I have had it with this talking point from city councilors and people in our local media;
“It just makes me sick when I drive past Drake Springs pool during the winter and see it sitting empty.” (sic)
First off, get over your sour grapes already. Voters CHOSE and outdoor pool over an indoor pool. It’s a done deal. Secondly, an indoor municipal pool will cost $$$ to operate year round. How much do our outdoor pools cost us during the winter when they are closed? NOTHING.
“It just makes sick when I drive past Elmwood in the middle of January and don’t see anybody playing golf, what a waste of a good golf course.”
It just makes me sick when I drive past the ice skating rink at Sertoma and 26th during the summer and see it sitting empty.
I’m as equally upset when I drive by the tennis courts at McKennan Park and see them going unused for months all winter!
Then to add insult to injury I am forced to drive by the city shop by Cliff Ave and see all of those snow plow blades and salt spreaders sitting there all summer long and not once do they even bother to use them!
Your comparisons are less than accurate at best. Golf courses and tennis courts can be used 7 months+ each year. The ice skating rinks are also used for roller hockey or if they are grass rinks, my son has had soccer and flag football practices at many of them which allows these ares to be used year around. How long is Drake Springs or any other outdoor pool open? – 10 weeks. That is 2 1/2 months. I am as tired of hearing you complain and make inaccurate comparisons as you are of hearing people complain about Drake Springs.
How is the comparison inaccurate? It doesn’t cost us anything to run a pool that is not open. That is my only point.
So quality of life items are of good use when they don’t cost us anything? Sorry I would rather see use more than sitting there with snow on it or an item that cannot be used when it is below 70 degrees. Golf courses, parks, ice rinks, tennis courts, bike trail, an indoor pool, etc can all be used more year around than not as my husband golfed in early December this year. How long had Drake Springs been closed at that point? 3 months. How long will it continue to be closed until summer? 6 months. That’s my point.
Geez what interesting responses to a thought provoking post. We have many quality of life things in this little town we do not need everyday. Remember this is not a business with cost centers requiring quantifiable ROI.
We could list all the same items being close during bad weather.
The point still remains. Stop relitgating the old stuff. Let us learn from and use these lessons.
“Your comparisons are less than accurate at best.”
You may have a point. Now that I think about it, those snowplows have only been used a handful of times this year! We should be outraged that they are only used a fraction of the time an outdoor pool is opened!
Nice try Alice, but the bottom line is facilities which are open less time, cost a lot less to operate. The cost of a facility is a fixed cost, but the operational costs vary greatly. It doesn’t cost us much to maintain an outdoor concrete pool in December, but an indoor facility will cost us 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Simply put – the argument about facilities being unused is silly, and as DL pointed out it applies to far, far more than just swimming pools.
But hey – I hear the YWCA has a pool open year round. Perhaps you should consider a membership. Then there would be no need to concern yourself with pools that happen to be closed.
Alice, you are more then welcome to take a dip in Drake Springs in January, if you want to get all Buddist monk on our asses, but I prefer heated indoor pools in January. I heard there are OVER EIGHT of them already in Sioux Falls, not to mention many of the hotels will let you swim in their indoor pools for a small fee.
Outdoor pools – not being used all “winter” are subject to the ravages of the freeze/thaw cysle and other “stuff” -which combine to make their overall useful life SHORTER to an indoor pool. An outdoor pool will typically need to be REBUILT after 25-30 years. Indoor pool will last at least TWICE as long. It may not cost anything to “opertae” an outdoor pool in “winter” – but that doesn’t mean “costs” (future maintenance) aren’t being incurred while it’s sitting there idle.
rufusx you may have a point about lifespan… but I’m not convinced lifespan has much bearing, and I’ll tell you why.
Can you imagine Sioux Falls building an indoor pool and then walking away for 50-60 years without rebuilding, remodeling, or enhancing? Not bloody likely.
Even if the pool itself is still functional, it will need new filtration and since the heating equipment runs year round it’s lifespan is shorter (do our outdoor pools even having heating equipment?). The building will need new HVAC and dehumidification equipment. The parking lot will need new surfacing, and now we have to remove snow from that parking lot all winter as well. We will need a new roof on the structure, we will need everything from lightbulbs to bathroom remodeling.
