09202400_CR OPEN HOUSE 2_Online Feedback_Parks and Recreati

8/14/2019 09202400_CR OPEN HOUSE 2_Online Feedback_Parks and Recreati

1/7

CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDSCOMMUNITY FACILITIES PLANNING

CR OPENHOUSE #2ONLINE FEEDBACK

AUGUST 31, 2009

16 Online Respondents

PARKS AND RECREATION

Comments/questions/concerns about strategies to lower maintenancecosts and increase funding to the Parks System?

_ Lower costs by clustering major services, then linking them with low-cost trails and low-maintenance greenways that require less mowing / daily upkeep.

_ Get rid of the pocket parks. _ no opinion

_ Switching to more natural areas is a good way to reduce costs, plus I like the way it looks.Volunteers or Friends groups should be developed to help with maintenance of the parks,etc.

_ Worthless to me. While trails always score high, does the use versus cost really justify theexpense?

_ Should be done by all taxpayers. It should not be done by the people that use a certainentity just for that certain entity (i.e. golfers funding golf courses etc.) because it causes the

price to go up because there are not enough people using that specific entity ... like the golf courses!

Option 1-The Decentralized Option

1i. What do you like and dislike about this option?

_ Like: It is neighborhood friendly. Kids have places to go within walking / biking distance.Dislike: It is very expensive, we end up duplicating resources.

_ This option appears to use the current system by being spread out among the differentcommunities which creates less change and is probably most comfortable for mostresidents. However, it really does not address the need to bring residents that have left areason to come back or stay and really does not take the community in a forward direction.

_ I like that it benefits the whole community and not just downtown.

_ no opinion


2/7


3/7

_I like this option. CR needs a signature draw to not only those that live here but possiblerevenue from visitors. An amphitheater would be a great start for this. Also Cr needssomething downtown now that can help with the rebuilding of this community. It's anembarrassment that I have had to travel to Des Moines, Burlington, or Dubuque to findentertainment options for my family that could or should be available here in CR.

_I like most everything about the centralized option, but rising above all the particulars isthat it would give Cedar Rapids a focal point and a unique differentiation from othersecondary market communities. It appeals to the younger generation, the Richard Floridacreative class, recreational and environmental advocates; just about every cross section of citizenry imaginable. it is bold, it is visionary, and it will define Cedar Rapids for decades tocome.

_Like: Give the city a major destination. Easy to market. Clearly the best for economicdevelopment around the parks as it clusters traffic, making it possible to have retail / office /condos nearby. Pulls growth of city back to the core. Dislike: Expensive to build.

_I like how everything can be located in one area.

_Seems to only benefit downtown. I rarely go there and I don't think this will make itanymore likely, too hard to park and get in and out of.

_no opinion

_I wouldn't want to get rid of our parks and trails that are big and are used a lot byneighborhoods.

_As the name implies, too much focus on the central riverfront.

_I really like this option for the emphasis it places on new greenway and public parkamenities that would be created downtown along the river. I also think increasing the trailsystem is another important element and think the idea of linking the main green spacealong the river to all of the core neighborhoods would encourage a more bicycle friendlycommunity. I love the idea of having a new amphitheatre along the river. And I do feel thatthis community needs a new recreation center.

_It seems to be located where most of the parks may be located if the flood areas are turnedinto parks. It would be great to have a tremendous park with many recreational possibilitiesrunning right through the middle of Cedar Rapids!

2ii. What additional advantages and disadvantages do you see to thisoption?

_Love the Mays Island concepts, and I am particularly enthused about the amphitheaterconcept; though it ought to be designed to allow for a 'programmable' space such that itcould accomodate up to 15,000 patrons for a large outdoor event (think popular musicconcert). Outdoor concerts are growing in popularity across the country, and the well-designed amphitheaters are exrtremely successful. With the functional capacity of the USCellular Center at less than 6,000 people for a concert event, it forces the most popular actsto the other competitive markets.

_Gives a canvas that the city can build on for the next 50 years as we develop a world-classriverfront that will be the hallmark of this city's future. I can imagine 50 years from now the


4/7

rest of the world will talk about how current leadership took a flood and recreated its cityinto something spectacular.

_The advantages of creating a downtown that is full of activities and brings to life an areathat was struggling until it was completely wiped out by the flood will definitely help to bringresidents and businesses in, old and new and create an environment fit for families and put

Cedar Rapids as a quality destination not just to visit but to live. _no opinion

_Bad-Seems to focus indoor recreation on ONE "Multi-generational Community Life Facility"De-emphasizes many of our wonderful current parks. Lets them deteriorate.

