Comment from San Dieguito Lagoon Committee:
Thank you for inviting the San Dieguito Lagoon Committee and other stakeholders to comment on the proposed design and interpretive themes for the San Dieguito Lagoon Nature Center. As the authorized sub-committee of the Lagoon Committee, we submit the following summary of the Committee’s observations, which were made at our regularly scheduled June and August meetings.
We are pleased that several of the suggestions made at our June meeting have been incorporated into the draft concept plans. However, we do have concerns about the collective size/square footage of the proposed buildings and hardscape, and we also believe that the numerous and possibly conflicting functions envisioned for the site must be narrowed down and clearly defined so that the resources to be highlighted are not overshadowed by hardscape and buildings.
The lead sentence in your draft narrative aptly describes a center that “supports an interpretive and contemplative experience and focuses on developing a series of de-compressive site and building experiences that foster a deeper appreciation and understanding of the River Valley, the Coast to Crest trail and the Lagoon and wetlands.” We would emphasize the word contemplative. We do not wish the center to become so busy with human activity that quiet contemplation becomes impossible.
We believe “form follows function” and strongly recommend that more time be spent defining the center’s functions precisely. We assert that, once this task is accomplished, a reduction of the building mass and hardscape should, can and will follow. In keeping with the above quote from your draft narrative, the center’s functions must truly focus on nature and the out-of-doors. Let it be a portal, not an obstruction.
Our subcommittee report is submitted separately.
Liz, Jan & Bill
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Lagoon Center Comment
Awesome drawings, what would be really nice is a little outdoor amphitheater for lectures, small concert by the wetlands, ...., something to bring in more donations.
John
John
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Lagoon Center Comment
1. I like the site plan which Andy presented. Separation of Equestrian trailhead seems wise from safety and from maintenance(especially picking up horse manure) viewpoints. I hope the open areas on the east will offer a chance for kids to run when they are tired of the museum part. Otherwise they would use the trails for this. Not desirable! Good to hide the parking behind the bank and to use a berm for screening.
2. I think Carol's blog has some good points about security and uses when rangers are not there. We had some examples of this when the Strawberry Stand structure was erected. Have we considered having a small house trailer on site as we did for Sikes? Occupied cheaply by a student or other person in exchange for being a "Watchdog"? If so a space should be allocated for it.
3 . The overall appearance of the building judged from the simulated drawings gives a very horizontal, layered effect which is certainly modern but I think it seems very urban. Perhaps this is necessary to achieve the viewing platforms but I hope the final architect will soften the lines and use building materials to add interest to the structure. I do not envision any vegetation other than the rather inconspicuous native plants .
4. Jim's blog expresses my feelings about the emphasis on outdoor activities. In our coastal climate it would be a shame to miss the opportunity for outdoor displays possible throughout the year. I still feel strongly that a water feature illustrating the lagoon/ocean interconnection would be exciting and a unique feature of this visitor center. Since the lagoon itself is not accessible this seems to be a way to have people relate to the wider environment as well as a great educational opportunity for school visitors. I know this is part of the later program development but I would like to see a place dedicated to this in the plan.
5. Has the consultant considered the maintenance aspects of this structure? Window cleaning is a chore in the coastal area and there are a lot of windows waiting for salt deposits! The trails and parking will generate dust . Perhaps the "Watchdog" in 2. could also be the window cleaner. The horse area will need special attention.
6. Finally I think the administration space is too large compared with the rest of the center now I see the simulations. And the meeting room is also large. Who will use it?
I reiterate : EMPHASIZE THE OUTDOOR USES OF THIS SITE.
Freda
2. I think Carol's blog has some good points about security and uses when rangers are not there. We had some examples of this when the Strawberry Stand structure was erected. Have we considered having a small house trailer on site as we did for Sikes? Occupied cheaply by a student or other person in exchange for being a "Watchdog"? If so a space should be allocated for it.
3 . The overall appearance of the building judged from the simulated drawings gives a very horizontal, layered effect which is certainly modern but I think it seems very urban. Perhaps this is necessary to achieve the viewing platforms but I hope the final architect will soften the lines and use building materials to add interest to the structure. I do not envision any vegetation other than the rather inconspicuous native plants .
4. Jim's blog expresses my feelings about the emphasis on outdoor activities. In our coastal climate it would be a shame to miss the opportunity for outdoor displays possible throughout the year. I still feel strongly that a water feature illustrating the lagoon/ocean interconnection would be exciting and a unique feature of this visitor center. Since the lagoon itself is not accessible this seems to be a way to have people relate to the wider environment as well as a great educational opportunity for school visitors. I know this is part of the later program development but I would like to see a place dedicated to this in the plan.
