In Whose Hands?
A battle was fought here; a one-sided battle that resulted in the decision-making process of the design of the south end of Bryant Park being surrendered to staff. While many Lake Worth residents have heard there is an issue with the parking lot, there are many who do not live close to the park who may not be familiar with the original plan, what changed, and the plan subsequently developed by Joe Kroll and staff.
The original plan as shown on the signs at Bryant Park. (Click on image to enlarge)
As work progressed the contractor found that the tiebacks for the seawall extended further than expected and would necessitate moving the location of the parking lot. Upon learning that the parking lot needed to be moved an opportunity for revisiting the design of the park and improving the layout to maximize usable space presented itself. At this juncture Mr. Kroll should have reported the situation to the City Manager who in turn would have informed the City Commission.
This, of course, was not the case and without informing his superiors Mr. Kroll altered the plans, placing parking for at least 39 cars in the interior of the park.
The current plan as submitted by Joe Kroll and staff. (Click on image to enlarge)
The backup material indicates that Mr. Kroll met with residents who “expressed an interest in having more usable park space and less asphalt”. The same backup material also contains the following staff recommendation, “The proposed location can easily provide 50 spaces that existed before the seawall was rebuilt, and could also accommodate a more modest parking area if desired”. (italics added).
In a subsequent City Commission meeting Commissioner Mulvehill sought compromise by presenting research indicating that more parking could be located on the streets around the park and in conjunction with existing parking in the north end of the park. Also questioned was the location. Mr. Kroll defended staff’s plan and noted that the proposed parking lot would be shielded from nearby homes by existing trees, thereby not affecting their view. While some residents view of the parking lot will be blocked by existing greenery, several homes will directly face the parking lot unless extensive planting is installed.
Homes facing the parking lot. (Click on image to enlarge)
No compromise was brought forward by staff. Mayor Varela, Vice Mayor Golden and Commissioner Maxwell voted to proceed with Mr. Kroll’s plan.
Many have sought to absolve Mr. Kroll of guilt by stating that he was working to finish the project in an “expeditious manner”. Bryant Park is too valuable to have been treated as just a job to get done quickly. Others have taken the position that it would have cost more to have pursued alternative ideas, but with no consideration for compromise or change, the actual costs were never discussed.
Recently, speaking about the Casino plan bids Vice Mayor Golden said, “The companies that I choose in this round … are going to have to let their egos go, because it’s going to be important that the public is involved.” Should the public be any less involved at Bryant Park? Parks are community assets that demand public input and often the involvement of professional designers. Other municipalities employ public surveys to first identify needs such as parking requirements before starting the design process. Even design competitions are held to foster creative design and heighten public awareness.
The Project for Public Spaces, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping people create and sustain public places that build communities, has this to say about parking:
The hang-up on parking is an indicator that a community has no broader vision for itself.
After researching the planning and design of public parks and parking lots it becomes apparent that if you design a park for cars you will get more cars, but if you design a park for people you will get more people.
Three votes took the future of Bryant Park out of the hands of the citizens and placed it in the hands of Joe Kroll. It is unfair to expect Mr. Kroll to perform design work of this nature and it was irresponsible to vote to do so. The Commission must reverse its position on Bryant Park and vote to explore solutions in keeping with their constituents’ desires instead of Mr. Kroll’s.
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized
Tags: lake worth, Lake worth beach, Lake Worth Downtown, Lake Worth Florida, Lake Worth politics
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
Tom's Page 
March 16, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Jo-Ann surprised a lot of people with her vote. The process serves as foreshadowing for the beach project – which would be a challenging project for a municipality that has its “poop in a group” – let alone one which doesn’t.
March 16, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Good post, Tom; and a well reasoned prescription for the reconsideration of action. (Think the good cop/bad cop team will say something along the lines of, “Here we go again, giving the impression we’re not able to stick with a decision.”)
Similarly, an acute demonstration of lateral association with regard to the quote from Comm. Golden re: values in a process; and its cross-application to this story. Procedurally, Comm. Golden would be the one to re-introduce this item to an agenda having voted in the majority.
Regarding the first comment above: it is not unusual for Mr. Blackman to take every opportunity to take overt swipes at his twice demonstrated electoral better, and the city’s process in general. It is very unusual for him to withhold his own policy/process prescription.
Overall, good work. I’ll give it a 7.75. Now we’ll see if the commission can dance to it.
March 17, 2010 at 7:59 am
Me thinks what I wrote did not include “overt swipes” at Commissioner/Vice Mayor Jo-Ann Golden. My question is how can we manage a large, complicated project like the beach if we have trouble with a project of this size? I still am surprised at Jo-Ann’s vote, which is not a “swipe.”
March 16, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Thanks pietro,
It is worth noting that the rules have changed and the minority may now bring an issue back before the Commission, thanks to Commissioner Jennings. To bring it back information must be “new and pertinent” and by the next meeting.
The Commission could vote to suspend the rules and bring it back at anytime with a two thirds majority.
