I had a foot soldier send me this today;
The City has held two public meetings regarding the future of Spellerberg Park.
The Spellerberg MasterPlan includes:
Existing features that would be RETAINED:Â Open Field, Playground, Shelter, Trees, Sledding Hill.
Existing features that would be RELOCATED:Â Tennis Courts, Basketball Court, and Volleyball Area.
The question for the City from Day One has been……is the physical footprint of Spellerberg Park large enough to support the addition of an indoor aquatic center?
At the first public meeting (May 9th), the facilitators explained that the tentative plans drawn up by TSP include a lap/swimming pool, a separate leisure pool and a splash pad. They went on to explain that there would be parking directly to the south of the aquatic center, AND that they were working with the VA on securing an agreement for additional “shared†parking. (See Masterplan Flyer)
At the second meeting (July 12th), the flyer that was handed out still indicated that a site advantage was secondary parking nearby (VA). When questioned about this, Director Kearney said secondary parking would not be included in the Masterplan. I have it from a reliable source that the reason there will be no shared parking is because the VA has refused to sign the proposed agreement.
The fact that there was a need from the beginning of the planning process for “shared†parking is a “RED FLAGâ€!
If the physical “footprint†of the park is large enough to support an indoor aquatic center, why would you need a “shared†parking agreement with the VA?
At both public meetings, Director of Parks and Rec, Don Kearney, has emphazied no plans have been drawn up, that the City is only seeking public input at this point. When in fact, indoor pool proponents and representatives of the swim teams have met with the architect, TSP, to view tentative plans for an eight lane 50 meter olympic-size pool, a separate leisure pool, and a splash pad. There will be a total of 203 parking spaces provided south of the facility.
As a point of reference, Drakes Springs Aquatic Center includes a four lane 25 meter pool, a current channel, and a spray park. It is less than half the size of what is being proposed at Spellerberg. There are 137 parking spaces adjacent to the pool with an additional 55 “shared†spaces across Fairfax Avenue next to the SkatePark, for a total of 192 spaces.
Does the City really believe that 203 parking spaces is going to support an indoor aquatic center at least twice the size of Drake Springs?
In addition, REMEMBER, this is a facility that will be open year round. The MasterPlan does not even begin to address the parking needs for the sledding hill, tennis courts, basketball court, volleyball pits, playground, picnic shelter and ball field.
Residents in the surrounding neighborhoods (esp. to the North and East), business owners at Park Ridge, and the VA need to be paying close attention to this issue. This is where park users will be looking to park when the 203 spaces in the the Park are already in use!!
I believe the City will either have to take more “green space†from the park for parking needs, or abandon plans for an indoor aquatic center at Spellerberg.
The “physical footprint†of Spellerberg Park is not large enough to accommodate what is in the proposed MasterPlan and also provide adequate parking.
Look at all that parking! Wow! Two issues:
1) I don’t think we need this. Similar facilities are available at the Wellness Center, and maybe elsewhere that I’m not familiar with.
2) Swimming is a summertime activity, and I’m not sure why it’s a City responsibility to provide it year-round. Next we can construct the city’s first Indoor Sledding Hill just to the south! Shared parking!
3) The death of the traditional neighborhood park (and the traditional neighborhood). In my mind, a healthy neighborhood consists of a mix of housing types, maybe a local retail cluster (like a corner store or restaurant), and a few civic spaces like parks, schools, and churches. These don’t need a lot of parking because people can walk, ride their bike, or park on the street, because it’s built on a neighborhood scale. Our present philosophy seems much more focused on regional scale. Do your kids (or you) walk to the park? To school? To the store?
I’m most passionate about that last point there, but I could literally go on for a few pages, so I’ll stop. Does anybody else miss little neighborhood shops, like good-old Bel-Air Drug?
Make that three issues…
My opinion is that being the swim teams have their noses involved in this, it is something they are promoting. If they want an indoor pool let them raise the funds for it, completely without city help. It isn’t fair of the city to even be thinking of taking business away from the private indoor pools in town. If the city were to build an indoor pool being there is talk of having swim meets there, etc., that means there would be times that the general public(the ones that can afford it) would be able to use it. That would mean that it wouldn’t be completely for the use of the taxpayers that would be paying for it. The swim team should provide their own resources for swim meets.
I think if there needs to be an alternate plan – let’s allow them to do it before we poo poo the idea away. As I have said in the past – the private entities in this scenario need to pony up their portion to make this a viable project. Let’s see where that goes, also.
As far as swimming being a summer time sport – you need to wake up and look at every city of similar size (and smaller – which is emabarrassing) and realize we have people leaving EVERY weekend to go spend money in their communities for meets. We should be able to host a handful of meets every year and keep that revenue here and generate more. The days of half pint and Almonzo going to the creek for a dip in their long underwear is long gone. Swimming is now year around.