5. Has the consultant considered the maintenance aspects of this structure? Window cleaning is a chore in the coastal area and there are a lot of windows waiting for salt deposits! The trails and parking will generate dust . Perhaps the "Watchdog" in 2. could also be the window cleaner. The horse area will need special attention.
6. Finally I think the administration space is too large compared with the rest of the center now I see the simulations. And the meeting room is also large. Who will use it?
I reiterate : EMPHASIZE THE OUTDOOR USES OF THIS SITE.
Freda
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Lagoon Center Comment
I've briefly read through the nice descriptions and drawings of the plans for the new lagoon center. I have a few comments below.
I particularly liked the emphasis on the outdoor experience/ minimizing the indoor exhibits and activities of the casual visitor. I especially liked the area east of the center, marked the "meadow" and "chapparral" that look like a very nice, passive interpretive experience.
As for my concerns, I must tell you I've spent my Saturdays since mid-July helping the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition with a new City of San Diego-built bike trail along the banks of the San Diego River in Mission Valley. We adopted the trail and agreed to keep it free of trash, graffitti and noxious weeds. Most of my time I've been painting over graffitti and picking up sometimes disgusting refuse.
Having said that, I may have a jaded view at this point, but I'm a little worried about the proximity of our new lagoon center to the "outside world" on Via de la Valle, I-5, and the shopping center. Have you considered tall fencing on Via de la Valle and San Andres, night-time locking of gates, and other ways to protect the property when the rangers are away?
I worry about kids with skateboards and trick bikes using the amphitheatre and other outdoor facilities in a destructive manner.
I worry about the youth who walk over from the shopping center looking for a place to drink beer and be rowdy at night.
I worry about people exiting the I-5 in their cars and looking for a nearby place to park and "hang out" at night.
I worry about passers-by on Via de la Valle throwing their trash down the hill, or anyone who doesn't care much about the park and is drawn by the seclusion of the park right next to the roadway.
Sorry if I sound macabre, but I'm disturbed by what some people have done to the brand new bike trail in Mission Valley. Other park interpretive centers I've visited are often far from "civilization" or else locked up at night. Being so close to civilization is both a blessing and a curse.
That's my 2 cents worth.
Carol
I particularly liked the emphasis on the outdoor experience/ minimizing the indoor exhibits and activities of the casual visitor. I especially liked the area east of the center, marked the "meadow" and "chapparral" that look like a very nice, passive interpretive experience.
As for my concerns, I must tell you I've spent my Saturdays since mid-July helping the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition with a new City of San Diego-built bike trail along the banks of the San Diego River in Mission Valley. We adopted the trail and agreed to keep it free of trash, graffitti and noxious weeds. Most of my time I've been painting over graffitti and picking up sometimes disgusting refuse.
Having said that, I may have a jaded view at this point, but I'm a little worried about the proximity of our new lagoon center to the "outside world" on Via de la Valle, I-5, and the shopping center. Have you considered tall fencing on Via de la Valle and San Andres, night-time locking of gates, and other ways to protect the property when the rangers are away?
I worry about kids with skateboards and trick bikes using the amphitheatre and other outdoor facilities in a destructive manner.
I worry about the youth who walk over from the shopping center looking for a place to drink beer and be rowdy at night.
I worry about people exiting the I-5 in their cars and looking for a nearby place to park and "hang out" at night.
I worry about passers-by on Via de la Valle throwing their trash down the hill, or anyone who doesn't care much about the park and is drawn by the seclusion of the park right next to the roadway.
Sorry if I sound macabre, but I'm disturbed by what some people have done to the brand new bike trail in Mission Valley. Other park interpretive centers I've visited are often far from "civilization" or else locked up at night. Being so close to civilization is both a blessing and a curse.
That's my 2 cents worth.
Carol
Lagoon Center Comment
Building:
First Floor should not have the administrative offices. This floor should be confined for visitor and student use. It’s important that the lab and classroom spaces are together for access to laptops, backpacks, teaching or lecturing spaces, etc. This is for citizen science groups and classes of all ages as well as collaborative uses. This would be more functional. To maximize outdoor programs there should be direct access to the outdoor areas from lab and classroom spaces. Otherwise there is a traffic flow issue. All groups should be able to use the exhibit area, the amphitheatre area, the movie area, and the lab and classroom areas in a continuous flowing movement confined to one floor that effectively links classrooms, study space, and the lab.
Meetings, conferences, administrative tasks and staff space, and a catering kitchen for events should all be housed on the second floor.
