Nevada City Advocate - A free news & entertainment Newspaper Serving Nevada City & Greater Nevada County: Former city councilor raises concerns about Calanan Park remake

Former city councilor raises concerns about Calanan Park remake
================================================================================
Steve Cottrell on Jul 30 06:40pm
 
Robert:
This communication is addressed to you in your capacity as chair of the Calanan
Park Committee.
Firstly, I have no quarrel with efforts to improve the setting, safety,
artifact displays or attractiveness of Calanan Park, nor do I have any quarrel
with removing one or more trees or creating a two-tiered park.  But I wonder if
you and your fellow committee members know:
1)  Who was George Calanan and why is the park named for him?
2)  How did the parcel come into ownership of the federal government which, in
turn, donated it to Nevada City?
3)  What significant events took place on that parcel of land?
4)  What does the monitor really represent?
5)  What is the purpose of the monolithic granite slab and why was it even
there?
6)  Why is the beautifully-conformed tree hidden next to the snarly community
Christmas tree?
7)  What was the Wall of Fame concept considered by the City Council a few
years ago?
I hear rumors that some or all members of the committee would like to remove
the monitor because it represents a mining technique that devastated the
environment and is not something we should be proud of.  But a person coming to
that conclusion is, in my opinion, looking at the proverbial half-empty glass of
water.
Consider for a moment that the monitor also represents the first significant
court decision ever rendered in this nation to protect the environment.  The
Sawyer Decision of 1884 was a landmark case; a decision that took Federal
Circuit Court Judge Lorenzo Sawyer 3-1/2 hours to read into the record.
That monitor may represent negativity to some, but it also represents a
positive advance in the progress of this area and the country.  And in case some
of the committee members didn’t know, Lorenzo Sawyer was a pioneer of Nevada
City –– arriving here in 1850.  He relocated to San Francisco for a short
time, but then returned here to practice law for another couple years.
Lorenzo Sawyer was City Attorney of San Francisco; a justice of the California
State Supreme Court (where he served as Chief Justice for two years); was the
federal judge who, from 1870 until his death in 1891, headed what is now known
as the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; was an original Trustee of
Stanford University; and delivered the 1887 dedicatory speech when ground was
broken for the first building on that campus.
To some the monitor might represent environmental destruction.  To me, however,
it represents the wisdom and courage of a Nevada City pioneer who lived here
during the early years of the gold rush but nevertheless had the guts to issue a
decision that severely hurt the local economy but effectively ended one of the
worst environmental disasters in the history of the United States.
Removing the monitor would, in my estimation, be tantamount to removing a
marker at Manzanar because the camp was used to intern Japanese-Americans during
World War II.  As a nation, we have learned from our mistakes –– and
hydraulic mining is such an example.  I strongly urge you and your fellow
committee members to retain the monitor as a lasting tribute to environmental
progress –– not environmental devastation.
Does it need some repair?  Yes.  Could it use a new mounting?  Yes.  Should it
be relocated within the park?  Perhaps.  But should it be removed because it
represents something negative?  Not in my opinion..
With regard to the beautiful tree next to the large community Christmas tree...
It was planted many years ago when the late Col. William Lambert cautioned the
City Council that the large tree was nearing the end of its natural life and it
was time to prepare for that eventuality.  So the smaller tree was planted with
a purpose:  It was designed to be the next community Christmas tree.
Remove it if you must, but please keep in mind that it’s there for a reason. 
And with the large tree at the corner badly split at the top and about as ugly
as a community Christmas tree can be, perhaps it’s time to remove it and allow
the smaller tree to serve the purpose for which it was intended?
The large granite slab also has a purpose.  It was placed in the park about ten
years ago so that two bronze plaques could be secured to it.  The top plaque was
designed to honor George Calanan, who served 44 years as City Clerk, and a
larger, rectangular plaque was designed to go underneath with an explanation of
how Nevada City came to be and the kind of men and women who settled here.
The language for both plaques was approved by the City Council but the
estimated cost simply wasn’t in our budget at the time.  A check of past
minutes will affirm the purpose of the slab and the approved language for each. 
(The small plaque would cost approximately $500 and the large plaque at least
$3,500.)
That granite slab, by the way, was part of the abutment designed by Andrew
Hallidie for his 1862 suspension bridge spanning Deer Creek on South Pine
Street.  It was such a solid abutment, that when the Hallidie-engineered bridge
was razed in 1902 and what became known as the Gault Bridge took its place, the
one-lane abutment was used for the new two-lane bridge.  When we removed the
Gault Bridge in 1996 and built the South Pine Street Bridge at Hallidie
Crossing, we purposefully saved all the granite slabs from the north abutment
and they have been used in several locations throughout town.
