I think the design is great and whether it was a response to my comment or not, as a dermatologist I appreciate that the narrative said that there will be some shaded areas for viewing. I would also suggest that a sign suggesting protection by means of sunscreens and clothing are appropriate. Cowboys and caballeros wore cowboy hats and sombreros respectively, giving them coverage to their faces and necks and ears. They knew something our baseball cap wearing population seems to have forgotten.
I also was pleased that there are plans for reestablishing the native habitat, changed (eliminated for the most part) by the development of the area. However it does not look like the area southwest of the visitors' center has any plans for reintroduction of foliage destroyed when Interstate 5 and the Albertson's shopping center were built. Since it is a beautiful walk, run or bike from the visitors center all the way to the beach, and the foliage does not improve until you are on the west side of I-5, I suggest foliage to the area just east of I-5 would be welcome.
Thank you for asking for the community input.
Robert Scheinberg, MD
Dermatologist Medical Group of North County
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Lagoon Center Comment
From the Subcommittee of the San Dieguito Lagoon Committee August 25, 2009
Kudos for:
Overall layout of structures and viewing platforms.
Focus on the outdoors and on the resources being preserved.
Placement of parking areas: appropriately divides equestrian-related parking from other.
Well designed landscaping, incorporating native plants and natural contours
Tucking the buildings into the landscape as appropriate and minimizing building impact.
Natural building materials proposed.
Buildings designed for low energy use.
Reception and book shop included.
Viewing platforms well placed.
Concerns:
The proposed Lagoon Nature Center calls for too large a footprint, too many buildings, too much square footage, too much apparent hardscape.
• Excess building space provides for too many functions that are not primary needs.
• Many interior spaces are single, specific purpose rooms.
• Excessive office space: “open office” could be smaller, allowing for “conference room to be larger and serve as conference/meeting room, eliminating the need for other meeting space.
• Interactive Lab space is inappropriate (indoors), costly to equip and unlikely to be utilized. (Whatever happened to working outdoors?) It seems “over the top.”
• Three different restroom facilities: expensive to build and difficult to maintain well.
• Amphitheatre is too large, requiring excess hardscape and drawing visitors from the viewing platforms and trails.
• Parking, as designed, appears inadequate for plans and uses depicted, but as stated in recommendations below, we support fewer uses and spaces anyway.
Recommendations:
• Combine uses of interior spaces to reduce the building footprint/reduce the number of rooms/buildings.
• Disperse interpretive signage throughout the outdoor spaces between/on building walls e.g. in “courtyard,” which would reduce the interior exhibit space needs.
• Eliminate upper level buildings: Kitchen, Toilet and easternmost Meeting Room and Storage Room (below). Some of this square footage could be added as suggested below. A kitchen is unnecessary and would add long term user and maintenance expenses.
• Increase the footprint of and redesign the building space currently identified as AV Room/Reception/ Bookstore/Exhibit/Special Exhibit (lower level) and View Deck (upper level) to include whatever meeting and storage space is needed.
• Instead of a courtyard (which we interpret as hardscape), why not plant that space as a garden of native species with appropriate identifiers on various plants? Provide pathways for viewer enjoyment, a few seating areas.
• Redesign amphitheatre by eliminating the upper (northern) portion; instead, create a landscape buffer there. Perhaps even narrow the amphitheatre.
• Combine restrooms/increase number of stalls and eliminate duplication.
• Do not add parking spaces to satisfy the conceptual design; instead, downsize the uses. More hardscape is not needed.
• Design the structure to eliminate future overhead and maintenance issues as upcoming SDRP budgets will still present challenges.
Liz, Jan & Bill
Kudos for:
Overall layout of structures and viewing platforms.
Focus on the outdoors and on the resources being preserved.
Placement of parking areas: appropriately divides equestrian-related parking from other.
Well designed landscaping, incorporating native plants and natural contours
Tucking the buildings into the landscape as appropriate and minimizing building impact.
Natural building materials proposed.
Buildings designed for low energy use.
Reception and book shop included.
Viewing platforms well placed.
Concerns:
The proposed Lagoon Nature Center calls for too large a footprint, too many buildings, too much square footage, too much apparent hardscape.
• Excess building space provides for too many functions that are not primary needs.
• Many interior spaces are single, specific purpose rooms.
