St. Paul's Como Park may gain big pool, "lazy river"
Como Pool site development plan from final Task Force meeting
"A preliminary master plan" has been approved by the St. Paul Parks and Recreation commission, to replace the closed Como Pool, according to St. Paul Parks and Recreation Project Manager Don Ganje, but currently there is not enough funding to pay for it, and some neighbors are still unhappy about the new pool's design.
The old neighborhood pool closed last year, and was demolished in April due to "extensive infrastructure, mechanical and electrical issues" that deteriorated to the point that short term repairs would "no longer be sufficient," according to the city's website.
The current design includes a six-lane lap pool, a diving area with a 50-meter, three-lane lap pool attached, a splash pool for children and a lazy river, which is a water ride with a slow current that allows people to ride around in a circle on rafts. The current design is considerably simpler than earlier proposals for a more elaborate water park but many neighbors still see the project as too big and too expensive.
"People are all up in arms," said Art Oglesby, who hosts a website dedicated to giving people more information about what's happening with the park. He said he's still not happy with the lazy river concept that made it into the final design. "Don't turn it into Wisconsin Dells," he said.
The total budget for the pool carries $7.2 million price tag. Ganje said the project is "designated to receive $2.2 million in state funding in 2010 and the mayor has proposed an additional one million dollars of city funding for 2010," which would cover the completion of the design phase, as well as the construction of the bath house by the end of 2010 and the construction of the new entrance road and parking lot by 2011. "City funding from the next CIB funding cycle would be available in 2012 to allow construction of the actual pool, with an anticipated opening of 2013," Ganje said.
However, the Capital Improvement Committee (CIB) failed to approve funding the Como Pool replacement for 2010. Ganje said : "We have some of the money, but we don't have all of the money."
Claudia Daly, who lives across the street from the proposed pool site, said she and her neighbors around Como Park first heard "rumblings about some kind of terrible thing happening across the street," near the end of July 2007. The "feisty band of about a dozen or so", according to Daly, started to meet and discuss their concerns about St. Paul's plans. They formed Neighbors Opposing Park Exploitation (NOPE) whose mantra became "NO WATERPARK, NO LAZY RIVER, NO ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC," according to Daly.
Soon after, the Como Park Alliance (http://comoparkalliance.org/index.html) (CPA) "started because of the concern for the updates to the pool and the potential effects of traffic on the neighborhood and green space being converted into parking lots," according to CPA's website, which also states that its members "wanted to have a voice in what happens in the park."
In the summer of 2008, the Como Park Alliance conducted a survey of citizens concerned about the future of Como pool. The survey, which had 296 online responders and 62 paper form responders, found that citizens were concerned about traffic, parking issues, loss of green space, and that the pool would turn into a water park as opposed to a neighborhood pool.
Aware of concerns from the local community, the park board set up a task force to carry out the design process. Originally the task force consisted of 12 members, but several people dropped out over the five month process. Meanwhile, a consultant team of designers, engineers and city landscape architects also met to "determine the new design of the facility".
The task force met between December of 2008 and April of 2009. Marcia Milgrom, one of the community members on the task force, said "They made the effort of wanting community input, but personally, I have some doubts that they wanted community input." Milgrom said that community members from the neighborhood weren't allowed to propose ideas at the meetings. When she asked if she could bring neighborhood consultants in, she was told that was not allowable.
In March, the design committee presented a "design charrette" in which some of the proposed drawings were passed around to the community in an open meeting for all of the neighbors. Michael Kleber-Diggs, a task force member and a resident of Lexington Parkway, said "Some members of task force felt that the charrette process was a little bit unfair." Community members gave feedback about which of the designs they liked best, but Kleber-Diggs said that cost factors weren't presented as a part of that discussion.
