Lisle rec center a 'Cadillac' plan
I think the Lisle Park District referendum is asking us to buy a Cadillac when a Chevy would get us where we need to go. I find myself questioning some aspect of and rationales for the plan.
In February, the plan proposed 75,000 square feet of new space at a cost of $15 million - $18 million. "After meeting with residents and working more closely with architects" (Daily Herald, March 25), it was decided that we needed 85,449 square feet at a cost of $21.9 million. In February, for example, two basketball courts were enough; now we need three. (I also find it interesting that the current PR refers to that space with the generic and innocuous term "multiple-use gymnasium.")
I accept that the Meadows school is old enough that replacement may be logical. With regard to the community center, however, it seems absurd to tear down a 30-year-old building that is still usable. Although the tear-down mentality seems to prevail these days, except where serious age and deterioration are factors, it is always the expensive alternative.
It seems to me highly unlikely that the Meadows property would, in fact, realize the price that has been suggested, especially considering that any outside buyer would certainly tear down the building, thus be willing to pay only for the land.
If the referendum passes, the park district plans to continue leasing the surrounding open space" at the Meadows center (Lisle Park District Web site: Community Center FAQ #4). This would seem to modify the rent savings.
I find it interesting that I have been unable to find a number for currently used square footage, making it difficult to know the actual increase being proposed. I also see no mention of space-sharing, either currently or in the new plan; the appearance is that every program gets its own space. Surely seniors ("senior wing") and preschoolers ("5 classrooms") could do a little sharing somewhere, somehow.
Given that there is adequate land at Community Park, I agree it is more reasonable to talk about new construction there. It seems to me, though, much more logical to preserve what is useful and build what is truly needed now. If a smaller new building is well-planned, additions can always be added later if/when more space really is needed.
Lucy Gaven
Lisle