• Excessive office space: “open office” could be smaller, allowing for “conference room to be larger and serve as conference/meeting room, eliminating the need for other meeting space.
• Interactive Lab space is inappropriate (indoors), costly to equip and unlikely to be utilized. (Whatever happened to working outdoors?) It seems “over the top.”
• Three different restroom facilities: expensive to build and difficult to maintain well.
• Amphitheatre is too large, requiring excess hardscape and drawing visitors from the viewing platforms and trails.
• Parking, as designed, appears inadequate for plans and uses depicted, but as stated in recommendations below, we support fewer uses and spaces anyway.
Recommendations:
• Combine uses of interior spaces to reduce the building footprint/reduce the number of rooms/buildings.
• Disperse interpretive signage throughout the outdoor spaces between/on building walls e.g. in “courtyard,” which would reduce the interior exhibit space needs.
• Eliminate upper level buildings: Kitchen, Toilet and easternmost Meeting Room and Storage Room (below). Some of this square footage could be added as suggested below. A kitchen is unnecessary and would add long term user and maintenance expenses.
• Increase the footprint of and redesign the building space currently identified as AV Room/Reception/ Bookstore/Exhibit/Special Exhibit (lower level) and View Deck (upper level) to include whatever meeting and storage space is needed.
• Instead of a courtyard (which we interpret as hardscape), why not plant that space as a garden of native species with appropriate identifiers on various plants? Provide pathways for viewer enjoyment, a few seating areas.
• Redesign amphitheatre by eliminating the upper (northern) portion; instead, create a landscape buffer there. Perhaps even narrow the amphitheatre.
• Combine restrooms/increase number of stalls and eliminate duplication.
• Do not add parking spaces to satisfy the conceptual design; instead, downsize the uses. More hardscape is not needed.
• Design the structure to eliminate future overhead and maintenance issues as upcoming SDRP budgets will still present challenges.
Liz, Jan & Bill
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Lagoon Center Comment
The Friends of the San Dieguito River Valley applaud the open design process for the proposed Nature Center but is concerned about the size and bulk of the building, particularly after viewing the 3D simulations on the website. The large interior spaces for a variety of specific functions and the amount of hardscape in the “interior courtyard” in the floor plans seem to contradict one of the design concepts goal: “to minimize indoor program and maximize outdoor programs.
Unfortunately the building design presents no unifying theme that would suggest its purpose as a nature center. It is uninviting in its presentation to the public and separates itself from the lagoon environment with bulk and hardscape. Coming in on the upper trail the public is confronted by a vast hard deck, stonewalls and harsh angles.
The size and specific limited uses of the interior spaces seem excessive:
1. Reduce the size of the Meeting Room with current seating for 100 people, and the AV Room. As proposed, if both these rooms were being utilized at capacity at one time there would simply not be enough parking spaces for persons coming in to view exhibits, go on the trails or provide “docenting” services. The traffic at the Via de la Valle/El Camino Real intersection, already congested, would also negatively impacted. More likely the rooms would be underutilized creating unnecessary interior space and exterior bulk to the buildings.
2. Incorporate into other spaces the Archive and Special Exhibit spaces. Given the size of the main exhibit room and the display seating area in the courtyard, there would seem to still be plenty of space for indoor exhibits. We recall that the conceptual plans also call for outdoor exhibits away from the main building. The current plan emphasizes indoor exhibits and meetings over outdoor programs and experience.
Space for the archives could easily be built along the northern wall of the Open Office. This would provide both security and staff support for this information, as well as a very valuable nearby conference room where documents could be spread out, reviewed and discussed with nearby staff, including the ranger!
The large Courtyard hardscape is out of scale with the overall project and its goals, and the large outdoor meeting space (Amphitheatre) is so wedged in between two buildings and away from a lagoon/valley view shed that it becomes more of an indoor rather than an outdoor experience. In the simulations, the amphitheatre hardscape dominates views from the lower trail presenting a harsh image against the proposed landscapes of chaparral, meadowland and coastal scrub. How about moving the Amphitheatre south toward the lagoon, reducing the width of the Courtyard and incorporating more “softscape” into the area: perhaps plantings that bring the adjacent landscaping into the building site itself or appropriate ground cover that invites visitors to sit and enjoy the lagoon view.