Whether indoor our outdoor I’d be shocked to see a facility not undergo some type of major renovation after 20-25 years.
I’d really love to see the total costs for both types of facilities broken out by the actual amount of time they are used. I really don’t think they are as far apart as some people like to think.
On a related note… talk about first world problems. We are seriously so spoiled that we now feel we need to be able to swim in a heated pool year round. What’s next… take a page from Dubai and build and indoor ski slope so we can go skiing in August? Seems legit.
Holy crap you people can pull sh** out of anywhere. Resurface parking lots and remove snow? Pretty sure that is already done. And comparing a community pool to hotels and fitness clubs? Get real for cryin’ out loud. Pretty sure kids from Edison could afford a pass to swim at this pool before they could afford a fitness membership or $130 room at the Ramada for one night.
I bet it will cost less for a family to join the Y than it will to get a pass to this place.
I bet it will cost less for a family to join the Y than it will to get a pass to this place.
Alice are you ready to subsidize the indoor pool and new four lane street and tennis courts and parking lots and congestion and upset merchants because no one can get into their small parking lot?
There are many of us in Sioux Falls who are tired of the decisions being made in neighborhoods without any thought or concern for the makeup of said neighborhoods.
A kid at Edison may not even know anything about what it really costs for said pool if there was a roof over it. The kid’s parents might not even be able to afford the house in the Edison neighborhood because of the tax load being dumped on them.
At what point do we raise up to fight the financial burdens levied on the average resident by the so-called ‘leaders’?
BTW, outdoor pools are designed to sit unheated during the ravages of a SoDak winter. They are also designed to last 30-40 years with this understanding. Spellerberg and old Drake Springs are examples of how they are suppose to survive before replacement.
Minor work on Spellerberg will allow it to survive many more years for not much and the neighborhood would be very happy.
Drake Springs was worn out and needed something done. The solution gave kids a place to play but adults, not so much. The deign is very limited, almost a revenge on the neighborhood by a vengeful city hall.
Now, if we can just get more skyways downtown, get the Sanford dome built, and this indoor pool done, then pretty soon no one will ever have to go outside in SF again!
Except to take a shit.
@Testor – yes! This is my neighborhood and I look at this as a revitalization and enhancement to a neighborhood that is aging at an extremely quick pace. I am ready for this facility to be at a central location along a bus route instead of on the outskirts of town. Even if they decided to leave this an outdoor pool, it won’t be an outdoor pool. It will be another “fat” pool with lazy rivers and shallow areas for large people to sit on their bum to stay cool which will also require further parking, wider streets, and more traffic. I am interested in a pool that can generate economic dollars year around.
Just as an FYI – I do not have any children that are part of swim teams, synchronized swimming or any other group that this facility could assist. My husband and I are normal Joe citizens with kids that reside in this neighborhood. We would love this area to be a place where our kids can swim or go sledding or both.
“Resurface parking lots and remove snow? Pretty sure that is already done.”
Drive by one of our community (outdoor) pools Alice and you will see they don’t plow the parking lots in the off season. I would think you may also understand that if a parking lot isn’t used for a portion of the year and if traffic on that lot is reduced (not to mention snow plows aren’t scraping it) the lot will last exponentially longer.
These are valid points Alice. I’m sorry that you have to resort to emotional pleas as you toss them aside.
“And comparing a community pool to hotels and fitness clubs? Get real for cryin’ out loud. Pretty sure kids from Edison could afford a pass to swim at this pool before they could afford a fitness membership or $130 room at the Ramada for one night.”
The YMCA offers reduced pricing for low income children. Also, some of our local hotels (not all… but some) will actually allow people to swim in their pools during the day for a small fee with no need to actually rent a room because their pools typically are underutilized during the day. I have a friend who worked at a local hotel and they actually would allow families with young kids to swim there for FREE simply by asking (he worked at the desk and said it was rare for people to ask, so it wasn’t worth them trying to collect a few bucks to let them swim). Thus if people really NEED to swim, they can probably do so for a low cost.
