'answering the issues?'

well.  ok.

Not very broad in your interests, you have to admit.

But I agree, lets do get on with something a little more interesting. 

Is there a next meeting?

[ChriswUfGator]

Since it was mentioned, what's really up with Van Winkel anyway? That eyesore is clearly included in this plan, but it seems nobody has actually gotten his consent? Geez..

So people honestly believe he's just going to let COJ take it from him without so much as talking to a lawyer? I'm not trying to start WWIII here, but I think Stephen's got a point. That just seems unlikely to say the least. COJ may be able to get away with the demolition, citing safety reasons, but that's just the beginning since the property itself clearly has some commercial value aside from the structure.

Van Winckel will probably get a building inspector who disagrees with COJ's building inspector regarding the necessity of the demo, and they'll each hire appraisers who disagree with each other on the land's value, and they'll each hire environmental engineers who disagree with each other, etc., etc. These things drag on forever, they'll probably be fighting over it for ages. In the end COJ may wind up having to pay him at least something for his land, which may be worth more than it cost to demo the building, or at least that's what Van Winckel will argue.

And Hionides is another one. If COJ wants that, they're probably going to have to pay for it. I would hope that before anyone spends any more time and money making plans that involve privately owned properties, COJ reaches some agreement with the owners.

But even so, I believe the Park View is the only real eyesore. The other buildings are historic themselves, and would make great lofts or offices. Why destroy even more density? I don't get it. Shouldn't those be excluded?

[stephendare]

here is a graphic with the FSCJ and Shands Master Plans superimposed in scale over the hogans creek park system.

[stephendare]

They are kindof massive neighbors of the park.  Not building these huge groups of people into planned use of the park would seem short sighted to say the least.

[stephendare]

Continuing on the sculptural theme of southern mothers and children to make them more racially inclusive:

Adding another stature like this one to the park would take some of the exclusivity of 'confederate' park.





Not to mention a recognition of the historic Seminole and Creek Native American presence in the area

[thelakelander]

Taking the gates down would help.  However, that appears to have been included in the concepts so far, so that's a good thing.

fsu813, since you attended the public meeting, any idea of what has been proposed between Laura and Main or Boulevard and Pearl?

[stephendare]

Also there should be some consideration to the fact that florida weather is frequently tempestuous.  There needs to be covered areas in a park this large for people to escape rain. (as well as sun)

Check out the glass arboretum in Seattle:

[stephendare]

Check out the structures of the Minnetrista Center and Oakhurst Gardens in Muncie Indiana.
http://www.minnetrista.net/index.html

My Friend Phil designed most of this center.  He did the historic restorations of the Elisabeth Ball Mansion for the Oakhurst Gardens as well as the gardens and educational center.  (hes a pretty interesting guy, he also designed the muncie Greenway, which is a rails to trails program for that part of the state)

Butterfly gardens, educational programs et all.  its a superior experience.

[fsu813]

"Is it your contention that Mr. Van Winkel has lost the property to the City?  You said he probably won't be getting it back.  Care to elaborate on this theory of yours?"

- No, it's my contention that the chances of him losing it are greater than him keeping it. Hence, "probably". No, I don't care to elaborate on who discussed this with me. His situation is not a secret though.

"What is the basis of you making the claim that Mr. Van Winkel is 'on shakey ground with the city"?  First of all, what the hell does that mean?  Are you making potentially libelous statemtents against Van Winkel?"

- The basis is hearing it form somebody that is familar with the situation. It means that he has a history of issues with this property and the city and it's touch and go whether he will end up retaining it in the end. You throw the labels of "libel" and "liar" around a lot, i've noticed.

"You claim to have an assumption that the city doesnt consider taking the rest of the private property a big deal.  What is the basis of that assumption?  Were you told that?  Will the city be simply 'taking the property"?  Are the owners indicating that they are going to give the property to them?  Were you told that there is a budget to handle acquisition of private property?"

- I didn't use the words "big deal". Taking an educated guess, PPS and the park planners were given boundaries on what areas may be used for the park system. If these various private properties were off-limits or had little chance of being converted, then they wouldn't be even be considered. Just a guess.




Lake,

I'm not sure what areas you are referring to. Could you give cross streets? I don't have any special insight to this plan, just info from attended the various meetings.

[thelakelander]

5 and 3 on this aerial:



Here is what they look like today:

No. 5




No. 3

[zoo]

No. 5 area will have pond returned (with preserved balustrade), as water storage is a key functional requirement for the system. Various associated recreational and beautification ideas are being considered, but will not be firmed up/designed until the design phase of the project.

No. 3 area... geez, just looking at that photo of what JEA has done with the multiple sets of pipes crossing over the Creek and through the balustrade makes me nauseous. JEA had multiple representatives at the stakeholder meetings, they toured one of the activity groups through the block, and they seemed open to some of the planning team's suggestions.

[thelakelander]

"Is it your contention that Mr. Van Winkel has lost the property to the City?  You said he probably won't be getting it back.  Care to elaborate on this theory of yours?"

- No, it's my contention that the chances of him losing it are greater than him keeping it. Hence, "probably". No, I don't care to elaborate on who discussed this with me. His situation is not a secret though.

"What is the basis of you making the claim that Mr. Van Winkel is 'on shakey ground with the city"?  First of all, what the hell does that mean?  Are you making potentially libelous statemtents against Van Winkel?"

- The basis is hearing it form somebody that is familar with the situation. It means that he has a history of issues with this property and the city and it's touch and go whether he will end up retaining it in the end. You throw the labels of "libel" and "liar" around a lot, i've noticed.

"You claim to have an assumption that the city doesnt consider taking the rest of the private property a big deal.  What is the basis of that assumption?  Were you told that?  Will the city be simply 'taking the property"?  Are the owners indicating that they are going to give the property to them?  Were you told that there is a budget to handle acquisition of private property?"

- I didn't use the words "big deal". Taking an educated guess, PPS and the park planners were given boundaries on what areas may be used for the park system. If these various private properties were off-limits or had little chance of being converted, then they wouldn't be even be considered. Just a guess.

The answer to the Van Winkel situation is a short one.  The consultants are under contract with COJ.  Since when has COJ ever worried about private property in developing master plans? 

Need a history lesson?

Exhibit 1

Peyton's Big Idea


1. A "maritime park" where Hyatt currently stands
2. A "harbor town" where River City Brewing is, despite them having a 99-year lease on site.
3. A demolished and rebuilt Landing, despite Sleiman owning the structure.
4. Taking a lane off the Main Street bridge, even though its not a local road.

Exhibit 2

Main Street Pocket Park


Only the founding members of MJ remember this one.  Anyway Paul Crawford and Jack Diamond came to a MJ meeting before breaking ground on the Main Street pocket park.  They tried to convince us of a plan that called for the Main Street pocket park taking up the entire block (half the block is owned by Salvation Army), a hotel going on a privately owned parking lot across the street and a land swap with the Cathedral.

In short, if COJ is paying the consultants, most of the stuff on the plans probably come from the directions of COJ, not fsu813, SPAR or any other small player in Springfield or the blogging world.