The Board was unanimous in its concern that the large meeting room might be used for private social functions such as weddings. We see this use as the antithesis to the experience of the lagoon and its habitat as well as limiting public access. Several Board members wanted the eastern wing removed entirely. Others suggested that the meeting room be placed on the ground level, again relating more specifically to the lagoon environment and reducing the visual impact of the building on the landscape. The minority thought a community room used for River Valley related purposes was appropriate but agreed that the size could be reduced.
The Board of the Friends is unanimous in its praise of the site plan and exterior landscape. We mention specifically the berm to separate the Center from the view and noise of Via de la Valle, vehicle parking in the northwest corner, equestrian staging to the east and the landscaping of the berms to duplicate and suggest a continuation over the Via de la Valle “cut” as well as the emphasis on coastal scrub, meadow and upland chaparral areas. We applaud the elongation of the lagoon experience from the water treatment platform to the west, across the whole site with special viewpoints all the way to interpretive places with small outdoor seating areas and special features, to Horse Park.
However as proposed in the floor plans and exterior design, we feel the main Center complex is uninviting, does not blend in with the “softer” lagoon environment or meet concept goals.
Unfortunately the building design presents no unifying theme that would suggest its purpose as a nature center. It is uninviting in its presentation to the public and separates itself from the lagoon environment with bulk and hardscape. Coming in on the upper trail the public is confronted by a vast hard deck, stonewalls and harsh angles.
The size and specific limited uses of the interior spaces seem excessive:
1. Reduce the size of the Meeting Room with current seating for 100 people, and the AV Room. As proposed, if both these rooms were being utilized at capacity at one time there would simply not be enough parking spaces for persons coming in to view exhibits, go on the trails or provide “docenting” services. The traffic at the Via de la Valle/El Camino Real intersection, already congested, would also negatively impacted. More likely the rooms would be underutilized creating unnecessary interior space and exterior bulk to the buildings.
2. Incorporate into other spaces the Archive and Special Exhibit spaces. Given the size of the main exhibit room and the display seating area in the courtyard, there would seem to still be plenty of space for indoor exhibits. We recall that the conceptual plans also call for outdoor exhibits away from the main building. The current plan emphasizes indoor exhibits and meetings over outdoor programs and experience.
Space for the archives could easily be built along the northern wall of the Open Office. This would provide both security and staff support for this information, as well as a very valuable nearby conference room where documents could be spread out, reviewed and discussed with nearby staff, including the ranger!
The large Courtyard hardscape is out of scale with the overall project and its goals, and the large outdoor meeting space (Amphitheatre) is so wedged in between two buildings and away from a lagoon/valley view shed that it becomes more of an indoor rather than an outdoor experience. In the simulations, the amphitheatre hardscape dominates views from the lower trail presenting a harsh image against the proposed landscapes of chaparral, meadowland and coastal scrub. How about moving the Amphitheatre south toward the lagoon, reducing the width of the Courtyard and incorporating more “softscape” into the area: perhaps plantings that bring the adjacent landscaping into the building site itself or appropriate ground cover that invites visitors to sit and enjoy the lagoon view.
The Board was unanimous in its concern that the large meeting room might be used for private social functions such as weddings. We see this use as the antithesis to the experience of the lagoon and its habitat as well as limiting public access. Several Board members wanted the eastern wing removed entirely. Others suggested that the meeting room be placed on the ground level, again relating more specifically to the lagoon environment and reducing the visual impact of the building on the landscape. The minority thought a community room used for River Valley related purposes was appropriate but agreed that the size could be reduced.
The Board of the Friends is unanimous in its praise of the site plan and exterior landscape. We mention specifically the berm to separate the Center from the view and noise of Via de la Valle, vehicle parking in the northwest corner, equestrian staging to the east and the landscaping of the berms to duplicate and suggest a continuation over the Via de la Valle “cut” as well as the emphasis on coastal scrub, meadow and upland chaparral areas. We applaud the elongation of the lagoon experience from the water treatment platform to the west, across the whole site with special viewpoints all the way to interpretive places with small outdoor seating areas and special features, to Horse Park.
However as proposed in the floor plans and exterior design, we feel the main Center complex is uninviting, does not blend in with the “softer” lagoon environment or meet concept goals.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Lagoon Center Comment
Thank you for opportunity to comment on the design of your new center. Unfortunately, the modern design is not consistent with our community character. While the design maybe cost effective, it leaves one with the impression of a cold, sterile, prison structure. The orientation is acceptable, but the materials and design simply do not relate to the are or what we are viewing. Please reconsider this design and choose something that connects with the history of the area. Ultra modern metal is not it!
