Kaufman/Foxx survey

Gary Rice · Post by **Gary Rice** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 9:33 pm

We need look no farther than the West Park area to see numerous beautiful green spaces available for their residents to enjoy.

Lakewood does not have many areas to equal those of our next-door Cleveland neighborhood.

Our Andrews/Kaufman field is a fantastic multi-use facility having a golf course, playground, tennis and full size ball diamond. Has anyone considered that it abuts up to the railroad track? Were we to permit a shopping area up there, how many stores would be willing to locate by rumbling horn-blowing freight trains carrying who knows what, virtually inches from their stores?

How many knick-knacks do you suppose will fall off the shelves of those establishments as those trains rumble by? How many patio-savvy restaurateurs will be willing to put up with thundering steel wheels and diesel fumes wafting by their noses?

Atmosphere, yeah.

Perhaps the stores could offer clothespins, ear muffs, and shock absorbers? What an attractive area this might be for glassware shops! :roll:

Has anyone considered the overall cost of all these modifications to our city, by the way?

Whatever we might gain through a potential Kaufman sale would no doubt rapidly diminish if we were to develop some other area of the city.

Glad there is time for hearings and discussion.

Dee Martinez · Post by **Dee Martinez** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:45 am

If the Kaufman facility is so fantastic, why did nearly everyone who responded to the original post say they hardly, if ever, use it?

There is no "golf course." Just a miniature golf course that was shuttered years ago due to lack of interest and use.

Why are we paying to maintain something the public has no interest in?

Brad Hutchison · Post by **Brad Hutchison** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:53 am

Could I interrupt and ask someone to provide a short explanation of the Peninsula Plan? I'm not familiar with it.

Bill Call · Post by **Bill Call** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:00 am

Dee Martinez wrote:Why are we paying to maintain something the public has no interest in?

It would be easier to answer the question: "What is the meaning of life"?

dl meckes · Post by **dl meckes** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:26 am

http://lakewoodobserver.com/pdfs/Observ ... e%2001.pdf

Page 9 has the article.

Brad Hutchison · Post by **Brad Hutchison** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:41 am

Thanks dl. A very interesting and ambitious plan. Was it ever taken seriously, in part or in whole, by the powers that be?

Shawn Juris · Post by **Shawn Juris** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:50 pm

I went out to a few of our parks the other day. I didn't realize how nice the equipment at Kaufman was. Maybe it was just the bright blue sky and the deep green grass but it looked like a very nice place. I have some photos but have no idea how to get them up here. Clearly there is a need for something to be done with Little Links but I'm still not getting what's so bad about Kaufman and Foxx. I particularly don't buy the explanation of "it's secluded so therefore presents a safety/security issue" when the alternative is moving the field to Cove Park. That is more secluded than Kaufman. But then again Cove doesn't have the interest of a developer.
One thing that I also found peculiar was that while much of this discussion focuses on the need for green space, both parks had a 10x10 block of asphalt where grass should be. Maybe the remnants of a four square court? Too small for basketball. Not sure why that would be there. I also walked around Lakewood Park. Pending the dimensions of the field, I still think that if you rotate the infield you can fit a full sized diamond there without disrupting anything.

Oh and I know there was at one point a desire for community gardens. I had heard that there was a shortage of landspace to cultivate for this purpose. I don't have any green in my thumbs but Foxx field has an area that is between the parking and the field that must be 150 feet long and 20 feet wide that is all just overgrown. I would imagine that this could be terraced or planted with the natural grade. That is if there isn't a Drug Mart that gets planted on it. There is also a rather large patch of green behind the fence in the outfield. Would make sense that this could be better utilized as well. For the number of homeruns that get hit I would guess that you could plant quite a bit back there. Wouldn't that be something to be able to sell produce at a farmer's market just 100 yards away from where it was grown. Talk about fresh.

J Hrlec · Post by **J Hrlec** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:47 pm

I personally don't think that is a good location for a baseball field, since I consider it part of downtown lakewood and in my mind those just do not fit.

However, making it into a general park area with a playground and maybe some tennis courts would be fine. Basically I think a "park" area or a shopping area would be fine... I just am not so hot for the combination of both.

Shawn Juris · Post by **Shawn Juris** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:50 am

So would Edwards field not be a more logically place to start? That is afterall right on Detroit, while Foxx is tucked away behind a strip mall and a parking lot. Just sayin'. Of course no one was looking to buy Edwards field yet so we're focused on Kaufman/Foxx. Again, while it may not be the most ideal location to everyone, where else would it be better suited? I would say that sending players down to the metroparks doesn't help to promote the city or help to drive business to local shops. I believe that this was the position that Jay Foran took a while back to justify it's elimination but this preference of sending the diamonds out to the fringe seems to be more suited for an exburb that relies on cars than one that is so densely populated and relies on maintaining walkability.

