Change takes a long time: Parks edition
Today we had a ribbon cutting for the new Fabian Lakeside Pavilion at Sugar House Park in Salt Lake, where I am on the board. One of seven pavilions, they are about 60 years old. The Park is about 70 years old, a regional park, and unusually, owned by the City and County jointly but overseen by an independent board.
The pavilion project is interesting for a bunch of reasons:
- the original pavilion study dates to 2016. So it took 8 years to construct the first new pavilion.
- the park, being jointly owned by the city and county, has interesting problems with capital funding, as the agreement calls for joint and equal funding, leading to lots of paper and accounting issues.
- But the two different governments work on different Capital Improvement Planning (CIP) schedules and only last year did I figure out how to make the two separate processes congruent--for our purposes, the equivalent of one process
- the city started putting money aside for this pavilion 4-5 years ago. The county a bit more recently.
- the original design for the pavilion was very modern and execrable (a lot of architecture firms aren't interesting in referencing architectural history).
The latter made me blow up the meeting and we had a special session later where we worked out a style that was a bit more balanced, with some cues to historic park architecture.
After the board meeting, I happened to go to a conference with a session on historic park architecture, featuring buildings and structures of the US Forest Service, and I ended up writing a long paper about park architectural history.
And I realized for the first time that most park system master plans fail to discuss park architecture generally, let alone park architectural history ("I discovered a massive omission in local parks master planning: it fails to discuss architecture and design in an overt way," 2023). Which dates to the late 1800s with railroads creating lodges to serve the large western national parks. This approach to design was continued by the National Park Service when it was created in 1916 ("parkitecture"), and was updated in the 1950s for modernism.
For various reasons, state and local park systems tended to adopt this approach, abetted by the New Deal, when many state and local parks were built by various federal government works programs, using design guidelines developed by the National Park Service as the lead, but also the US Forest Service. (Other federal agencies like BLM use the same guidelines.)
This issue was one that inspired my series of articles on gaps in park master planning:
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Two | Utilizing Academic Research as Guidance"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Three | Planning for Climate Change/Environment"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Four | Planning for Seasonality and Activation"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Five | Planning for Public Art as an element of park facilities"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning, Part Six | Art(s) in the Park(s) as a comprehensive program "
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Seven | Park Architectural (and Landscape Design) History"
-- "Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Eight | Civic Engagement"
and specifically with architecture and the cultural landscape (""Gaps in Parks Master Planning: Part Seven | Park Architectural (and Landscape Design) History").
I suppose there are a couple more I should write, on transportation access ("Revisiting: Access to Theodore Roosevelt Island, a national park in Washington, DC," 2022), on planning for multiple agencies owning parks in particular jurisdictions ("Federal shutdown as another example of why local jurisdictions should have more robust contingency and master planning processes," 2013), and including for profit actors in the sector as part of master planning ("Why community recreation plans should include for profit actors: What do you do when important assets face dissolution?," 2021) which I've written about for even longer.
Still, 8 years. One of the other board members really helped push this along in the past 18 months, so it does show the value of having independent boards. Again, it puts in perspective how long change takes. That's the equivalent of two political terms. I always laugh when after 6 months or so people are complaining about the failure of newly elected public officials to do anything.
.... But you've got to invest in those boards. The city and county have failed to do that. Luckily, we have a couple of more engaged board members, and the board is becoming more active and less passive.
====
I fought to keep grills as part of the program. Our park manager (the County) has been removing grills. But because we are independent, they had to do what we wanted. I argued grills are part of equity. Similarly, we've developed some nice signage for the pavilion, although it's not quite installed.
Labels: architectural history, civic architecture, civic assets, comprehensive planning/Master Planning, parks and open space, parks and recreation planning, urban design/placemaking
posted by Richard Layman @ 9:12 PM&Permanent Link
14 Comments:
Hey, sorry being quiet -- glad to see you posting again.
My stock answer to why infrastructrure costs so much is lack of knowledge -- we are letting the contractors set the terms -- but the lack of ownership is another big reason.
I kinda have a form of anorexia. I'm afraid to eat. So lack of calories has affected my motivation, and ability to do stuff including writing.
they've taken the tube out, right?
Boost or protein drinks?
You gotta eat and power the big brain!
Would you say the real delay here was the two budget cycles -- or the other stuff?
https://www.ksl.com/article/51147308/new-sugar-house-park-pavilion-opens-signaling-flurry-of-future-improvements
Will respond on computer...
much better picture in the article
You're knocking my photography. But yep, that bollard doesn't help.
It's both the cycles and the two different entities, and the board. My joke is that for a long time the park was in the "big daddy era" where an official from county parks was on the board for 20+ years and basically ran things. When I say the board, mostly the board took their cues from him, and the county and city never really invested in board development. He left a couple years ago. Here and there the board has had people with planning, architecture, or contracting experience, but I don't think they ever really stood up.