“I am interested in a pool that can generate economic dollars year around.”
Alice, Alice, Alice…. surely you understand that a pool will never generate more revenue than it costs to operate don’t you? The reality is it will be a net expense, and aside from perhaps a few local convenience stores or eateries, there is likely to be no increased economic activity as a result of a pool.
That isn’t to say there aren’t other benefits – there is the quality of life issue, the revitalization aspect you spoke about etc., but economic impact? Not likely.
I leave with one final thought. If they opted to build an indoor pool over at Keuhn Park for example (which could be utilized by Roosevelt High School), would you still be in support of it? Why or why not?
I’m really tired of hearing about swimming pools. We’re good for now. No indoor tennis either. Mostly because Huether would overdo it. There will be plenty of room for tennis inside the new events center when it fails for lack of bookings.
Pump water into the 10 acre rock quarry SE. from I-29 & Madison. There’s your swimming pool and winter hockey rink.
One thing you all are forgetting is the original “indoor pool” that got shot down was actually more of a multi-purpose rec center. IIRC it had a pools for competitive diving & competitive swimming, as well as indoor facilities for soccer, basketball, softball & hockey…maybe tennis but I’m not certain. So yes, this facility was designed to not only let neighborhood kids swim & play year round, but also to host meets, events, & practices for various teams & clubs that would’ve rented it out and helped cover the nut. You would’ve also had a neighborhood boost by people coming in for meets and renting hotels, eating & shopping. This place was falsely politicized as a luxury playground for the “rich kids” that would’ve destroyed the neighborhood. What we ended up with instead was a multi million $$ splash park that generates no secondary economic impact whatsoever since it was simply another outdoor pool to replace the old one, just with a lazy river and some fountains.
All that pent up demand that could’ve covered the original nut is now going to Sanford’s complex to help them cover their nut, like they needed the help.
As a parent that does travel for kid’s sporting events, I know what I add to a city’s economic engine in a weekend – or multiple weekends. Familes, competitors, and clubs are dying to come to SF for weekends of competitions because of what we offer in a weekend for things to do. Instead they are going to Pierre, Mitchell, and other places such as Aberdeen as they have better facilities than we do. It is embarrassing at best.
As far as plowing snow – they do plow the parking lot at Spellerberg hence the location we are speaking about.
And no – I would not support a facility at Kuehn Park. If you look at a map – that would be closer to an outskirt of town versus a central location. That neighborhood is not in need of a revitalization – my neighborhood – Spellerberg – is.
The Spellerberg neighborhood is in need of revitalization? Tell that to the north-enders.
Then fight for your area. I am fighting for mine before I feel the need to say “tell that to people in the Spellerberg area.” Look at the people fighting for the Pettigrew area? People are listening and participating and that area is changing. Slowly – but definitely changing.
“generates no secondary economic impact”
Sy, c’mon, there is no economic impact of an indoor swimming pool. Sure, there is some sales tax revenue trickling in, but it has no impact on me. Just more money out of the CIP away from needed projects. Your argument is almost laughable. You can look at this everyway since Tuesday, and there is NO WAY the economic impact will out weigh the subsidy. Let’s face it, why not just be honest with the public. ‘This is going to cost more then what we get back out of it. But the kids need a swimming pool in the winter time (that is not private) – even though they really don’t.
And Scott is right, that neighborhood is very nice, shit, I wished I lived in it.
I travel through the Spellerberg neighborhood everyday….
Alice, please tell me what part of that area needs revitalizing…..
I’d like to go take a look…….because I’ve never seen it.
Maybe Alice thinks the houses selling for 175,000 need to sell for 225,000.
But Alice wants it so we should all shut up and let her have her way. Lol
I don’t tell people to shut up. I am just tired of seeing some certain people jump into every issue because they have the time to. Pick you causes and be effective. There are some that are losing their relativity because they choose to jump infront of a camera every other week. DO what you will, but eventually people will start tuning you out.
There is nothing wrong with the houses around Spellerberg NOW, but as I said, for the most part, it is an aging population and those tend to be the houses that become more affordable as they are smaller and need lots of work. Me personally – we picked our house up for dirt cheap and gutted it. Not everyone wants to gut it and add to the value of their home and their neighborhood. For goodness sake – you all know what I am talking about.
