Thinking out loud about the Glen Oak Park historic designation
I applaud those who are trying to preserve Glen Oak Park, but I question their real intentions. The timing seems odd, given the recent controversy over the Glen Oak School siting.
I should come as no surprise to anyone that I love history and historic places- Glen Oak Park would certainly qualify as that. I wish I could’ve seen the Palm House or the Lagoon in it’s hey-day, but I can’t and never will except in my dreams and through books and postcards. Historic designation will not bring these features back.
Is this really about ’saving’ the park’s history, or what is left of it, or is it about keeping out the school- which I personally think is still on the table.
What truly historic features of the park are left? The suspension bridge. The cannon and parapet. The rotunda (not sure what it’s really called). The Pavilion building. Two of the four are supposedly coming down.
I support the Zoo expansion, and as many of you know, I am somewhat involved with the Children’s Museum which will be located in the Pavilion Building. Neither of these projects should be affected by the outcome of the preservation ruling.
Do I want to save the suspension bridge and the parapet? You can bet your life on it. They’re slated for removal while at the same time the park board is pushing to rip out train tracks that travel through prime industrial areas for a walking/biking trail that will cost a ton of dough and continue to prove Peoria’s reputation as an unfriendly business town.
Maybe I’m not completely opposed to the historical designation, but I guess I get frustrated by agenda’s which are pushed and publicized for one reason when the real reason it is being done is totally separate. I could be totally wrong, but I think the school, zoo, and general frustration with the park board just happened come together and culminate to a point where some people couldn’t take it anymore and felt they had to do something.
We’ll soon see how it all turns out. I’m all for preservation, but I also don’t want to tie the hands of the park district so tightly in red tape that nothing new can be accomplished or even suggested.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:39 am
PI - When I see this quote in the PJS, it really gets me going to the side of the historic preservation: “The park district is opposing the designation, saying it will interfere with its ability to govern and MAINTAIN the park, which is Peoria’s first public park. Park Board trustee Roger Allen told commissioners that residents can come to Park Board meetings to lodge complaints.” The items you listed above obviously have not been maintained or maintained very little. If the current park board and directors aren’t concerned about these things maybe they do need someone to oversee the preservation of the park since they obviously, by your pictures, aren’t getting the job done.
There are the naysayers that say restoring old stuff doesn’t provide for the new..that we need to look forward and to build and provide “the latest & greatest” to attract people to the park. I understand this, but is it going to be maintained or will it look like the bridge in 20 years?
February 27th, 2007 at 8:32 am
I don’t disagree one bit with what you are saying, and maybe historic designation is the way to go. I don’t want the park, or any park, to become static though. Had this happened 10 or 15 years ago, would the cool playground have been built, would the zoo have been allowed to expand (I know that’s a hot topic- feel free to yell at me), would the Children’s Museum be built or even considered?
On the other hand… when I see the continued destruction I just want to scream WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?
But what’s historic about a baseball diamond or a tennis court? Why not specify structures or areas inside the park that need to be saved and try to have them designated historic instead of this grand sweeping designation?
Someone help me out here.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Maybe my thought process is too far outside the box here, but if the historical people wouldn’t allow expansion, growth and new, they would only perserve what is old. Take the playground (I’m not going to tackle the zoo). I tend to think that its design and appearance fits in with the park. It isn’t hot pink, chrome and new fangled. It was the right choice. If the historic people would disagree with the addition of a playground that fits, or blends well (I’m not saying looks old or built in the 1930’s) as this one does, into the park’s surroundings, then they need a kick in the shins, too.
March 8th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
As a long time ago East bluffer, you can track the degradation of the Park to the tenure of Noblee cared less about the sunken garden, the lagoon, and the hot house; she brought in the Zoo ( another laugh)and howmuch has and will be spent on that instead of improving the then present sites. Put her in a box with Mr. Hinton and see what comes out of that- you think she wasn’t deeply involved with the 150 secret meetings? It took our Park Board Trustees to put her in her place; too bad our School Board representatives don’t have the same fortitude and step up to the plate.
May 29th, 2007 at 9:15 am
gay photography…
qheawiju ekoz…
January 1st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
hi is it an inside zoo or outside zoo and are you open in winter thanks samantha.