_It might exclude people who can't afford to get to those areas

2iii. What programs in the option are important to you?

_Amphitheater. Bike trails, cafes, restaurants, all in one area.

_Trails connecting all parts of the city to the centralized park. Multiple ped bridges across theriver to avoid having to use busy / noisy trafficked streets.

_Outdoor Racquetball/Handball courts. This is an activity that can be enjoyed by bothchildren and adults. It would be outdoors so it would be free! Programs could be created toinvolve local schools, lessons, tournaments and would also be beneficial in terms of thehealth benefits. 600-800 calories can be burned up in an hour and it is more fun than beingon a treadmill for same amount of time. It is an inexpensive activity to get started in anddoes not require a great deal of skill to enjoy! The courts are made of concrete which makesthe upkeep minimal and if it does flood again you can powerwash it and your good to go! Itwould attract people from outside of the Cedar Rapids metro area and even some fromWaterloo and Ames. The amount of space needed is not tremendous and it would last foryears and years. I would also like to see indoor Racquetball in the new community center. In2008 participation in racquetball increased by more than 18%. It is one of only 4 sports thathas shown a continual increase in participation since 2000 (soccer, tennis and basketballwere the other three). It is a family oreinted sport where all members of the family can playand learn and be physically active and fit together! There are tournaments with 6 and underage divisions and 60+ age divisions. There is a substantial racquetball community in CedarRapids that is steadily growing and would like to expand. There are 2 facilities now in thecity that between them will be holding 4 tournaments annually and are holding camps,womens events, junior events and activities in racquetball. To eliminate racquetball from theplans with no thought would be a disservice and a loss to the community.

_I thinl leaving out a dog park is a mistake, more and more people are living in condos andapartments need a place to take pets.

_no opinion

_Please include racketball courts and facilities in this option.

_All recreational programs are important to my family


5/7

Option 3-The Hybrid Option

3i. What do you like and dislike about this option?

_Like: It retains what are emerging as the 4 major city parks outside the core (Bever,Noelridge, Jones, Cherry Hill) and still gives us a core. Dislike: Half-way solution will slow

economic development of the core, and could compromise, long-term, downtown'sredevelopment by affirming and adding to facilities in the fringes.

_This is better than the centralized option but not as good as the decentralized.

_no opinion

_I like this option best. I think we should have a centralized facility for programs that arecurrently offered at Ambroz Centre.

_I like the balance between a strong riverfront and the continuation of our great distributedpark system. I don't think we really need an inflatable dam and a "new recreational pool"near downtown. I think three or four 100,000 sq. ft. facilities across the city would be better

than one huge facility on the far NE side. All should have indoor pools. _I also like this option, just not as well as the centralized option.

_Seems to be more all inclusive

3ii. What additional advantages and disadvantages do you see to thisoption?

_The major parks provide natural destinations for a loop trail system.

_no opinion _More people will be included

3iii. What programs in the option are important to you?

_Urban trails, especially trails that do not travel right along trafficked roads, connectingparks.

_Same as in the centralized option.

_no opinion

_Please include racketball courts and facilities in this option.

_All programs are important to me and my family

Any comments/questions on communications or public participation?


6/7

_Please overweight comments from people who actually use the current system most. Theseare your "repeat customers" who will make the next plans successful...or not

_It was rather surprising to see all of the work and detail that has been put into this planningprocess and to hear from all of my co-workers and freinds who live in Cedar Rapids that theyhad not even heard of any of these proposals and options. They had no clue as to what was

going on at all. There needs to be some better communication between the City Council andthe community residents in terms of keeping them informed. The gazette has not given thisa fair shake in terms of what has been accomplished. Granted there will always be a certainamount of the general public who will sit back and accept whatever is chosen for them butto have such a low response to the survey and open houses really does not help the councilget a fair view of what the city really wants. I understand the attempt was made to informthe residents of these open houses and I don't blame anyone for this but maybe a little moretime could be allowed for these events instead of just 2 2-3 hour intervals for people to

juggle their already hectic schedules so that more informed suggestions and ideas could besubmitted. Thank you for your time and putting all of this together. It has been veryinformative.

_no opinion

_Somehow, we need to get more participation and get people out of the house. We needlinking trails that go all the way to the far west end of Cedar Hills and the Stoney Point AreaNW because these people feel discriminated against because all the trails seem to be on theEast Side of Cedar Rapids. These trails should be blacktop and not gravel and dirt.