As many of you know – I am for reinvesting in our core and the central components of our city. That’s my choice. Some are for reinvesting in the middle of corn fields or along the interstate or in an industrial park and that’s their choice, but I choose to fight for the central area as I have observed cities that have let their central areas die and in the end – it effects every single area of town and every other single person.
Some of you fight for snow gates and that is fine. In the beginning, I didn’t give 2 shits about snow gates, but reading the posts has made me think about it differently. You don’t have to like what I post, but I am consistent and hopefully that means something.
Speaking of the central parts of town – so glad the almighty Homan and the school board were so honest when they were deciding to consolidate Mark Twain and Longfellow in the fact that they are now going to rip out people’s houses. The article in the AL yesterday was full of lies. There is no “may,” in this scenario. They are and they have already made offers. The school board should be embarrassed.
“And no – I would not support a facility at Kuehn Park. If you look at a map – that would be closer to an outskirt of town versus a central location. That neighborhood is not in need of a revitalization – my neighborhood – Spellerberg – is.”
Which is what I figured you would say. So you are against a facility if it is built anywhere but in your own backyard, yet you expect the rest of the city to pay for it so your property values can climb.
Do you really wonder why people can’t take the arguments about economic impact at face value? This isn’t about economic impact. This isn’t about opportunities for children so they can be involved in competitive swimming. This is just about your neighborhood and getting the taxpayers to fund improvements.
“The article in the AL yesterday was full of lies. There is no “may,†in this scenario. They are and they have already made offers. The school board should be embarrassed.’
Is this sort of like when you told us that Homan had already had discussions about selling the other two schools to one of our local hospitals and that there were all of these closed door meetings. Yet after the facts came to light, not only did those meetings never occur and not only was there not any type of an agreement but now the school district is offering the city the opportunity to take the school for as little as $1.
I’d have a hard time being anything but skeptical at your “facts”. We know the school board hasn’t been quick to demolish homes in the past, and the person quoted in that article indicated although they might be willing to sell for the right price, there didn’t appear to be an offer made yet. So he must be lying and the school board must be lying, and the Argus must be lying too.
I guess it is all a conspiracy to keep the public in the dark right? Not sure what purpose that would serve, but since you tell me the AL story was full of lies obviously I should just take your word for it since you have been so accurate in the past. (yes that is sarcasm)
I’ve never heard of Spellerberg being considered part of the “central core” of the city. In fact, the EC location that you so detest is approximately the same distance from downtown as your neighborhood.
The north enders got the Events Center & vice versa.
As for the indoor pool, what I said was the multi-use rec center which got torpedoed into present day Drake most certainly had a quantifiable positive economic impact. Sanford’s complex is estimating 900K visitors a year, the AL just today is editorializing about how visionary they are for doing those projects and how much they will benefit both the kids and the citizens vis a vis capturing the dollars associated with sporting families and year round use.
You don’t play golf, but as a citizen you befefit when those who do use the City’s golf courses, especially if they decide to sit down and have a hot dog & a few beers after the round. The Falls was a dump 20 years ago, we spend money to make it nice, put in a little restaurant, visitor center & link up the bike trails and we end up with 300K+ visitors a year rolling through there now.
As for Spellerberg, the plan as designed will not only offer year round use to those kids, but will also allow a place for the clubs to hold meets = positive impact, it won’t cover the nut entirely, but it will help more than what we have a Drake now. There’s proof all over town and across peer cities about how the City invests in making something nice, even top notch and the payback comes back in spades.
Scott is right. Alice, your neighborhood is called ‘Proper’ I have two different friends who live right by Spellerberg. I live in Central SF.
Like Craig says, this is about wanting an indoor pool for a certain set of special interests. I still think it should be built with a HS to get the most usage, but I guess the SF School District doesn’t have money for indoor swimming pools, they are too busy spending their money on private education contracts and demolishing homes.
BTW, didn’t Stehly and/or Rath state publicly that they had no issue with Spellerberg when the plans were first shown last year? What’s changed?