Ralph
Ralph
POST NEW COMMENTS HERE
Please use this space to post your general comments. If you would like to comment on what someone else has written, you can add your comment just below their's.
Lagoon Center Comment
I was pleasantly surprised by the outcome of the planning PROCESS.
I do have a serious problem with the OUTCOME of that process.
The architects really did listen to everybody and delivered on most if not all the “requests”.
The next step should be a major effort of either triage or editing or making an effort toward multi uses for these facilities: this project is simply TOO BIG.
The main goals of the San Dieguito River Park project is
a. to create a wildlife corridor along the San Dieguito River
b. to create a Coast to Crest trail
c. to educate the public.
From my perspective the educational effort should be toward informing the public how this Restoration could happen and how the public at large should become the steward of this wonderful project.
The educational effort should NOT be to replace or even complement the school system’s responsibility of teaching biology, etc…
1. Name
The SDRP is comfortable with long names:
The San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park or
The David Kreitzer Lake Hodges Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge!!!!!
Nobody can remember such long names.
Could the name for this facility
NOT BE:
Strawberry Center: obsolete
Visitor Center: dull
Nature Center: there is nothing natural about the Restoration, this project is nature re-engineered
SO could the name be:
San Dieguito Lagoon Center to be replaced by XYZ Lagoon Center when XYZ has been found to fund all this.
2. Seek to coalesce functions with multi-use rooms.….
Two examples:
A. In my comments I suggested that in spite of internet access, hard copies of crucial reference documents should be preserved.
The architects responded with to plan for a 12x17 Archive Room: very nice.
The preserving of these archival documents could be done equally well by lining up the blind wall of the Conference Room with locked book-cases.
This would be a saving of $ 100,000 in construction costs.
B. In the same vein.
• Rethink the first building east of the courtyard so that the exhibit room could be used as a very rare large meeting room (DO provide a large storage area).
• Exhibit hall: most people acquire information through the internet and do not visit exhibitions.
* Entirely delete the eastern most building.
* The laboratory cannot operate without a mother institution. And should be sharply reduced or deleted etc…
3. Campus like concept: many building.
This is a very good idea. The Payne Scripps Center is a good example on how that can be done elegantly.
The park should clarify in this final presentation what comes first.
A. Obviously the landscaping of the whole Villages Property. Is it realistic to believe that grants can be found for that?
B. In my eyes the principal function of the Lagoon Center is the one entrusted to the rangers: their space requirement, equipment and staffing should come first.
C. The Lagoon Center should have a narrow focus program what it does what others cannot do: tell about the Restoration. This huge complex with new programs changes the original purpose of the Park; A wild life corridor and trail.
4. Financing.
This project is operating in a financial vacuum. This cannot be.
When construction considerations are made, financing for staff and maintenance MUST be part of the equation.
I visited the San Elijo Lagoon Center yesterday and found out that they have 5 Rangers for an area that is probably very similar to the SDgto Lagoon.
• We have 2.5 rangers so that an endowment funding and extra 2.5 rangers is necessary.
• How many square feet does the project propose? San Elijo is 5525 sq ft and they seemed to think that that was sufficient.
• What is the average sq/ ft cost estimate?
• What are the staff needs for such a large project besides the rangers?
•Where is the money coming from to pay for a stable staffing force to man all those buildings?
* What are expected maintenance cost?
In conclusion this is a very large project but to be successful it must be severely reduced in size and scope.
No Taj Mahal, please.
Jacqueline
I do have a serious problem with the OUTCOME of that process.
The architects really did listen to everybody and delivered on most if not all the “requests”.
The next step should be a major effort of either triage or editing or making an effort toward multi uses for these facilities: this project is simply TOO BIG.
The main goals of the San Dieguito River Park project is
a. to create a wildlife corridor along the San Dieguito River
b. to create a Coast to Crest trail
c. to educate the public.
From my perspective the educational effort should be toward informing the public how this Restoration could happen and how the public at large should become the steward of this wonderful project.
The educational effort should NOT be to replace or even complement the school system’s responsibility of teaching biology, etc…
1. Name
The SDRP is comfortable with long names:
The San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park or
The David Kreitzer Lake Hodges Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge!!!!!
Nobody can remember such long names.