Interpretive Theme Matrix:
The first subtheme should focus more narrowly on the central theme: The San Dieguito River Park’s creation in response to concerns about commercial development in the San Dieguito Lagoon. This would entail the history of the degradation of the lagoon. (I think bringing the entire regional and Native American history into this is too broad)
The second subtheme should focus on restoration and stewardship/education. (This goes to the theme that we only conserve what we love, we only love what we understand, and we only understand what we’ve been taught.) Global warming, etc. is too broad. We should concentrate on this issue only. In other words, think globally but act locally.
The third subtheme is good – based on the overall organization.
Narrative:
I’m not sure that we’ve gone from a “developed and active to a restored and passive environment and habitat”.
Rather than interpretive and contemplative experience, we are striving for an educational and active stewardship site.
I would like to see more on a student emphasis with mentoring component for upper level grades and community college students.
If we are maximizing outdoor programs are there actual sites where students can experiment and get dirty?
First Floor should not have the administrative offices. This floor should be confined for visitor and student use. It’s important that the lab and classroom spaces are together for access to laptops, backpacks, teaching or lecturing spaces, etc. This is for citizen science groups and classes of all ages as well as collaborative uses. This would be more functional. To maximize outdoor programs there should be direct access to the outdoor areas from lab and classroom spaces. Otherwise there is a traffic flow issue. All groups should be able to use the exhibit area, the amphitheatre area, the movie area, and the lab and classroom areas in a continuous flowing movement confined to one floor that effectively links classrooms, study space, and the lab.
Meetings, conferences, administrative tasks and staff space, and a catering kitchen for events should all be housed on the second floor.
Interpretive Theme Matrix:
The first subtheme should focus more narrowly on the central theme: The San Dieguito River Park’s creation in response to concerns about commercial development in the San Dieguito Lagoon. This would entail the history of the degradation of the lagoon. (I think bringing the entire regional and Native American history into this is too broad)
The second subtheme should focus on restoration and stewardship/education. (This goes to the theme that we only conserve what we love, we only love what we understand, and we only understand what we’ve been taught.) Global warming, etc. is too broad. We should concentrate on this issue only. In other words, think globally but act locally.
The third subtheme is good – based on the overall organization.
Narrative:
I’m not sure that we’ve gone from a “developed and active to a restored and passive environment and habitat”.
Rather than interpretive and contemplative experience, we are striving for an educational and active stewardship site.
I would like to see more on a student emphasis with mentoring component for upper level grades and community college students.
If we are maximizing outdoor programs are there actual sites where students can experiment and get dirty?
Barbara
Lagoon Center Comment
It looks as though the structures are designed to blend in rather than stand out. I hope so. I really like the Anza Borrego Visitor Center. But I dislike the Chula Vista Nature Center building even though I really like their displays and program. Having a nature center that requires bird exclusion measures seems like very poor planning. I hope yours will be much more like the AB Center. The building should not take attention away from the Lagoon. It would be nice if there were a green roof with local vegetation over much of it.
It would also be nice if you would have a very large model of the watershed somewhere in the landscaping or pavement or on a large wall, so people will begin to understand how it fits together. If you can it would be nice if the elevation dimension were scaled up by 10 or 100 or so to make the contours and elevation changes more obvious. It would be nicest if it were on an area where children can walk along it - even better if water could flow down through the model.
It would be nice if the parking lot had a pedestrian walkway through it. It is a bummer to have to dodge cars backing out of spaces when walking through a parking lot, especially with children. Also I hope that will be a scenic cattail/bullrush infiltration/treatment basin to remove the trash and clean up the water running from the parking lot toward the River.
It would also be nice if you would have a very large model of the watershed somewhere in the landscaping or pavement or on a large wall, so people will begin to understand how it fits together. If you can it would be nice if the elevation dimension were scaled up by 10 or 100 or so to make the contours and elevation changes more obvious. It would be nicest if it were on an area where children can walk along it - even better if water could flow down through the model.
It would be nice if the parking lot had a pedestrian walkway through it. It is a bummer to have to dodge cars backing out of spaces when walking through a parking lot, especially with children. Also I hope that will be a scenic cattail/bullrush infiltration/treatment basin to remove the trash and clean up the water running from the parking lot toward the River.
Jim
Lagoon Center Comment
I looked over the concept plans and am excited about the facility and the benefits it will have for our river valley! Here are my comments that I have after reviewing the designs:
1) Future widening of Via de la Valle. The concept plans do take into account the area proposed for the future widening, and there is discussion on the noise impact of this thoroughfare. I don't know where in the process the city/county is in widening this section of roadway but I suggest (if it has not been done) that the SDRVP send comments to that entity that appropriate mitigation be installed to address roadway noise. I think that maintaining view from the roadway is important so travelers have a chance to see into the valley, so I'm not advocating huge sound walls. We have found that even 3-4 foot high block walls are effective in shielding tire and engine noise and headlights from off-site properties. Also, the landscaping and lighting that is done in the Via do la Valle right-of-way should be compatible with plant material that is installed at the lagoon center...this would help blend the two uses together and help make Via de la Valle appear as an extension of the Center.