As far as the VA – I am two shakes from calling the city on their sidewalk between their enterance and Garfield Ave on 22nd St after begging their HR to get something done. There are divits the size of potholes and is extremely unsafe for anyone on bikes, scooters, rollerblades etc. On top of that – they have had a construction eyesore that shows no signs of being cleaned up on Garfield and 26th. That parking lot is EMPTY right now and completely functional for this need. If this is the road they want to go down – fine, but there are many of us that are sick of their lack of dealing with complaints and we have been “neighborly” in not calling the city becaue of our respect for being a healthcare facility for Vets, but that can change also. As a side note – I am amazed the VA does not see an advantage of their patients being able to use this facility that would be basically in their own backyard. All in all – the VA will not look good in this scenario.
I don’t understand why they wouldn’t let the city use that parking lot anyway, as someone who lives close by told me in an email, “The shared lot highlighted on the map is in my neighborhood and is deserted on evenings and weekends. That lot holds about 130 cars.”
No indoor pool. Let’s vote and shut them up again. If the city needs something to do, revise city ordinances and restore constitutional balance of power with citizen civil rights.
Alice,
You say that so many people are leaving town each weekend due to the lack of an indoor pool here. That’s called a market inefficiency. If it gets bad enough, the private marketplace will correct it. This isn’t an essential service that needs to be subsidized.
Essential services? Please. How many things are “essential services?” Some may view parks in general may not be constituted as such, but guess what?, they contribute to our quality of life, they enhance the look of our city, it is a major factor when families want to move and work here, and they can be revenue generators. Softball, soccer, and baseball fields, the bike trail, etc may not be constituted as essential services, but wouldn’t you love to know how much money soccer tournaments and even the Ring Neck softball tournament with 144 teams last weekend brought into this city in sales tax revenue? The number is astronomical. The facilities that are being constructed now with private and public money will have the capacity to do the same thing – especially in the colder months – where that does exist here 6-8 months/year.
As a side note – I spoke with a friend of mine from Pierre who has a daughter who is a swimmer and he asked me what the hell is going on in SF? I asked him what he meant and he couldn’t believe they never have the opportunity to come to SF for swim meets, but they go to Aberdeen, Spearfish, Rapid City, etc multiple times. He stated they would love to come to SF more often to be able to shop, better choice in restaurants, and the possibility of other entertainment while they are here. I told him we are working on it.
Once again for all of you that say “no indoor pool.” Spellerberg is next to be redone. As Kermit sat at the first meeting, parent after parent stood up and begged for us not to construct another “Drake Springs.” That is what we are going to get in lieu of a community minded indoor pool that ALL ages can use and has the capacity to create revenue for the city. Start raising the private money and do something that is a long-term decision.
Alice15 says….
START raising the private money…..
In 2007, during the community debate about what to do with Drake Springs……the Sioux Falls swim teams openly advocated for an indoor pool.
That was FIVE years ago….
I believe the public would like to hear from the swim teams…..how many private dollars have you raised so far?
Exactly.
I agree cr. They defintely have some skin in this game so they should share (and maybe they have – just not with us) what their fundraising efforts look like and their plan to get it raised.
My biggest problem is people are not poo pooing this idea because of what the swim teams have raised, they are poo pooing it because of parking, and “not in my neighborhood,” etc. We cannot continue to consistently keep putting everything new recreationally and otherwise on 85th & Louise and 26th & Highway 11. You have to invest in your core and your central components of your city or you will have Pettigrew and such over and over again and the cost and time to clean those areas up, redevelop, etc is much more taxing on the community than reinvesting to begin with.
Why not put it next to Cherapa Place?
Because then all the poor people will send their stupid kids there and it will be another overcrowded grope fest like Drake Springs Community Welfare Bathtub.
Well – Angry Guy – I see now how you came up with your name on here.
Alice – He has been pretty giddy lately, the smell of the burbs is starting to go to his head 🙂
It’s interesting how, often times, comments reveal more about the commentator than they do about the subject-at-hand.
Good Example: Angry Guy @ 2:57
Wait.. are you insinuating that I’m being elitist or racist? I just want to be sure before I commentate my response on the subject-at-hand.
While this pains me a bit, I will take AG’s side on this one, he isn’t too far off the mark. I would be curious to see how many kids actually pay for swimming at Drake Springs, or have reduced fares. I think it is a fair question. And BTW, the large attendance of the pool proves that it should stay an outdoor pool.
Large attendance at the pool only proves that people like to swim when its 100 degrees out.
Or drink beer.
Imagine an indoor pool with a cash bar…
Adult only saturday night swim in movies.
The large atendance proves it should stay an outdoor pool? What other choices do they have? I am fairly confident you would have seen those numbers in more months of the year with an indoor facility as well.
When kids are in school or don’t have a ride to the pool at night?