New $30 Million Kroc Community Center

[eagle]

Geeze, calm down! That was two whole months ago.

Maybe the director started using the chapel because others had noticed its lack of use. (I was told that by someone who works in the building.)

Defensive much?

Not defensive, just helping to correct a common misunderstanding of the YMCA's purpose. Believe me, my wife was surprised when she realized how much her job went beyond health, wellness, and "gym stuff."

I find it outrageous, allthough certainly reflective of the times, that anyone would challenge or criticize a Christian organization's choice to have a chapel in their facility. Have we become so politically correct that a Christian group needs to be careful not to offend a non-Christian in deciding how to use their facility?

And no, the director didn't start using the chapel because someone noticed it's lack of use. Staff devotions and prayer before meetings has been a regular part of the YMCA culture since it's founding.

Back to the topic at hand...

[nexpark]

I'm on TSA's Kroc Center Advisory Committee, and would love to hear some outside perspectives from those as versed as you all are in the area of development and design...

Did any of you look at the preliminary plans on the website:

Elevations: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...0Elevations.pdf

Sections: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...%20Sections.pdf

1st Floor: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...oor%20Plans.pdf

2nd Floor: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...20Plans%202.pdf

Development Area: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Development%20Area.pdf

There is still time to make improvement modifications if there are any good suggestions out there.

I personally would like to hear any/all feedback.

[Rizzo]

I'm on TSA's Kroc Center Advisory Committee, and would love to hear some outside perspectives from those as versed as you all are in the area of development and design...

Did any of you look at the preliminary plans on the website:

Elevations: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...0Elevations.pdf

Sections: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...%20Sections.pdf

1st Floor: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...oor%20Plans.pdf

2nd Floor: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...20Plans%202.pdf

Development Area: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Development%20Area.pdf

There is still time to make improvement modifications if there are any good suggestions out there.

I personally would like to hear any/all feedback.

This can tie in with our talk about a rapid transit system in GR. Since there will be some kind of transit option for Division Ave. I'm assuming this facility will not be just a neighborhood destination, but also a regional destination point. Why not allocate some space for when the time comes that there must be some kind of transit stop fronting Divison Ave...? Maybe kick the ball arounnd on this subject

[GRDadof3]

I'm on TSA's Kroc Center Advisory Committee, and would love to hear some outside perspectives from those as versed as you all are in the area of development and design...

There is still time to make improvement modifications if there are any good suggestions out there.

I personally would like to hear any/all feedback.

It looks like a standard suburban church. Considering that only about 20% of the building is set aside for a chapel, from the elevations you would think it was just a church.

Take a look at other Kroc Centers (not in reference to size, but in design aspects).

Chicago

San Diego

Portland

Is it a "church that provides recreational amenities to the nearby community", or is it a "community center that provides worship space as part of its offerings to the community"?

Are we just celebrating another Resurrection Life Church here, just brought to the inner city? If you want it to look like a church, that's certainly your prerogative. But since you asked about design, that would be my first question.

And you would think with 4 architectural firms involved, it wouldn't look so bland. In the elevation, the chapel looks like it was added on by accident. The green roof is a nice touch, but will there be access to it? The new EGR community center has a very cool layout with ground level access to the green roof.

[CK1]

I'm on TSA's Kroc Center Advisory Committee, and would love to hear some outside perspectives from those as versed as you all are in the area of development and design...

Did any of you look at the preliminary plans on the website:

Elevations: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...0Elevations.pdf

Sections: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...%20Sections.pdf

1st Floor: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...oor%20Plans.pdf

2nd Floor: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...20Plans%202.pdf

Development Area: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Development%20Area.pdf

There is still time to make improvement modifications if there are any good suggestions out there.

I personally would like to hear any/all feedback.