Tom
March 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Actually Tom, it seemed to me to be one of your more poorly written pieces. You start out objecting that the City Manager did not bring the matter to the Commission. You seem to conclude with an objection that the City Manager’s proposal to the Commission was brought to a “irresponsible” vote without further community involvement.
Although the convoluted process this has gone through cannot be defended, the fault seems to be with the City Manager and not your recommended faulting of Joe Kroll as we certainly have had a great deal of community involvement and Budgetary review.
Given the strong City Manager form of government provided by our charter, your primary objection seems to be that we don’t have a Town Meeting form of government. That of course is not a matter for either the CM or the Commission, much less Joe Kroll.
March 16, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Luther,
You have a point regarding the strong City Manager form of government.
However, as you point out it was a convoluted process, and the fact is it was brought to the City Manager too late to take a meaningful look at the options that were available.
Joe Kroll acted as he (and other staff) have in the past in similar situations. As we all know this has not resulted in satisfactory outcomes in many areas. The City Manager has vowed to change the process to prevent recurring problems.
Mr. Kroll is not the true devil here as he acted in what has been an acceptable manner in the past. But I don’t believe he is qualified to design a park and should not have undertaken the task.
Regardless of our form of government, parks are indeed for the public. The process of designing a good one requires qualified designers coupled with public input from the start.
March 16, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Come on Tom he did not design a park. He reduced the number of parking spaces. Moved a parking lot to a low, wet area that was not used,and at the request of many residents will have benches along the sea wall.
If this is brought again and we go with Commissioner Mulvehills brilliant suggestion of on the street parking I can hardly wait for all those condo dwellers that will have cars parked in front of them to find out.
March 16, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Loretta,
My point exactly, Joe Kroll did not design a park, no one did, and therein lies the problem.
The benches along the seawall are great, and I agree that having parking right the waterfront may not be best. However researching park design I have found that Commissioner Mulvehill’s ideas regarding on the street parking were dismissed too quickly as there are many ways to accomplish it that would not greatly impact the neighborhood.
Simply deciding that a parking lot should go in a low wet area is not the type of planning that will serve all of the park users over the long run. More expertise, research and public input was required before these decisions were made.
March 16, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Another note……… the supposed, “low, wet area, that was not used” is completely incorrect. That area was heavily used for picnic’s and people hanging out at the 3 picnic tables. Yes, when it was an unusually heavy rain, there may be some standing water at one end, mainly on the exit road, but not enough to deter people from utilizing the picnic tables and area.
Anyway, even if it had been the problem, why not move the picnic tables, not the trees that have been there since the 50ties or earlier!!
Also, owners of some of the condo’s and homes across the street were at the city commission meeting, supporting a green park, even if it meant public parking in front of their properties. Most people at this south end want more green space in the park, for the enjoyment and safety of ALL!!
Speaking of safety, THERE are bigger safety issues that still need to be addressed at the park………
1) no exit/access on the new sea wall. If someone falls in the intracoastal, it would be almost impossible to pull them out or crawl out. Over the years, my husband has rescued 4 people (including a toddler) that fell over the sea wall.
2) The exit road at 4th Avenue South, (which will now be the entrance/exit road for cars) has always been dangerous for pedestrians (walkers, bikers, strollers etc) coming and going. A safe walkway, maybe a yield or stop sign, needs to be installed on Lakeside and 4th to allow folks entering and exiting the park safe crossing. This has never been a TRUE pedestrian walkway, BUT that IS the way everyone walks in and out regardless. This is a perfect example of the importance of GOOD DESIGN and why public spaces must be designed FOR PEOPLE, NOT CARS.
As the pps.org states “The realization that creating a place where people want to come and spend time is more important than parking unfortunately eludes many municipalities.”
March 16, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Unfortunately the park issue has become more about WHO has the ideas than the ideas themselves. Its about destroying Mulvehill “at any cost” .. its not about the park its about trying to nix any idea that comes from Mulvehill or Jennings.. and Jo Ann if she does not cooperate.. in this case she clearly did.
I don’t know what the best plan for the park is, and neither does Joe Kroll. Lets see.. he blew the swimming pool assignment, now the park.. I know!! Lets give him the Golf Course next. Maybe he can put a parking lot and a swing set in the middle of that, if he includes a bike path i will back him.
March 16, 2010 at 11:11 pm
According to the back-up information provided by Joe Kroll at the Jan. 19th Commission meeting “As the project progressed forward we found out that the tie-backs needed to help secure the seawall needed to be extended further into the parking lot than designed. Because of that the existing parking lot had to be completing dug up and we decided to not replace it at that location and move forward with relocating trees and putting in more picnic tables for the public to enjoy the new seawall and intra-coastal views.”
The parking lot did not have to be moved!
This information changed in the back-up provided for the Feb. 16th meeting to “As such, the existing parking area had to be removed and staff had to locate an alternate area to construct a parking facility.”
The back-up information of Feb 16th reads “In choosing where to relocate the parking lot, staff took into account various factors such as public accessibility, child safety, increased green space for picnic and playground areas…”
Yet child safety has not increased as the playground has a road on each side of it. One 20′ wide with two lanes of traffic and one 8′ road to the pavilion. The maintenance trucks using this road will have to back up all the way out of the park.