So the city was allocating money but the county wasn't (to be fair, the county did fund other projects through different funding systems). The new representative isn't inclined to be big daddy, he has many other parks to oversee and responsibility.
It's not in my nature to be passive, but I am a forest person. We added another board member who is a tree person, and a super dynamo. (Another good person too.) I joke without them I'd just be an old guy yelling into the wind. She really accelerated the pavilion. She and I are reviving the capital planning process. Still learning all the options and opportunities.
I think the park needs to move to the conservancy model, with some staff, but maybe that's achievable by the end of my tenure (2030), if I manage to live that long.
WRT the budget cycles, interestingly, while we figured out how to make them current, each has certain rules etc. that are different, and the county has more which has made things different.
For example the Park's City Councilmember (Salt Lake) stepped up and got them to correct a mistake and fund two new pavilions. But the county says "we only do one at a time." We're dealing with that now.
Speaking of board stuff, we need a strategic plan (another thing on my list) including inter-governmental relations, to include the County and City Councils (legislative), not just the executive branches.
Then again, there is so much to do, and not enough active board members to do it. Plus the last week of September I am trying to do our first street closure event for the park (but with other organizations to get more volunteers etc.), alongside grantwriting, trying to orchestrate the ability to get planning funds and then a proposal for a big building project with due dates Fall 2025, trying to get the one for profit piece of land on the blog "given to us", general grantwriting, other stuff (e.g., budgeting--we make very little $ outside of pavilion rental, we're wiping out our fund balance which accretes at only $30K per year. I am trying to get us to raise the rates and some other funding sources, so that we can add $100,000 to that--separate from the other funding from city and county and whomever else), and trying to build a presence within the philanthropic community (e.g., just learned the Marriott Foundation mostly focuses on the DC area, although they've helped fund libraries at BYU and Utah). Frankly, with the health stuff, it's good to have something to do--excepting my energy level.
That building project is to replace a 60+ year old building. And the primary funding source comes up only every 10 years. Salt Lake County has an arts tax (ZAP) and every 10 years it includes a tranche on new projects throughout the county. But you have to have a solid plan for the facility. And we've had a hard time getting the money to do it. I can do a programming plan, but not a building design... Although I think I've found a source and can finesse all the deadlines from now til next fall.
Then there's the for profit site. I'd like to put a visitor center-cafe there, but the underlying property owner wants big money. I'm hoping we can get the long term lessee to donate the lease. They are a big company based in Salt Lake, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.
My health. Oh fuck.
I am in bad shape theoretically. I mean it's bad. I have late stage heart failure, meaning a transplant could be an option.
OTOH, considering, I'm in pretty good shape, while plenty of people have died where I am (colon + lymphoma + CHF). The February covid really f*ed me up. I got down to 110. And yes, I got on a tube. Which was horrible, but worked.
But then after a surgery in late May, I relapsed around the beginning of June. This was a bit worse because it heightened my food issues. I've had "drug mouth" for awhile. It accelerated. Everything mostly has a bad after taste even water (although artesian water--the city has a free fountain--works better). I'm way more sensitive to smells, chemical flavors etc. And I throw up, which I didn't do before the relapse. My cough can get really bad, so I retch. All these things kind of make me afraid to eat. Plus, I can like stuff for awhile (lamb vindaloo, alfredo sauce) and then I don't like it.
So I'm in the mid 130s at best. But I haven't shrunk. OTOH, I haven't gained weight either. And it was only recently that I realized my caloric consumption (not) has contributed to my lethargy. Again, the brain's been good, the desire to do stuff, like write, hasn't been there.
I am willing to consider the tube again, but maybe through the groin (although Suzanne is set against it). I didn't like the nose tube as it is so conspicuous. But it turns out the "continuum of care" for enteral feeding is f*ed up. (Different emergency rooms, home health, etc.) I first got a tube that clogged all the time and that was terrible. The second tube never clogged (wider) but there was always the fear, plus being tied to the bed for 12 hours.
You already know the lymphoma is in remission (and I am on surveillance) and my hair grew back, although it's a bit wild. More black though.
blog = block
different wrt the county = difficult
check current meds for side effects on weakening esophageal muscles. Talk to a GI?
heart transplant is major work, but at least this CHF is under surveillance.
130 isn't bad.
I was worried they did a PEG tube which is a lot worse -- nose tube unpleasant and not fun either but PEG is the worst.
About to see a GI. About coughing. There is scarring on my liver, probably from the medication. They do want to do some GI test, but I expressed concern and my cardiologist agreed About my heart. The cardiologist says for invasive tests I need to be admitted. Obviously for a noninvasive test like a CT no problem. No question that I severely relapsed about a surgery in May.
Gi endoscopy is mild sedation, should be ok even with CHF if needed? I'll check.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/09/portland-oregon-2024-elections-00182935
Post a Comment
<< Home