In the end, the final design was passed by the task force committee, with Milgrom and Kleber-Diggs dissenting. The dissenters, along with other concerned community members, created a minority report, which stated that the task force process was flawed . That report, titled "Community Alternatives Vote-Como Aquatic Center" states that "The Task Force was not given sufficient time to gather and incorporate public feedback." Other flaws of the process, according to the minority report, include concerns that impact on the park was not considered, other locations in St. Paul were not considered, and that "the design charrette was structured to achieve a desired outcome."
A few vocal community members think the current plan is misguided. Mary Wawro, for example, said she feels that in today's economy, now is not the time to build a large aquatic facility and that funds should go toward jobs for the unemployed.
John Marino, who lives on the west side of the park, has been handing out leaflets around the neighborhood, asking people to phone and email city council members and the mayor. "We'd like the pool but not the lazy river," he said. "This is an example over development." One of Marino's main concerns is about the increase of traffic. "If people want a suburban type thing then they should go to the suburbs," he said.
Ganje said that the new plan takes increased traffic into consideration, and includes steps to help ease parking and traffic issues. "Parking in the area will increase from the current 387 cars to 520 cars, which according to our traffic consultants will be sufficient to meet the needs of both the pool and the athletic fields," Ganje wrote in an email. "Our plans include removal of the dangerous intersection of Jessamine and Lexington Parkway; design of a new entrance to the pool at the existing traffic signal at Como and Lexington; a new shuttle stop for the pool along Horton; and new pedestrian/bicycle trail connections, minimizing the reliance on the automobile as the only alternative to get to the new pool."
Art Oglesby said the key to making the new pool work would be a shuttle system, but he said it's going to be difficult to convince people not to use their cars. He suggested that the park offer shuttle riders a free drink or ride if they use public transportation. "The question is," he said, "how do you get them to change their behavior?"
| Support people-powered non-profit journalism! Volunteer, contribute news, or become a member to keep the Daily Planet in orbit. |
Sheila Regan (sheila@tcdailyplanet.net) is a Minneapolis theater artist and freelance writer.
We're people-powered journalism! Click on story links (below) to see more story information, and then email editor@tcdailyplanet.net if you want to report.
• 
Comments
Como Park is not the personal
Como Park is not the personal park of the members of "NOPE" anymore than Highland Park, with the two golf courses including Highland National, the aquatic center, Circus Juvenitus, Highland Ice Arena, Highland Senior High track and stadium, playground, pavilion, and picnic areas is our personal park. Both exist for the good of the citizens of Saint Paul.
The success of both the Highland Aquatic Center and the new Great River Water Park at Jimmy Lee recreation Center underscores the need for this type of venue. As a family that purchases a season pass to the Highland Aquatic Center and the Great River Water Park we applaud the Parks and Recreation Department for wanting to creat another fine venue for our children.
Instead of crying wolf and playing on people's fears the Como area residents should be proud to have a world class aquatic facility, just as we are justifibly proud of the facilities available at the Highland Park complex. We will be urging Pat Harris, our Council Person, to support this project.
Como Pools Recap
Kudus to you Sheila. A clear report about a knotty issue that often gets muddled in the telling (except by you).
I love having the highlighted words at my finger tips so I can delve deeper and see the original source. Keep your eye on this topic. I want to follow developments.
I keep hoping wisdom will lead us to rebuild a simple no lazy- river pool and a wading pool. Pools built for low environmental impact, of durable materials, versatile use and eye satisfying from all sides around.
Looking forward to a pool upgrade - and I live in Como!
It's a shame that more residents who want the pool and like the current design did not have any input into this article. I live in Como, I also volunteer here in the community - many of us who support this project have felt bullied into silence and it's sad. I truly hope that our elected officals will take into account that loudest individuals are not in the majority here.
More to the story
I live in Como Park, and I am a current member of the District 10 Community Council. I am thoroughly disappointed that this article did not include a single supporter of the proposed pool, aside from parks and rec officials. Nor was there any note of the fact that the District 10 Community Council voted and approved a motion to support an aquatic facility in Como Park. We did not support a specific plan. But felt that the "bullying" of a vocal minority needed to be acted on.