Alice is really lucky to have so many people who don’t live there telling her what her neighborhood is and isn’t.
She also works downtown, and again back in the late 80’s we had a downtown area that was a joke. It was crappy and the City was still licking it’s wounds after the failed pedestrian mall. Then Don Dunham took one of those evil TIF’s and rehabed the Shriver building when everyone else told him he was nuts. I’m sure the peanut gallery then was about as correct as today’s…especially since then the taxable value of downtown property has increased about tenfold.
Moral of the story: Don’t listen to people who’s vision doesn’t extend past the end of their driveway.
You would have to ask them.
This is how I look at it (Pros and Cons)
– Would an indoor pool in that neighborhood be a nice addition. YES.
– Would it be utilized? YES.
– Is there enough parking? No.
– Is it the best location for it’s value? NO. (like I have said, the sports complex or tied in with a school would be our best value.
While there is many POSITIVES in building the pool at Spellerberg, the cons outweigh the pros. Factor in the subsidy we will be paying, and the fact that there is already many indoor swimming pools people can use in SF that charge a fee, and indoor pool just doesn’t make economic sense.
Sy – There is a difference between private developers getting TIFs to redevelop property, and just flat out using taxpayer money to redevelop. I see the building of an indoor pool as some threshold the Parks and Rec department wants to pass so they can build more and continue to expand their department, when they know damn well they will be competing with private business.
I would support a pool in the central components of SF. The current plan happens to be at Spellerberg.
Do not tell me what I know about the Mark Twain area. I absolutely do know that offers have made to homeowners and absolutely know that this WAS NOT part of the conversation prior to the vote to consolidate. That article yesterday was all about “may” happen which in fact already has happened. I know this – you do not. The people that the Argus spoke with already have their house on the market to the west. They are buying houses to the south – not the west – of which was NEVER relayed to these homeowners until the offer came across. You can say what you want but you will be eating crow when this all comes to light and I will simply accept an “I’m sorry” at that time. And please notice how the Jefferson property has now been put “on hold.” Geez – I wonder why? People started figuring out her master plan and she couldn’t take the heat. She doesn’t like it when she gets called out on items. Hey – but lucky us. Our schools will be safer in a year and a half (pathetic!), we’ll have a nice contract for Joe Foss that we get to pay for, and we will have a specialized school, ie a charter school we get to pay for, for the Spanish Immersion Program – (which is fine, but those parents should pay for it).
Homan operates in a bubble and the school board allows her to. She has stated to more than one school employee that she lies because the media forces her to. Well – she is now tearing down neighborhood schools and people’s homes. It’s very sad and your only recourse is to attack me. Next time you go to a school board meeting like I did last Monday – let me know. Until then – don’t tell me what I know. I am an active parent. It’s my job to know!
Like I said before, you build it at one HS you screw the others unless they all get one. Also, unless your grabbing park land at Washington or Kuehn none of the HS sites are big enough or have enough room..Lincoln in particular would be extremely difficult unless you want to buy houses and demolish them, oh wait we’re not very good at that are we?
The City already owns the site, and if they wanted to jump in out at Sanford or on the edge of town they would have to buy & develop 10 acres or so, so get out your checkbook for at least $3 million to make that go.
Last point, the parking issue at Spellerberg is a bit of a myth. I’ve been there when the parking lot is half full and the pool is packed, why? Because half those kids walk/ride their bikes over to the pool and back home or they get dropped off. Or maybe they take the Bus which stops right at Park Ridge. Put it on the edge of town and you need an acre or two of parking because there’s no other way to get there unless you drive.
The discussion made concerning parking at Spellerberg must include the ‘dream’ of weekly meets for out of town swim teams to participate. When these out of town swimmers and their families arrive in the 40′ team busses, vans and the cars think about the parking issue.
Spellerberg currently does not have the traffic capacity or parking capacity necessary.
I for one would really like a real 50 meter pool to swim laps. What I do not want is the poorly conceived plan currently slated for Spellerberg.
Testor is right. If we are going to do it, do it right.