The central north/south road through the center of the park still exists and actually ties into the new parking lot.
Why is this road necessary?
Where is the increased green space?
Using street parking instead makes the most sense. The street parking along the boundaries of the park already exist. It would not impede any residents living near the park and could be used by visitors from across the city. The lines just needs to be re-painted.
The Mayor ran his campaign as an environmentalist on a platform of bringing opposing sides together, yet where was his compromise?
And where is his environmental position when the first hard decision has to be made? He chooses the parking lot in the middle of the park!
March 17, 2010 at 7:45 am
A number of residents followed Mayor Rene Varela’s example and reached out to a respected expert in design, just as he did when he was still an ordinary citizen. Michael Singer’s office now has all the back-up materials and plans. They have offered to act as mediator, but having just received the materials last week feel they need more time to examine them and speak to all the players, whom they already know from previous presentations. And, they would like to be paid for their services.
Our premier waterfront city park has suffered from inconsistent knee-jerk planning. Those little wooden fences that impeded humans in favor of vehicles were an eyesore that are now gone. How much did that cost? The new shortened, now deteriorated, jogging path…how much did that cost? The ill-placed exercise equipment next to the abandoned bocce ball courts….this is Lake Worth’s idea of planning. Please spend some money and let’s give our premier waterfront park the attention and detail the resident’s want and deserve.
March 17, 2010 at 7:45 am
I am not sure who is right on this issue because I have been too busy to investigate the issue like most of the citizens of this city. The thing that gets to me is that every time this city tries to get something accomplished we end up with a battle that pulls more and more of us apart. That’s why the beach building looks like crap for years, the pool is closed and nothing gets done. Our city leaders still can’t figure out how to get something done without a battle. Why?
March 17, 2010 at 8:53 am
It was not a matter of making Commissioner Mulvehill look bad or not giving her credit.For me anyway it was about her coming in when the job was almost complete.
Also the obvious attempt to get Joe Kroll fired.Joe Kroll has been the most accessible easy to work with director this city has ever had. He did what all city employees had been told to do for years. Here’s the money get it done. If this is brought up again lets give all the Neighborhood Associations and people living within 500 feet of the park any and all changes that are proposed.
March 17, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Surely you jest. “Here’s the money get it done” How did that work out for you with the pool??
March 17, 2010 at 11:38 am
TRACY said, March 16th: Also, owners of some of the condo’s and homes across the street were at the city commission meeting, supporting a green park, even if it meant public parking in front of their properties. Most people at this south end want more green space in the park, for the enjoyment and safety of ALL!!
NOT SO. We, the people who live directly across from the park (you do NOT!)- DO NOT WANT ANY PARKING IN FRONT OF OUR HOMES, where WE need to park OUR vehicles at OUR homes. You keep trying to stick that little lie in the whole plan at OUR expense.
We don’t gaive a DAMN about any crappy “green” space, either. We just want our park back, the way it was!
And “we” don’t need a kayak launch area either – I believe that is YOU who wants that. “WE” want our park back NOW.
There never was anything wrong with our park. Any ties from the seawall that needed to be redone into where the paking lot was could have been repaved after the repairs and the park would have been reopened long ago.
Tracy ~ your fight a good battle for an honorable
cause, but please don’t include us when you twist the story. You’re not going to screw us to get your every whim satisfied.
March 17, 2010 at 12:40 pm
The street parking would be across the road from the condos not in front of them. None of your condo parking spaces would be needed.
And I agree with you on the location of the original parking lot. It could have been replaced using that location.
Try not to get personal in your argument, it weakens your points.
March 30, 2010 at 1:34 pm
As someone who lives in the Bryant Park neighborhood, I have the following thoughts/comments.
Bryant Park is a park for the entire city not just those who live nearby, as such it most likely needs some on-site parking. But it doesn’t need a ton of parking and I’m against green space being reduced to provide a parking lot smack dab in the middle of the park, sorry doesn’t make any sense to me.
We live in a city and as of now, on-street parking is not reserved parking, it is open to all (with the exception of boat trailers which should and are ticketed if parked in the Bryant Park neighborhood).
Yes, it is a pain when there are events in Bryant Park and folks park in the neighborhood, but that is part of city living. The city should do a better job of managing the events, events should be required to place temp trash cans in the BP neighborhood, hire traffic police, etc. to manage parking, traffic, etc.
Eventually, parking in the City of LW is going to get worse, and the close to downtown neighborhoods are probably eventually going to have to go to city resident sticker parking, look at parking in Palm Beach as an example. These redevelopment projects should include parking, resident and visitor parking in the planning and probably include plane for sticker parking in the next 10 yrs or so.
I’m all for a kayak launch, a dog park area, etc. As I said before, BP doesn’t belong to the BP neighborhood, it isn’t out park, it is a city park and should be, I think, a multi-use park so that more people can enjoy it.