HPISD Reconsiders Curtis Park Natatorium
UPDATE: University Park and HPISD revised their joint statement late Tuesday to emphasize that Curtis Park is still among the sites being considered. Read on for more information.
There probably will be no joint-use natatorium in Curtis Park, after all, much to the relief of dozens of University Park residents who have been vocal in their opposition to the project.
Highland Park ISD and the UP city officials jointly announced on Tuesday that they would evaluate and study alternative sites “following substantial community input.” That no doubt included a highly charged Sept. 24 public forum that packed UP city hall with concerns about traffic, safety, costs, and the environment.
“HPISD will evaluate the merits of other potential locations and partnerships, in addition to continuing discussions with the City of UP,” the statement reads. “In conjunction with this evaluation process, the City of UP will continue its feasibility study to help determine the financial viability of operating a joint natatorium facility with HPISD. Community input will continue to be an important part of the site selection process.”
The joint proposal is being considered as part of an expected HPISD bond election next spring, as the district looks to replace its existing natatorium at Highland Park High School with more classroom space.
At the UP City Council meeting this afternoon, it was made clear that Curtis Park is still very much in consideration for the natatorium development. It is encouraging that HPISD and the city have publicly announced that they will consider alternate locations for a swim stadium for the high school students. However, all UP citizens should be concerned about the use of any city park land for this development. We need to protect our scarce park space, and this sets a bad precedent for future development. And for any proposed site, the city needs to order comprehensive parking, traffic, and safety studies conducted by engineers certified in these areas – just as they have required for all other recent major developments in the city. So far, the city has not committed to any such studies.
The first line of this post is a bit misleading – there’s no indication that the Curtis park location is off the table. There is a commitment to review other potential locations, which is good, but everyone should recognize that this joint use joint funded natatorium component of the plan rolls on full steam ahead. Watch the upcoming bond election closely and remain vigilant if this issue is important to you.
This latest decision now puts every single park in UP in play. So along with Curtis Park – Goar, Caruth, Germany, et al are now also in the crosshairs. None in HP mind you, but all parks in UP. I think the net result will be more, not less, escalation of the issue. To JohnG’s point, a lot more people will now be watching the bond election and the headwinds just got worse. Yet another in a series of misjudgments by HPISD and UP leaders.
Why don’t they consider Burleson Park over by SMU? Or for that matter, consider joint use of the smu natatorium and save us all a headache and money. Sometimes more is not more!
Burleson would be even worse. At least Curtis is supported by Lovers Lane. Burleson has no high-traffic (or medium traffic if that’s what we think Lovers is) roads at or near its perimeter.
Let’s get back to the real root of the problem. Too many multi-family housing units being built in the PC has caused school overcrowding. Where are our leaders? Aren’t they supposed to be visionaries? This one is not rocket science. If you’re not up for the job, get out of the way.
SMU’s natatorium has been razed. There were structural issues. Are there expected to be such large crowds using the HPISD/UP natatorium that would lead to traffic problems?