Any other comments? _The softball diamonds at Tait Cummins are a disgrace to the city as well. They are acomplete dump. Someone should take a look at the Burlington Rec Plex to get an idea of how to run and develop something the community can be proud of. I've had to travel toBurlington for the past 6 years to play in the Men's E state softball tourney. That communityis making at least $500 from me alone on that weekend. There were probably approximately300 players alone there that one weekend. There is money to be made on a well kept, familyoriented, and well run concession stand at these ball parks.

_Seminole Valley Park an underutilized park. Please put a ped bridge linking the Ellis Park /boating area to access to Seminole Valley Park. It will link two incredible park resources, andturn SVP from an out-of-the-way, little used area into the big, open northern terminus of theRiverfront Greenway

_I think Cedar Rapids is MORE than just the river and downtown. I live in Marion but I work inCR and I have family in CR. If you want more income form out of downers the decentralizedoption is better.

_The city needs to get out of the entertainment business. We need to sell off the golf coursesto privatize them. At the very least we need to get rid of the Jones Park golf course. Everyyear we have to spend thousands of dollars to fix it up due to flooding of Prairie Creek. Thecity does not need a recreation building that houses all kinds of sports. Let private parties dothis. That way we get the money from the taxes on the property. We have more than enoughoversize sidewalks, aka trails.


7/7

_I love mountain biking & it is one of the most healthy, exciting, rewarding experiences Ihave experienced. I travel to other local communities around Iowa and other states to ridetheir trail systems and I bring my business to those areas. Support for more mountain bikingtrails in this area would be great. I know many riders who feel the same way. Please considersupporting the local mountain biking community!

_I like the centralized and hybrid options the best. We have a lot of little parks that should beturned over to "Friends" groups or other volunteers or maybe even the people in thatneighborhood where they are found. Some of these "parks" are tiny, little pieces of grasswith a sign indicating the name. I've never seen anyone in these areas-they are usuallybetween or surrounded by streets. Get rid or those.

_Dear Sirs: I would like to share input for recreational needs in the city. I feel that the futuregreen space could be utilized for a variety of ways. The city could make it area for rollerbladers/ bicylces/ wheel chair accessible. (the only indoor place to skate is Super Skate onthe NE side) this would also promote fitness in CR. Maybe space could be used for fundraising events/ camping/ farmers market and other summer activies. Benefits for floodedvictims could raise money to helpout. Just thought I would share some of these thoughtssince I grew up in this NW side of town.

_Open Space by river front: Dear Sirs: I would like to share input for recreational needs in thecity. I feel that the future green space could be utilized for a variety of ways. The city couldmake it area for roller bladers/ bicylces/ wheel chair accessible. (the only indoor place toskate is Super Skate on the NE side) this would also promote fitness in CR. Maybe spacecould be used for fund raising events/ camping/ farmers market and other summer activies.Benefits for flooded victims could raise money to helpout. Just thought I would share some of these thoughts since I grew up in this NW side of town. Thanks for your time,

_I prepared comments at the Open House, but I want to voice my opinion about the re-purposing of Tuma Sports Complex, with possible expanded soccer/field sport focus atSeminole Valley Park. It is a HUGE mistake in vision to not expand the recreational focus at

Tuma. The space is available and multiple sports (baseball/softball/soccer) can leverage off each other, partcularly if supplemented with baseball/softball tournament complexes. Tie-inswith the trail system and playgrounds can further enhance the recreational and competitivesports experience. The public also carries a strong negative opinion about the quality of programming offered to participants. I have lived above Seminole Valley Park for 24 years,witnessing multiple floods covering what once was outdoor campgrounds, primitivecampgrounds, football/rugby fields, and soccer fields. While the expansion of somesoccer/critchett fields and the establishment of more trails would be welcomed, the shiftfrom Tuma Sports Complex to Seminole would be wasteful in dollars, focus and vision. If theproposed field sports complex would also be extensively lighted, then you would be facedwith intense neighborhood opposition against excessive light pollution. Another negativewould be the poor quality of Seminole Valley Road that provides poor access to the Seminolesite.

_If an area is of "little-to-no recreational value", it should be sold and not kept as low-mow orprairie planting. Some "natural" prairie land would be fine (maybe one natural prairie park),but not the massive acres that you are suggesting. More areas could be changed from 10day mowing to 15 day mowing.

Documents

09202400_CR OPEN HOUSE 2_Online Feedback_Parks and Recreati