John Guscott · Post by **John Guscott** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:52 am

Shawn,

Are you suggesting moving Jimmie Foxx Field to Edwards Park? In my opinion, that park is too small for the adult rec leagues (isn't Edwards primarily used by little kids, e.g., t-ball, etc.)?

I agree the metroparks would not be the right location, either. Too far from the residents.

Jeff Endress had some suggestions earlier in the thread, including the sites of some of the closed schools.

What exactly will be happening to those sites? Does anyone know?

sharon kinsella · Post by **sharon kinsella** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:55 am

Ryan -

It is much more complex than the perception of the city worker (who may have been on a break you, you could have asked him, with a smile). The city worker is given their orders by their supervisor, the supervisor is given their orders by the administration and council, and the administration and the council should be responsible to us, the voters.

Talk to Kevin Butler. He will tell you that I will call him until I get an answer. If he doesn't call me back, I call and call and call. Then when we talk, I ask how I can get this solved and if there is anything I can do. I bear personal responsibility. That's how we took care of the loud music problem at Harry Buffalo.

This is our town. Ours to raise up or ours to let lay to waste.

Shawn Juris · Post by **Shawn Juris** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:51 am

John,
I'm definitely not suggesting moving Foxx to Edwards. So far there seem to be two arguments that are being leaned on to justify doing anything to Foxx and Kaufman. 1. They should be moved because they are secluded and unsafe. 2. The diamond is located in the middle of downtown. To address the 2nd argument, it seems that the bigger target would be to take out the diamond at Edwards, it is afterall on Detroit and not hidden away. Are those that support this claim that diamonds don't belong in downtown locations (that coincidentally are accessible to kids in the area) also setting their sites on this park? To address the 1st argument, the logic doesn't bear out when the alternative suggested is Cove Park which is even more secluded than Kaufman/Foxx. If they are going to explain why a change should be made the solution should solve the problem that their argument is based on. I find it rare to be a conservative in the sense that I don't want change something but unless the result is better than what we have now then why do it? The only reason that I'm left with is money and satisfied a few vocal stakeholders.
To be clear again, I have no problem with redeveloping the strip mall. Go for it. I have a problem with using faulty logic to convince us that we should get rid of an asset that can not be replaced, particularly in a city that abounds with vacant storefronts and other alternatives.

Joe Whisman · Post by **Joe Whisman** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:25 pm

There are many more alternative areas to redevelop. This "deal" is a land grab. The park can not be replaced or moved. Those of us who want to keep to park should form a lobby and put pressure on the involved parties. Who has the plan? Where can I get a copy of the $20,000 study? Should we start a petition to save the park?

James Mullen · Post by **James Mullen** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:52 pm

1. Do you think that this park is currently safe?
I do think it is safe. This is solely based on the fact of how underused the park is.
2 Do you think that this park is currently well maintained?
I do not think this park is well maintained. The tennis court is in disrepair, the park is is not attractive, and the field are is not in the best of condition.
3. Would Kaufman Park would be improved if it were moved to the forefront, adjacent to Detroit Ave? No, I still feel green space is necessary in that location, but not the extent of what the park is now.
4. Have you or your family members used this park in the past 3 months?
yes, only because of Softball
5. Does a park require playground equipment?
No
6. Do planters qualify as green space?
I think green space can be defined many different ways. I feel there is the ability to make green space where it does not consitute the typical park like setting, with swings, fields, etc.

In conclusion I believe with the construction of the Library and the adjacent renovation to the church building on the corner of Arthur and Detroit, we have the chance to improve something that is dated and does not fit well in the surrounding area. We can relocate a green space to one of the schools that will be closing, and have limited green space at this location.

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:40 pm

While I'm still somewhat undecided about my feelings on moving a park - particularily if it costs a lot and doesn't generate significant revenues.

I don't think anyone has discussed it and I don't know if we could do it because of who owns Detroit - does Lakewood? But it would be interesting to see a real Town Square. Basically between the Masonic Temple and what was the Christian Science Church (two of my favorite buildings in Lakewood along with the new library) bring the green space across Detroit and up to the front of the library. Then re-direct traffic around the sqaure with angled parking along the sides. The shops would then be backed against the railroad tracks and the road would be in front of them. This would have the effect of slowing traffic and creating a real centerpiece in the town.

This wouldn't be a play park but could have paths, fountain, benches etc. This would be a great place for the tree lighting etc. Also a good place for things like the CSA food pickup and the art show. Things that are smaller than Lakewood Park.

I'm very intrigued Jeff by your ideas on Taft, McKinley, and The Board of Education. Are these going up for auction? Are they being turned into Parks? Is there an open process for this?