I think it is outrageous to spend money on a pool and elaborate water sliding equipment that can only be used two and one-half months a year.
Alice that is the beauty of the Internet – you can claim you know all types of things but that doesn’t mean they are factual. Perhaps in your world the school district offering one of the schools to the city was just a dog and pony show to distract from some closed door agreement that Pam has with Kelby as they dined on lobster and drank bottles of Dom Perignon… but back in the real world it is painfully obvious you place too much stock in rumors and are quick to demonize those whom you may disagree with.
Maybe the district has started talking to homeowners about land purchases and maybe they haven’t. But we know one thing for certain – city government is not at all efficient, so you aren’t going to convince me they went from planning stages to making firm offers for purchase all in a matter of 30-45 days especially when they have admitted they don’t even have an architect hired yet or a design for the actual school.
Hey – maybe they can buy up a few more houses and add an indoor pool to that new school!!
But that would make sense Craig. That’s not how the School District and City operate.
1) Make sure any decision made will benefit the special interest minority over the voting majority. (Grease some palms)
2) Spend DOUBLE of what the project should cost (hey, it’s not our money
3) Bond for the project so it APPEARS no extra taxdollars are being spent to build it (then raise water rates)
Testor is using the same old, tired “Easter Sunday” argument..ie you don’t build your church for Easter Sunday when it’s 10x as packed as it normally is.
l admit I don’t go to swim meets, but I have gone to
a lot of soccer & softball tournaments both in Sioux Falls and in neighboring cities. I haven’t seen any of the teams whether they are my kids age or up to HS age rolling in with their own Greyhound bus. Maybe swimming is a millionaire’s sport, so perhaps I’m out of the loop.
What I can tell you is some places I travel to are really nice with plenty of parking, easy access and top notch facilities. Some aren’t much more than fields with gravel lots and couple porta potties. In Council Bluffs for example, they have about a 50 car lot in the middle of all the fields and at peak tourney time there’s at least 300 cars trying to get there. So you’re either lucky with your timing or you drop your player off and you go find a spot. Some folks parked in the shopping mall lot about 1/4 mile away and walked (oh the horror). I went around the back area in the park where the woods are and parked along a service road. This meant I had to walk about 200 yards through a grassy, wooded area with nothing but deer trails. Mind you we’re a family of 5 with young kids so this also meant carrying all the chairs and associated stuff. Was it inconvient? Hells yeah..actually it was a major PITA. Did it in any way ruin my day to the point where I vowed I’d never return? Did I spend time bitching about how screwed up CB is and how moronic they must be to put us through such trauma?
Hell no, I forgot about the walk about 3 minutes before kickoff and even though we had to make the same trek back we dealt with it…I told the kids we got a bonus nature hike. Had a great time at the tourney.
Look at Jazzfest, 80000 people fighting for about 400 spots, half of which are taken by vendors and police. It’s been that way for years and people still come and more importantly, they come back.
So again, stop with the fearmongering about people not being guaranteed a front row spot somehow dooming a project like this from the get go…it ain’t happening in the real world.
Sy has some very valid points – I don’t feel the parking situation is a huge factor here. Swim events aren’t exactly known for being a huge spectator sport, so most people attending these types of things are family members and friends of those participating. They will be coming regardless, so it doesn’t matter if they have to park a few blocks away.
Besides no matter where they build a new indoor aquatic complex (and we all know it will happen eventually) I’m sure they will size the parking appropriately. Will they size it for the busiest day of the year? Perhaps not, but I doubt people will need to walk more than a few blocks to their vehicles.
I’m still of the belief that we don’t need such a facility and I’d still like to see private groups raised funds if they determine it is necessary, but I’m also not naive and I know it will be built within the next few years because once the city council and mayor decide they want something it is only a matter of time public opinion be damned.
Well, like I have mentioned before on South Dacola. All we need to do is build a really big parking lot out near Brandon adjacent to the the new high speed Amtrak train depot. Then we will run two light rail spurs from there to the Events Center and Spellerberg. Better yet, lets make that one light rail line with two stops … that would probably be a better way of keeping the overall costs down.