I will say that personally I do support the current plan. I think that the neighbors not in support of the plan have been unfair to the process. This project has been a long time coming and there have been community meetings and community input opportunities through out. The whole reason the task force was created in the first place was because of community outrage. We need to remember that the proposed plan is SMALLER than Highland Aquatic facility which I think many would not consider a "waterpark".
Inflamatory language and misinformation have gotten too much attention and though the minority is vocal it is still the minority.
more to more to the story
The District Council actually voted to support replacing the Como pool with a similar pool. The resolution did not refer to the currently proposed plan for the pool.
http://www.district10comopark.org/Community_Council_Minutes_-_7_2009.html
The Como Park Alliance Survey found that a majority of the respondances were in agreement with the District Council vote. They support a replacement pool, but don't want a waterpark.
The vote by the Council
As a member of the Community Council that voted on Ken Kunkle's proposal and typed the minutes in which Chai Insook is referring to, I fully understand what I voted on. Our community was told that when the Como Pool was torn down that a replacement pool would be built. The Council needed to make the statement that indeed our community wants to have a replacement pool and we specifically backed no particular design (per your link, Chai): "Therefore, be it resolved, that the Board of the District 10 Community Council requests a replacement of the public pool facility, previously located in Como Park, should be fully funded in an expeditious manner. Further Resolved, that this resolution is not intended to support any particular design.” I will take a stand at this point and make the statement that I support the current design. I was at the Parks Commission meeting on July 15th. I voiced my concerns with the parking issues, followed by my enthusiasm for the current design for the pool before the Commission passed the current pool design with a unanimous vote. I will also go a step further and encourage vocal members of our community to refrain from using inflammatory language simply to entice those who may not be as well informed. This is by no means a water park. This is a community sized pool that will be used by the Como Community - it also happens to be located inside of a Regional Park that is also a part of our Como Community.
Como Council Pool Vote
I have been reading with interest discussions about the Como Pool. To summarize: so far:
1. No District Council has taken a position on the three pool plans before us. Why?
2. 2 members of one (12? member ) District Council favor the current 3 pools plan. Wider views from, more people in our 12,000 plus Como community have not stated opinions in a community meeting or survey (other than a 2008 364 person pool user survey).
In the absence of that, each of us can simply speak for our own view. I may be talking to a different group of folks than others so I can not with confidence say what 'the people of Como as a whole' think best. I can give the reasons for what I think is best.
3. Communication among folks with views about pools for Como Park has had bumps with the passing of words that hurt parties of all views about pools.
4. Here is a place where people may anonymously, or by name, share views (not only hurts) without feeling bullied, or not represented because others are more vocal. I would encourage bloggers to reference only their own view and the reasons why they think they favor the 3 pools plan as is or with modifications they specifically mention. This will provide fertile ground for a rich debate and conversation about the Como pools.
Look at plans next to pools!
Thank you Sheila for the design sketch of Como's 3 pools!
To learn more about the site, other than walklng personally around there;
1. Go to the Como Woodlands Outdoor Classroom site, available at comopark.us or to comoparkalliance.org. The woodlands were just funded and will be built in the fluffy white cloud area on the sketch Ms.Reagan posted with her article. They are described as a quiet woodlands classroom area.
2. Next study the sports fields, roads, trails, to be relocated tennis courts, and parking immediately SW of Como Ave. on that drawing. Now try and imagine how, in the space available, such activities of the proposed, larger than what was there before, scale can be happily accommodated.
3. Finally since it may be raining, enjoy letting your fingers do the walking around that area Sof Horton and N of Jessamine by playing with the current maps of the place using bing!
That is why I favor pools for sure, but of a scale and environmental impact that fits the space where they will be planted! What do members of Environmental Committees in the neighborhood recommended?
Post new comment