On first glance (and just on layout, not asthetics), I think it is a very wise decision to plan for future expansion. Given how popular the Y has become, if the new SA center takes off at even half that rate, increasing the building will be inevitable. Just make sure the expansion room is where it would be needed (gym vs. pool vs. classrooms vs. chapel, etc.). Wouldn't be all that cost effective to have ot move the entire pool complex to expand the fitness room / gym.

[concretepoem]

This can tie in with our talk about a rapid transit system in GR. Since there will be some kind of transit option for Division Ave. I'm assuming this facility will not be just a neighborhood destination, but also a regional destination point. Why not allocate some space for when the time comes that there must be some kind of transit stop fronting Divison Ave...? Maybe kick the ball arounnd on this subject

Given that the SA's demographic studies found the center's location would service 11,000 children under the age of 17, in a one mile geographical area surrounding the center, it does seem from the renderings to be very car centric. This isn't the MAC on East Paris. These 11.000 kids aren't all going to be dropped off by mom in her Volvo station wagon. A lot of people are likely to be arriving by bus, bicycle and foot. That needs to be better acknowledged in the design. Right now, it looks like it's the same old story: the automobile comes first, and everything else, from pedestrians to Plaster Creek to the South Division streetscape, comes second.

In addition to Rizzo's suggestion regarding rapid transit, I'd expect there will need for more ease of access for city buses, charter buses, etc. The renderings don't indicate any provision for it at the South Division curb or at the main entrance and the parking lot. And what about across the street? How and where are kids who get dropped off by a South-bound city bus going to cross South Division?

That needs to thought out and integrated more with the overall site plan. I'd suggest the city retain the same architect to design a pedestrian bridge that crosses Division over Plaster Creek, and feeds directly into a re-oriented entrance that lets the center's primary users--kids arriving at the Center from the north-- walk into the building without having to cross the driveway and/or parking lot.

A pedestrian bridge would also make the Kroc Center more of a landmark along that stretch of South Division, hopefully slow traffic down a bit, reveal the existence of the natural world, and give the kids a fun, safe way to walk to the Kroc.

Also, it looks from the renderings like there are some short paths along Plaster Creek, but is there a larger vision for integratiing the creekside path into site? Who owns the vacant land on the southside of the creek? And it may be too late for this note of environmental concern, but putting the parking lot on the creekside is just asking for runoff from parked cars and asphalt to further contaminate Plaster Creek, right?

[Veloise]

Not defensive, just helping to correct a common misunderstanding of the YMCA's purpose. Believe me, my wife was surprised when she realized how much her job went beyond health, wellness, and "gym stuff."

I find it outrageous, allthough certainly reflective of the times, that anyone would challenge or criticize a Christian organization's choice to have a chapel in their facility. Have we become so politically correct that a Christian group needs to be careful not to offend a non-Christian in deciding how to use their facility?

And no, the director didn't start using the chapel because someone noticed it's lack of use. Staff devotions and prayer before meetings has been a regular part of the YMCA culture since it's founding.

Last night I dug out the quarterly mailing to members (of which I am one) and looked for mission statements and secular references. It's a tabloid-sized sheet (think four newspaper pages) and lists all the classes, sessions, and special events. The mission statement is in 11 pt italic at the bottom of the first page. (I'd type it out but I left it at home. You could look it up.)

My point was less about challenging the room labels than to state that the original design, as opened, seems to have not accurately predicted the popularity of the building and the spaces needed. (Public schools have multi-purpose rooms, and I know of at lease two church/synagogues who share space.) My PT told me that there are classes held in the hallway (outside of Spinning and overlooking the pool). There are other problems with the design that need work, which is why I keep filling out the comment cards.

[really tired of not being able to see my bike lock combo because the lighting is inadequate]

[twoshort]

It looks like a suburban church, I couldn't have said it better. The sloping roof and the steeple? You can see that design anywhere around grandville/byron. Also, that long brick wall, there's got to be a better solution than that.

[Occam]

It looks like a suburban church, I couldn't have said it better. The sloping roof and the steeple? You can see that design anywhere around grandville/byron. Also, that long brick wall, there's got to be a better solution than that.