So if you decide to dump the large, upright granite slab, at least know why it
was put there in the first place and please understand that that slab (and
others) were part of the handiwork of Andrew Hallidie, the man who, in 1873,
established the cable car system still used in San Francisco.
When the large slab was being placed, it was in the context of possibly also
establishing a Wall of Fame alongside the Alpha Building.  The wall was going to
include the names of significant pioneers, business leaders, politicians and
others who helped establish Nevada City and helped it evolve into the town we
take such great pride in today.  But as with the plaques planned for the
monolith, there simply wasn’t enough money to see the idea through to
fruition.
There are dozens –– hundreds, actually –– whose names warrant inclusion
on such a wall.  And it remains a good idea that just never materialized because
the money was never there.  A suitable wall would cost tens of thousands of
dollars; perhaps $100,000 or more.  But it would create the kind of interpretive
history display that would show the world the kind of men and women who have
called Nevada City home at some point in their lives.
Another concern –– and perhaps the most important element of all –– is
that your committee open the design of the park to others.  In particular, I
urge you to create a design contest and award the prevailing entry a suitable
cash prize.
Yes, your meetings have been public, but just how much input for design has
come from people not members of your committee?  How many local architects were
invited to submit plans?  How many landscape architects, artists, designers or
others were invited to submit plans?  How many citizens who can at least doodle
a basic design were invited to submit ideas?  Just how open has the design
process been?
You have been part of Nevada City’s two decision-making bodies long enough
now to understand that there is the technical requirement to conduct public
meetings, sift through ideas and make recommendations to the full City Council. 
There is also, however, the real world –- a world where committee
recommendations become the ultimate decision.
There may be a tweak or two here and there, sure, but if your committee
precedes as it is now headed, your “recommendation” will reflect 95% of the
final design.  That’s just the way the process works.
It is very common with municipal projects to entertain plans from architects
and others.  And it is very common for municipalities to award a cash prize for
the prevailing design.  If this is, as your committee has emphasized, the
entryway to our community and you want it to be as inviting and impressive as
possible, then I think you need to actively use the media to promote a design
contest.
I think you need to consider the future of Calanan Park as a blank canvas upon
which architects and others can design something that will reflect the goals and
objectives of your committee, goals of the citizens, and goals of the council. 
And I think it is very important to open the design competition with a blank
canvas.
If you think it should be a two-tiered park, fine –– that would be part of
the design competition.  If you think that a Wall of Fame should be considered
for the upper tier, or not considered, fine.  If you think that the smaller tree
should be left as the community Christmas tree or removed, fine.  If you think
that the monitor ought to be relocated or left where it is, fine.  If you think
that public restrooms ought to be included in the lower portion against the bank
property, fine.
It is not unusual to have a design competition with some basic goals and
objectives, but I think it ought to be left as much of a blank canvas as
possible for those who wish to submit ideas.
Who decides which design prevails?  You have a committee in place that can
screen applications and perhaps refer the top 2-3 choices to the council for its
consideration and ultimate adoption.  What is a fair cash award for the
prevailing design?  That would be a council decision, but certainly $5,000 would
not be out of line.
One thing is for sure:  You don’t have the money to proceed this summer, so
time is on your side.  You can organize the design competition, review the
entries, make recommendations to the council and by next spring have a solid
plan in place and ready to go when the money becomes available.
Until a design is settled upon, you are only guessing at the cost of redoing
Calanan Park.  And if you are limiting the cost before you even agree on a
design, then you will wind up with something that is less than what it could
otherwise have been.
It seems to me that the first step is to open the design competition to all,
then, with council concurrence and community input, settle on a design by next
spring.  At that point you can begin to estimate its cost and move toward
finding the money –– either through park & recreation funds, grants, private
donations or any other source that can help make the final product something we
can all be proud of and that can stand for decades to come without going back to
further alter the park layout in 10-15 years.
A final question:  Is the committee’s goal form or function?  That’s always
a key point in any design, but perhaps an open competition among architects,
designers and others will deliver something that will accomplish both goals. 
And perhaps with the involvement of citizens –– including those in the
historical community –– a shared vision will emerge.
Thanks, Robert, for considering the points and ideas contained in this letter. 
And please distribute it to your fellow committee members.
Best,
Steve Cottrell