2) This facility will be a very popular venue for school children. The written description includes opportunities for picnicking, but when I looked over the concept plans I didn't see where those are. If a teacher is bringing her class of 30+ students with their bag lunches there should be a picnic area to accommodate them that includes tables and/or seating, refuse, water and shade that is somewhat secure and not in the way of, or becomes a distraction to, other visitors of the center.
3) Parking Area. I know that the parking area is not yet detailed to the level of delineating spaces, but make sure there are a couple of stalls large enough to accommodate school busses.
4) I appreciate all the energy efficient features. Please consider reclaimed water for irrigation. If the water agency does not have reclaimed water available to the site yet it would be good to consider installing a dual irrigation system with purple pipe during construction so that the site is ready to transfer over when reclaimed water is provided.
5) Public Art. This is a feature that adds so much to facilities such as yours but often an afterthought that gets installed after the facility is in place without much forethought. I suggest having an artist and/or landscape architect look at the plans to provide guidance on where the best locations would be to install public art (which would serve as an additional draw for the center). The style of art need not be decided upon at this point, but determining where the best location(s) to place art and how much area you want to devote to those feature(s) should discussed early in the process.
6) Upper level concept plan. I like the large meeting room and opportunities that it will have for holding large gatherings. I don't feel that a single bathroom will be sufficient for this area. I realize that there are additional facilities downstairs but it may be wise to consider making the upper level more complete with separate men's and women's facilities, especially in consideration of my last comment...
7) Proposed use for the meeting room. What types of meetings are anticipated for the meeting room? One possibility is to open this up to the public as a revenue generating opportunity for the Park. Corporate seminars/retreats, weddings, receptions, and other private venues would be interested in this space to hold their events; rent collected for such gatherings would provide funding to help run the facility...just a thought.
Overall the plans look good and I'm excited about seeing it come to fruition!
Jay
1) Future widening of Via de la Valle. The concept plans do take into account the area proposed for the future widening, and there is discussion on the noise impact of this thoroughfare. I don't know where in the process the city/county is in widening this section of roadway but I suggest (if it has not been done) that the SDRVP send comments to that entity that appropriate mitigation be installed to address roadway noise. I think that maintaining view from the roadway is important so travelers have a chance to see into the valley, so I'm not advocating huge sound walls. We have found that even 3-4 foot high block walls are effective in shielding tire and engine noise and headlights from off-site properties. Also, the landscaping and lighting that is done in the Via do la Valle right-of-way should be compatible with plant material that is installed at the lagoon center...this would help blend the two uses together and help make Via de la Valle appear as an extension of the Center.
2) This facility will be a very popular venue for school children. The written description includes opportunities for picnicking, but when I looked over the concept plans I didn't see where those are. If a teacher is bringing her class of 30+ students with their bag lunches there should be a picnic area to accommodate them that includes tables and/or seating, refuse, water and shade that is somewhat secure and not in the way of, or becomes a distraction to, other visitors of the center.
3) Parking Area. I know that the parking area is not yet detailed to the level of delineating spaces, but make sure there are a couple of stalls large enough to accommodate school busses.
4) I appreciate all the energy efficient features. Please consider reclaimed water for irrigation. If the water agency does not have reclaimed water available to the site yet it would be good to consider installing a dual irrigation system with purple pipe during construction so that the site is ready to transfer over when reclaimed water is provided.
5) Public Art. This is a feature that adds so much to facilities such as yours but often an afterthought that gets installed after the facility is in place without much forethought. I suggest having an artist and/or landscape architect look at the plans to provide guidance on where the best locations would be to install public art (which would serve as an additional draw for the center). The style of art need not be decided upon at this point, but determining where the best location(s) to place art and how much area you want to devote to those feature(s) should discussed early in the process.
6) Upper level concept plan. I like the large meeting room and opportunities that it will have for holding large gatherings. I don't feel that a single bathroom will be sufficient for this area. I realize that there are additional facilities downstairs but it may be wise to consider making the upper level more complete with separate men's and women's facilities, especially in consideration of my last comment...
7) Proposed use for the meeting room. What types of meetings are anticipated for the meeting room? One possibility is to open this up to the public as a revenue generating opportunity for the Park. Corporate seminars/retreats, weddings, receptions, and other private venues would be interested in this space to hold their events; rent collected for such gatherings would provide funding to help run the facility...just a thought.
Overall the plans look good and I'm excited about seeing it come to fruition!
Jay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