I like the gesture of the roof... its not just 'a sloping roof' its actually quite a complex shape, with the flat plane morphing into curve. If anything, I'd like to see that roof gesture played up even more, perhaps with larger overhangs or a great colored scaly metallic surface, rather than just typical standing seam metal roof panels.

Although these are just preliminarys, a lot of the power of the design is going to come from the interplay of that dynamic roof form against the more orthogonal parts of the building. If there is going to be a christian chapel, then having steeple is appropriate, but perhaps there is room for the steeple to become more of an abstract sculptural element. (Perhaps a smaller more sublte 'minimalist' cross on top of some type of abstract sculptural dormer or integrated with a light scoop or some such thing) That would still give the chapel its required steeple... but the building is much more than just the chapel, so perhaps a toned down cross on a more abstract roof element would reduce the "Hey I'm a church" feel that some people seem to reading from such a large cross. (I'd hate for the neighborhood kids to be reluctant to use it because it seems to 'churchy.')

The roof form reminds me slightly of the shells of the sydney opera house.

Overall it strikes me as a very solid design and seems to fit the program very well. Kudos to Pinnacle and Ivna.

[nexpark]

This can tie in with our talk about a rapid transit system in GR. Since there will be some kind of transit option for Division Ave. I'm assuming this facility will not be just a neighborhood destination, but also a regional destination point. Why not allocate some space for when the time comes that there must be some kind of transit stop fronting Divison Ave...? Maybe kick the ball arounnd on this subject

You are correct that although this will serve the local area, this will also be somewhat of a regional destination.

My understanding is that there is planning for covered bus stop in front of the center off Division.

[nexpark]

Given that the SA's demographic studies found the center's location would service 11,000 children under the age of 17, in a one mile geographical area surrounding the center, it does seem from the renderings to be very car centric. This isn't the MAC on East Paris. These 11.000 kids aren't all going to be dropped off by mom in her Volvo station wagon. A lot of people are likely to be arriving by bus, bicycle and foot. That needs to be better acknowledged in the design. Right now, it looks like it's the same old story: the automobile comes first, and everything else, from pedestrians to Plaster Creek to the South Division streetscape, comes second.

In addition to Rizzo's suggestion regarding rapid transit, I'd expect there will need for more ease of access for city buses, charter buses, etc. The renderings don't indicate any provision for it at the South Division curb or at the main entrance and the parking lot. And what about across the street? How and where are kids who get dropped off by a South-bound city bus going to cross South Division?

That needs to thought out and integrated more with the overall site plan. I'd suggest the city retain the same architect to design a pedestrian bridge that crosses Division over Plaster Creek, and feeds directly into a re-oriented entrance that lets the center's primary users--kids arriving at the Center from the north-- walk into the building without having to cross the driveway and/or parking lot.

A pedestrian bridge would also make the Kroc Center more of a landmark along that stretch of South Division, hopefully slow traffic down a bit, reveal the existence of the natural world, and give the kids a fun, safe way to walk to the Kroc.

Also, it looks from the renderings like there are some short paths along Plaster Creek, but is there a larger vision for integratiing the creekside path into site? Who owns the vacant land on the southside of the creek? And it may be too late for this note of environmental concern, but putting the parking lot on the creekside is just asking for runoff from parked cars and asphalt to further contaminate Plaster Creek, right?

You and Rizzo make some excellent points. I can assure you though that a lot of thought has been put into transportation. Part of The Salvation Army receiving the formal approval was based on showing a good plan for transit. Between being adjacent to a new regional trail system and on a major City bus route, there are some great options for access. Don

[concretepoem]

This is exactly the sort of feedback I was hoping to get. I

[foo_gr]

I do agree that an adjacent park would be nice, but in the end I think this would be a good spot.

Technically, the Gerald R. Ford Nature Center lies between this site and Brookside. It is mostly an extension of the Brookside playground.