Winston – that had better be a privately owned and operated parking lot anjd rail system – because – you know – they’re so much more efficient. Geez, wouldn’t it be great if we could all just not have to live in public cities with all the horrible governent and all and instead could in corporate plaza’s, governed by CEOs?
rufusx, are you envisioning a modern day Pullman town,
or just a more sophisticated gated community? I am sure there are some developers in this town who would be more than happy to oblige.
But, ONLY IF they get a TIF!!!!
I wonder if Rome was built with TIFs? I know it was not built in a day.
“You would have to ask them.”
Since they both read your site I thought I had.
80000 at jazzfest makes me lol.
@Craig – I’m sorry will do when warranted.
If the indoor pool is built at Spellerberg, the same people who wanted it, will be the same people bitching that people are parking in front of their house!
Right?!
The City has held two public meetings regarding the future of Spellerberg Park.
The Spellerberg MasterPlan includes:
Existing features that would be RETAINED: Open Field, Playground, Shelter, Trees, Sledding Hill.
Existing features that would be RELOCATED: 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.
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 emphasized 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.
Spellerberg Park will have a total of 203 parking spaces provided south of the indoor aquatic center. 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 are enough 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 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.
siouxfalls.org… ***Thursday, January, 24, 2013***
Public Focus Group to Determine Future of City Aquatics Program
Sioux Falls Parks and Recreation needs your help! The community is invited to attend a public focus group meeting to discuss the future of the City’s aquatics program.
The focus group will meet at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 24, at Kuehn Community Center, attached to Oscar Howe Elementary School, located at 2801 South Valley View Road.
WTH is this all about?!
“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?”
Because they know people will politicize the parking issue as a red herring to torpedo the whole plan. If you look at the VA, they have acres of parking and at any given time you don’t see those lots even 20% full.
My guess is an agreement to share their lot will likely take months to negotiate, I highly doubt you send over a proposal and get a yay or nay right back.
Final point, Spellerberg is roughly 16 acres of space. Drake isn’t even 10…the “there’s no room there” line is pure bunk.
Sy says…..
Final point, Spellerberg is roughly 16 acres of space. Drake isn’t even 10…the “there’s no room there†line is pure bunk.
Sy, this is inaccurate information. Nelson Park where Drake Springs pool is located consists of 34 acres, more than two times the size of Spellerberg.
They will have to create adequate parking if built there, as the Park Ridge tenants will not take kindly to their spots being taken by pool visitors. Don’t think it’s a big deal? It is if you’re a business owner. You don’t mind if it’s just for a few minutes, but too many people would take complete advantage of it. It’s a pretty crowded lot to begin with.
Alice: “I’m sorry will do when warranted.”
I agree. Therefore I’m assuming you have already drafted your notes of apology to Dr. Homan and Mr. Krabbenhoft.
Even if the city doesn’t have a formal agreement with the VA, people will still park there (as they already do). I really don’t think parking will be a huge sticking point because in the summer when kids traditionally have free time to swim (and parents have time to take them) when demand is highest, walking a few blocks won’t be a big issue. Besides – on a warm summer day I’d be willing to bet a lot of parents will steer the kids towards one of the outdoor pools, because just like baseball games (weather permitting)… swimming is always better in the open air.
For those that do choose the indoor pool, many will likely be from that area where they will walk to and from the pool, thus no parking required.
In the winter when there are indoor swim meets parking needs will be lower, so is this really going to be a problem?
I can see the Park Ridge businesses being slightly nervous as they tend to run out of parking the way it is, but I can’t say as I see parking being a major issue here. If they opt to build at Spellerberg, I’m sure parking needs will be easily met.
@CR, the area that’s bordered by Fairfax is 2 city blocks wide by 3 city block deep or roughly 600′ by 900′ and Fairfax cuts across it at an angle so it’s not even a rectangle. Even if you square it up, that’s still only 12 acres. Google earth it if you don’t believe me.
No way that’s 34 acres unless your counting the Beadle greenway across the river.
I also know some people who own businesses at Park Ridge, a few swim meets a year along with winter swimmers would be a nice bump for their businesses as it would bring people in who normally wouldn’t be in the neigborhood.