Could the name for this facility
NOT BE:
Strawberry Center: obsolete
Visitor Center: dull
Nature Center: there is nothing natural about the Restoration, this project is nature re-engineered
SO could the name be:
San Dieguito Lagoon Center to be replaced by XYZ Lagoon Center when XYZ has been found to fund all this.
2. Seek to coalesce functions with multi-use rooms.….
Two examples:
A. In my comments I suggested that in spite of internet access, hard copies of crucial reference documents should be preserved.
The architects responded with to plan for a 12x17 Archive Room: very nice.
The preserving of these archival documents could be done equally well by lining up the blind wall of the Conference Room with locked book-cases.
This would be a saving of $ 100,000 in construction costs.
B. In the same vein.
• Rethink the first building east of the courtyard so that the exhibit room could be used as a very rare large meeting room (DO provide a large storage area).
• Exhibit hall: most people acquire information through the internet and do not visit exhibitions.
* Entirely delete the eastern most building.
* The laboratory cannot operate without a mother institution. And should be sharply reduced or deleted etc…
3. Campus like concept: many building.
This is a very good idea. The Payne Scripps Center is a good example on how that can be done elegantly.
The park should clarify in this final presentation what comes first.
A. Obviously the landscaping of the whole Villages Property. Is it realistic to believe that grants can be found for that?
B. In my eyes the principal function of the Lagoon Center is the one entrusted to the rangers: their space requirement, equipment and staffing should come first.
C. The Lagoon Center should have a narrow focus program what it does what others cannot do: tell about the Restoration. This huge complex with new programs changes the original purpose of the Park; A wild life corridor and trail.
4. Financing.
This project is operating in a financial vacuum. This cannot be.
When construction considerations are made, financing for staff and maintenance MUST be part of the equation.
I visited the San Elijo Lagoon Center yesterday and found out that they have 5 Rangers for an area that is probably very similar to the SDgto Lagoon.
• We have 2.5 rangers so that an endowment funding and extra 2.5 rangers is necessary.
• How many square feet does the project propose? San Elijo is 5525 sq ft and they seemed to think that that was sufficient.
• What is the average sq/ ft cost estimate?
• What are the staff needs for such a large project besides the rangers?
•Where is the money coming from to pay for a stable staffing force to man all those buildings?
* What are expected maintenance cost?
In conclusion this is a very large project but to be successful it must be severely reduced in size and scope.
No Taj Mahal, please.
Jacqueline
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Lagoon Center Comment
On a recent road trip through Redwoods National Park, we stopped at the Prairie Creek Visitor Center to obtain a hiking permit for a particularly spectacular trail through the mountains. The actual park is strung out over many miles of coast to the west, highway to the north & south, and fingers of mountains and canyons interspersed with farms, towns and secondary roads to the east. While at the Center, I noticed all their outdoor displays, but the most memorable one was a (roughly) 10 ft. X 5 ft. raised relief map of the park. Studying that display helped me put all the various pieces together in my mind, much like a large map would do, but with the added benefit that the raised relief provided a 3-dimensional view. I could see just how diverse the land features were within the park, from ocean to mountaintops, and could identify exactly where our hike would take us in the mountains.
Nearly everyone who saw the display took time to study it.
I have noted Jim's comments in the blog where he recommends having a model of the watershed. If that's what I've described above, I certainly agree with him. The San Dieguito River Park enjoys a similarly varied landscape as Redwoods National Park and it is interrupted in many spots by various types of development. Visitors to the Nature Center would easily be able to visualize the full extent of the river as it winds its way west from the mountains down through the woodlands and meadows to agricultural lands, then into the lagoon and finally the ocean. I strongly urge that consideration should be given to including a raised relief map to the Nature Center's displays. People of all ages will benefit.
Liz
Nearly everyone who saw the display took time to study it.
I have noted Jim's comments in the blog where he recommends having a model of the watershed. If that's what I've described above, I certainly agree with him. The San Dieguito River Park enjoys a similarly varied landscape as Redwoods National Park and it is interrupted in many spots by various types of development. Visitors to the Nature Center would easily be able to visualize the full extent of the river as it winds its way west from the mountains down through the woodlands and meadows to agricultural lands, then into the lagoon and finally the ocean. I strongly urge that consideration should be given to including a raised relief map to the Nature Center's displays. People of all ages will benefit.
Liz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
