Posts
The Monona city council will be considering a proposal by the Monona Festival Committee (Monona Festival Services Page) to install two pedestrian bridges over the lagoon channel in Winnequah Park.
Meeting Packet 2-2-09 Go to pages 19-21. Picture quality is not good, but you get the idea.
These bridges would replace the former bridges that were removed in 1980.
The Festival Committee proposes to fund the cost to acquire and install the bridges. The city would the cost for soil borings, piers, and access to the bridges.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The bridges were a pain in the ass back in the 80's when the teenagers would call out the police late at night. If the police came from the east side of the park they ran to the west side. If the police came from the west side of the park they ran to the east.
ReplyDeleteK|Just this past summer for approximately 5 to 6 weeks after the festival every sunday night the teenagers would run around in the park screaming and playing tag or something. One night I heard one of them yell he has a gun! That will wake you up in a hurry. Check the police reports.
We don't need the bridges! They are a bad idea. The police have enough problems to deal with when they are only two officers on duty late at night.
Well, they weren't a pain in the 80's because they were gone by then.
ReplyDeleteI will try and remember to bring this up with the police chief. You may also want to come to the meeting at 7:30 pm Monday and make an appearance.
I think they are a good idea-
ReplyDeleteThe areas on the opposite side of lagoon and the large grassy area next to the blue park are underused by the city and her residents.
Say-I comp plan for the parks is a great idea and miller's talk about thinking about the issues and not screwing this up is a good one. I found the discussion about surveying the borders of our parks an amusing one-but can I ask what is the point
ReplyDelete?
The city seems almost helpless when it comes to doing something about violations of city property
Surveying the parks boundaries would likely be a pricey proposition. We looked at it when I chaired Parks and it was more money than it's worth, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteI am always tron between planning and doing stuff now. 'Plan first and do later' always sounds more sensible, but too often the 'do later' part gets dropped.
I don't think siting the bridge(s) is that tough.
On the other hand, a good director like jake has the drive and ability to implement plans (e.g., the current tree-cutting in Woodland Park is part of management plan).
What really bothered me in the discussion about Winnequah Park at the City Council meeting was the reference to the soils there being "poor." Poor for what? The soils are what they are as nature made them. When I hear that dirt was trucked in to add to "poor soils" so they can be altered for another purpose, it tells me "here is another person who doesn't get it." Too many people are uninformed about what they are doing to Mother Nature.
ReplyDeleteSo the ground is spongy. Wonderful! I'm no soils expert, but I bet spongy soils have an important place in the biological cycles.
Put a playing field where you aren't disturbing a natural and beautiful area like this park. I can't say I'm keen on the idea of bridges either. Just more man-made stuff cluttering up our natural world. Bonus: If we walk around the lakes, we might not be so darned fat.
"Poor soils". I think the concern is simply that the soil conditions will require more extensive supports than if the ground was dry and well-drained.
ReplyDeleteThe bridges could tie into walking paths through the park that would encourage safer and off-street walking.
These bridges are a great idea. I have talking about building a berm/bike path/walking path along the west edge of the park, since June. The flooding was a reminder of the value of such a berm and path. The path could start at Fireman's Park Shelter, cross over Nichols Road, and continue to WInnequah between Winnequah Trail and Healy. I have friends along this edge of the park near Fireman's, and the ground has remained so soft and spongy these last few years that the old path is no longer viable.
ReplyDeleteDoug is correct. Spongy soil is fine, so long as you do not want to walk through it, or install footings for a bridge. Having wetlands around a good path would protect the spongy ground, and reduce the trampling of ground that should be left undisturbed, while also improving our park land, and reducing flooding along this edge of the lagoon.
"Bridges?!
ReplyDeleteWe don't need no stinkin' bridges!"
I couldn't pass up the opportunity, but I do mean it. "Just more man-made stuff cluttering up our natural world." is right.
And I just learned there are asphalt paths to go along with the bridges? "Just more man-made stuff cluttering up our natural world."
There are better ways to do this--create a human-valued environment within the natural one--without paving over the park. Paving=runoff. Paving=one less bit of green. Paving=maintenance. Paving=heat reflectivity. Paving=bad. There are alternatives to paving.
"Bonus: If we walk around the lakes, we might not be so darned fat."
ReplyDeleteBUT-In your world there is not paths or other clutter, right? You cannot even see the silliness in your statements.
Considering Winnequah Park as a "natural" environment is just plain silly unless we intend to restore the wetland it once was. Every aspect of the current situation is completely man-made and engineered. A couple of foot bridges aren't going to make any difference in the ecology of this area, and it sure would be nice to be able to get from the ball diamonds over to the blue park without having to go over to the sidewalk along Nichols.
ReplyDelete"BUT-In your world there is not paths or other clutter, right? You cannot even see the silliness in your statements."
ReplyDeleteI didn't say "my world" doesn't have "paths or other clutter." I said if we walk around the lakes we might not be so fat. It's not like we can't get there from here.
Did I propose we remove every man-made thing in Winnequah Park? No. I just question why we should add any more man-made things. And I question why we cannot do things that don't cause more harm: if you have to have a walking path, make it from wood chips like will be done in Woodland Park with the trees being taken down.
"A couple of foot bridges aren't going to make any difference in the ecology of this area,..."
A couple of paths could very well make a difference. More human activity close to the water could change animal behavior and have an effect on the biological diversity we have left in our park. Digging deep to support the bridges could disturb the water and create more fish kill. I'm not a scientist, but I know that every thing we do has consequences and we cannot just say that "this or that isn't going to make a difference." It's the cumulative effect of all these small decisions that makes for a large impact on the ecology of our planet.
"...and it sure would be nice to be able to get from the ball diamonds over to the blue park without having to go over to the sidewalk along Nichols."
Again, walk over to the sidewalk at Nichols and burn a few more calories. I can afford to lose some and it won’t kill me to walk.
Before sinking money an effort into building new stuff, I'd suggest we make an effort to repair what we already have. The lagoon is turning to marshland, and has lost its capacity as a floodwater holding area. By dredging portions of it, and building up the banks with the resulting silt, we could make it a lagoon again, on both sides of Nichols, and protect from more floods to come.
ReplyDeleteIf we are to consider improvements beyond basic repair and maintenance, let's make sure they are consider in context of a larger plan for the park.
" the lagoon is turning to marshland, and has lost its capacity as a floodwater holding area"
ReplyDeleteThat should read: the lagoon is returning to its natural marshland.
Don't believe me? there is a map on the wall at Olbrich from 1911 that shows the area of that park was once entirely marshland.
Marshland has much better floodwater holding capacity. How about returning a significant portion of this underutilized park back to a wetland. It would provide wildlife habitat while helping with the water quality in lake Monona!