Callaghan Talks Kids and Boats
We attended the Foss Waterway workshop earlier this week and heard some divergent opinions of how we should use the most inland corner of the Foss near Freighthouse Square and the D Street Overpass. The property was purchased with Pierce County Conservation Futures money intended for non-motorized boating, open space, and native plants. But, there’s that question of the Children’s Museum checking out the space. So what is the future of this little park?
Peter Callaghan at the News Tribune has weighed in on the topic. His opinion seems to be that maybe, just maybe, there’s a better site for the museum next to Johnny’s Seafood.
But why not build the museum there instead? It is closer to downtown, closer to the other museums, more accessible and less environmentally damaged. And it can be used without picking a fight with the boat people and open-space advocates who want what they’ve been promised.
And no one has to be labeled anti-kid.
Link to The News Tribune
Previously on Exit133
12 comments
B Ben January 31, 2008
If Peter is talking about the same site I’m thinking of, I think that’s a great idea. There’s an ugly blue building and lot to the north of Jhonny’s that’s had a GVM Kidder Matthews for lease sign on it for atleast 2 years now. As long as I’ve been watching that piece of property in Tacoma, it’s been empty. It’s sorta a walking “killer” if you want to walk from the Glass Museum to the park at the north end of Dock St.
N NSHDscott January 31, 2008
Is that the building called The Dock?
S Steve January 31, 2008
It’s not the Dock building, that’s way north at the end near Thea’s Park. I think this is either the land between Johnny’s and the blue shed, formerly Colonial Fruit & Produce, or the blue shed property itself. This would be a great location, better access and visibility. A former idea for this area was an outdoor market, partnering Johnny’s and the Fruit & Produce guys, kind of a farmers market area…. not sure whatever happened to that. At any rate, I think this should be agressively pursued — my kids are getting older, and I would love to enjoy a cool museum on a waterway our family really enjoys.
B Brotha E January 31, 2008
There’s no food or bus service for those hungry and tired kids down there anyway. Doesn’t sound like either one of those sites is very feasible. You every tried walking (I should say carrying) your kid to get some eats after going to a museum or event. Uptown (Hilltop) is sounding better and better. And what’s the deal with two reporters from the same paper having different views on this. Voepel says Dst and now Callahan says maybe not. Maybe the editor’s need to weigh in on this one too.
C Claudia Riedener January 31, 2008
Below my letter yesterday to Don Meyer at TFWA. I appreciate Peter Callaghan’s column. He is the first at the Tribune to see such secret dealings bring resentment. I am interested to know how Jack Wilson at Metro Parks first writes in support of open green space in perpetuity, but later planning staff at Metro Parks is designing the very space with a Children’s Discovery Center building (also known as Children’s Museum). I do wish there was a Brian Sontag closely watching over Metro Parks.
Regarding Thea Foss Waterway Park
Dear Don,
Dan Voelpel at the Tribune asked us to look at the Thea Foss Waterway Park as a blank slate. You stated in your opening remarks that the meeting was about finding ways to fit the Children’s Museum onto that site. Editorials at the Tribune strongly support a museum building. So does Bill Evans, who prefers to call the building a Children’s Discovery Center, and thus verbally minimizes the impact.
The meeting last night made clear that many museum supporters are blissfully unaware that the site indeed has already been spoken for (or don’t mind to ignore that fact). The Thea Foss Waterway Authority Board holds the deed to the land, along with it the Property Covenant that states: ‘As a condition of purchase at the time the property sale is recorded, a covenant is also recorded. The covenant, in the County’s favor, will run with the land in perpetuity and restricts the use of the land to open space uses that are identified in the nomination materials and can include active recreation’.
I strongly urge the TFWA to hold a public hearing and bring along ALL the facts and be honest and direct as to how it has obtained the land and with what funds and under what conditions. As a publicly funded Authority you must be held to a standard of honesty, not only because indeed you are using public funds, but also because this will set precedence for all open space lands acquired with Conservation Futures Fund money. Should the Children’s Museum decide to try to litigate its way onto the site, other sites set aside in perpetuity could be opened up for multilevel development. I am also concerned for Pierce Conservation District lands.
While I understand that there are pressures from powerful forces at the city and the county in favor of a museum development, there are also other groups who strongly support open space. Jack Wilson from Metro Parks, Leslie Ann Rose from Citizens for a Healthy Bay, The Glass Museum and the Dome District Association all wrote letters in support of keeping the site as open space in perpetuity.
Let’s honor the work all these people have done, let’s honor the vote of the pierce county citizens who taxed themselves for conservation, let’s honor the county’s ordinance regarding Conservation Futures Fund, let’s honor the property deed, let’s honor public trust in elected and other officials and most of all, let’s be decent stewards of the land, which does belong to the children.