The proposal for the Kroc Center also showed an extension of the bike trail along the south side of Plaster Creek (which would link this area with Ken-O-Shae Park) with a park/parking area for the trailhead on the north side of the creek. I believe this extension will be completed in summer '07.

Also, money has already been allocated to rebuild the Division bridge over the creek to make it wider and more pedestrian friendly.

[foo_gr]

so does he see a commission off of that? seriously.

That quote is in response to : "..Nauta said Thursday his eyes were opened to the property's potential after Brian Prevost, a Garfield Park neighborhood resident and real estate agent, convinced him they could transform the site by acquiring the Division Avenue businesses that backed up to the city land..."

I know that Brian worked tirelessly to arrange this outcome, spending literally hundreds of hours working to convince the current owners to sell their land, and to find new land for them to buy. He didn't take a commission, and the time he spent on this was at great cost to his personal business activities.

[foo_gr]

I'm on TSA's Kroc Center Advisory Committee, and would love to hear some outside perspectives from those as versed as you all are in the area of development and design...

Did any of you look at the preliminary plans on the website:

Elevations: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...0Elevations.pdf

Sections: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...%20Sections.pdf

1st Floor: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...oor%20Plans.pdf

2nd Floor: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Prelimina...20Plans%202.pdf

Development Area: http://www.grkroccenter.org/docs/Development%20Area.pdf

There is still time to make improvement modifications if there are any good suggestions out there.

I personally would like to hear any/all feedback.

My only concern would be enough space for workout machines. If you visit the downtown Y, they have a ton of machines and a large percentage of them are in use whenever I am there. I think they will be key to drawing paying memberships.

[twoshort]

My only concern would be enough space for workout machines. If you visit the downtown Y, they have a ton of machines and a large percentage of them are in use whenever I am there. I think they will be key to drawing paying memberships.

Isn't the Kroc more of a community center than a workout facility?

[foo_gr]

Isn't the Kroc more of a community center than a workout facility?

Well, it is, I suppose, but it also needs to be self supporting. Approx. half the yearly budget will be covered by the endowment. So, in order to make up the difference (and provide scholarships to those who can't afford to pay), they will need to sell memberships. And, in order to sell memberships, they'll need to have facilities that people see value in.

In my opinion, people will be mostly interested in having a monthly/yearly membership in order to use the workout facilities.

[foo_gr]

This is the Kroc Center site on 1/5/2007. The photos were taken looking across division, a little north of Plaster Creek. As you can see, the construction fencing is up, the buildings have been boarded up, the equipment is removed from the car wash, and the metal fence and cars have been removed from along side the garage behind the car wash. Sorry for the small pics, I can't get a good link from my photo sharing site.

[foo_gr]

The tin shed that stood behind the car wash and auto repair building has been demolished. I'm not sure when the Division-side buildings will come down.

[PBJ]

The tin shed that stood behind the car wash and auto repair building has been demolished. I'm not sure when the Division-side buildings will come down.

Just to dig this up from the UP nether regions....

I drive by the site everyday and all the buildings have been demolished and removed. I looks like they're grading and doing very initial site prep.

[Kayak1]

Any word on who is doing the work?

[PBJ]

Any word on who is doing the work?

Sign has Erhardt Constructions logo on it.

[Quercus]

Looking at the site from Division St.

A sign along Division.

Another shot of the site.

Looking at the Kroc site from Alger St. past the water tower.

I've always thought they should stop mowing the lawn around the water tower and plant a prairie/native species...but maybe because of piping they can't.

[GRDadof3]

This project hasn't been discussed in a while, but it looks like they have a new expanded design they are proposing now:

[PBJ]

This project hasn't been discussed in a while, but it looks like they have a new expanded design they are proposing now:

Here's an update, sort of. Division has been undergoing some major construction work right in front of where this will be situated. Currently it's closed while they (I believe) redo the bridge over the creek. I know the utilities were working underground for a number of weeks a month or so ago.