Claudia Riedener
E Erik B. January 31, 2008
At any rate, I think this should be agressively pursued — my kids are getting older, and I would love to enjoy a cool museum on a waterway our family really enjoys.
Is there any reason that the Museum and the boat launch area can’t be conmbined? I think both projects are going to have a better chance of success if they are combined. A single use is going to keep the area empty most of the time. Area around the water is very limited.
It doesn’t have to mean you like one use better than the other.
L Lois Stark January 31, 2008
I’d encourage folks to take a look at the previous study work for the Waterway Park site. Four options were developed for the site, only one of which includes a building that could be used for a museum type of use.
Lots of other ideas are shown in the options including boat houses, boat floats, skate parks, gardens, and even a zip line. People may like some ideas/features but not others – that’s the whole point of the study, to give people options that they can pick and choose from, modify and add their own creativity to the discussion about what the future of this site should be.
Happy Planning Everyone!!
The study with possible options can be found at: http://www.metroparkstacoma.org/page.php?id=842
S Steve Wells January 31, 2008
In response to Erik B. I’d like to offer my thoughts. The Chairman of the Museum Board and Bill Evans met with a group of boaters at my show room last year. They expressed their hope we could cooperate. We responded positively and asked them to work with us. That was essentially the last we heard from them. We presumed the burden was (and is)on them to show how their ideas can fit with the established commitments to open space and boating.
In the absence of meaningful communication from the museum proponents and given our complete lack of details about their vision, we developed a proposal for adaptive re-use of the Berg Warehouse as a boathouse. This approach says nothing pro or con about adding a museum to the site. It’s a very feasible solution for our needs and a baseline for discussion.
Given their track record, we’re a little leery of the museum’s claimed willingness to truly collaborate. I’m hesitant to get tied closely to a museum capital campaign given the history of museum capital campaigns in this region. I’m confused about what the children’s museum proposes to add by being on the waterfront given the same promised programming from the Foss Waterway Seaport at the other end of the Foss. And I’m concerned that so many museum proponents at the workshop were convinced we should tear down the Berg Warehouse and start over.
Again, the burden is on the museum proponents to show how their late coming vision fits with established commitments and covenants. If they fit without damaging the open space and boating commitments, the park would be vital and kids would be further exposed to boating. But to make that determination, we need to hear more specifics from them about what, where and when.
T Tacoma-Pierce County Sports Commission January 31, 2008
Here’s the letter the Sports Commission wrote in response to Peter’s column published today (thurs):
Non-Motorized Boaters Deserve a Place to Call their Own
Re: Museum people should set their site sights higher (Callaghan, 1-31)
In response to Peter Callaghan’s column, it is clear that the nonmotorized boaters should receive primary consideration in the future development of the Foss Waterway Park. Peter states that “the land in question was bought with Pierce County Conservation Futures money to be set aside for open space, nonmotorized boating, native plants and a soft shoreline.”
Peter made a great point that the grant issued by Pierce County was intended to integrate the needs of the nonmotorized boating community. There is a major problem facing Tacoma’s human powered boating community today; affordable access to the water. With the high cost of moorage, it is difficult for many of these clubs to afford the cost to keep a boat on or near the water. Many of the clubs have had to relocate several times.
The adaptive re-use of the existing Berg Scaffolding Building deserves ample consideration by the Foss Waterway Development Authority and other stakeholders. This building could potentially be converted into boat storage that the human powered boating enthusiast/clubs could share. Sharing moorage costs would greatly reduce this expense for the nonmotorized boating clubs and would allow them to grow in a way that would provide greater access to the water for everyone and enhance the livability of our community.
B Ben January 31, 2008
To whomever said there’s no bus service on Dock St.
I don’t ride the bus, but I know there are two stops, one in front of “The Esplanade” and another near Thea’s Landing. Additionally, the Dock St./11st bridge makes it literally a 5 minute walk from this location to Pacific. I do it everynight with my dog, not bad at all.
I don’t know much about the museum, but I do know the location, and it’s actually a prime spot for something.
C Claudia Riedener January 31, 2008
Happy planning indeed, Lois. But why include a plan for a museum on a site that does not allow that? Why spend 25,000 dollars on a fantasy plan? Are the city and Metro Parks hoping for a loop hole? Would it not be prudent to first look at the deed and the covenant and then spend staff hours on proper planning? How about asking the County Council for a vote before such planning? I would prefer to see bond and tax money used for actual situations – not fantasy. Tolefson Plaza, for example.
B Brotha E January 31, 2008
Oops, stand corrected.