Waterfront park takes shapeBy Prentiss Findlay (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Tyrone Walker Construction worker Joseph Harden pulls a large plastic tarp through a trench Thursday near foundation work on the Visitors Center at the Memorial Waterfront Park in Mount Pleasant. Memorial Waterfront Park Cost: $14 million Funding: Tax increment financing, which borrows against anticipated future increases in property tax revenue because of improvements that a public project will bring to an area. Park elements: 1,250-foot-long pier with 8,100-square-foot pavilion, an open-air Sweetgrass Pavilion, Visitors Center, War Memorial and playground. Completion date: Planned opening of 19-acre first phase is Memorial Day weekend 2009. There is no timetable or approved plan for development of the five-acre second phase. Previous storiesHallman favors corporate retreat over dog park, published 02/24/08 Ground broken for Waterfront Park, published 05/14/08 Mount Pleasant council members question park plans, published 05/24/08 Dog owners press case for pooch park, published 06/11/08 MOUNT PLEASANT — One of the largest projects in the town's history, the $14 million Memorial Waterfront Park, is taking shape amid the roar of bulldozers and backhoes and the stacatto thump of traffic on the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge. "This park will rival anything in the Southeast," said Deputy Town Administrator Eric DeMoura said. A 1,250-foot-long pier that the state Department of Transportation built atop lopped-off pilings of the Silas Pearman Bridge is billed as the long-est in the region. It will offer close-up views of towering bridge spires and huge cargo ships. The vista will range from the Yorktown to the Charleston waterfront to Remley's Point. The town will build an 8,100-square-foot covered pavilion at the end of the pier. "We plan to have shagging out here on Friday night," DeMoura said. "Around 7 p.m. in the summer, this is a magnificent spot because the sun is going down over the city," said Warren Pruitt of ADC Engineering, the project designer. DeMoura and Pruitt recently offered a tour of the park construction site. The foundations for the 1,400-square-foot open-air Sweetgrass Pavilion and the 6,200-square-foot Visitors Center could be seen. A tabby sidewalk snaked toward the waterfront past clusters of stone pier railings. A big pile of shipped-in soil waited to be spread. In about six weeks, Ravenel Bridge motorists will be able to see the Visitor Center and Sweetgrass Pavilion begin to take shape, Pruitt said. The project is on schedule for a Memorial Day weekend 2009 opening, he said. The park centerpiece will be a $400,000 War Memorial featuring an eight-foot-tall bronze female sculpture. The Town Hall lobby has a miniature replica of the sculpture. In the woman's left hand is a tri-folded flag presented to grieving widows and mothers. Her right hand rests upon a World War II helmet, supported by a rifle. War dead from east of the Cooper will be remembered on a wall over a fountain that will be part of the memorial, Pruitt said. The town is paying for the park construction through its tax increment financing program, the same method it used to recently buy its $6 million property on Shem Creek. The tax increment financing method borrows funds for improvements that are expected to increase property values, thereby generating more taxes to pay back the debt. Although park construction has gone smoothly, the issue of whether the project should include a dog park continues to be discussed. Canine-lovers lobbied Town Council for a dog park, but a council majority rejected it this month. A new dog park should be more centrally located to the rest of the town, the council said. Mayor Pro-Tem Kruger Smith, a veteran, said he was offended by the suggested dog park location because it was too close to the veterans' memorial. Councilman Gary Santos, a dog park advocate, said he will raise the issue again at next month's meeting of the Council Recreation Committee. Another park-related issue the town has considered is how to guard against a bottle or another object tossed from the bridge into the park, which includes a playground in the shadow of the bridge. The Ravenel bridge is not designed to have a tall fence attached as was done on the southbound lane of the Charleston side of the John P. Grace Bridge. The town has considered passing an ordinance requiring southbound Ravenel Bridge motorists to have their windows rolled up. Surveillance cameras also have been considered, DeMoura said. "It's been on our mind. We have concerns about it. You can't protect for every possibility. Naturally we want to maintain the public safety as much as possible," DeMoura said. The 19 acres under construction is the first phase of the park. Newton Builders Inc., a subsidiary of Piggly Wiggly, is the contractor. Use of the remaining five acres has polarized some residents who fear it will be developed instead of used as green space. The state Department of Transportation gave the town the acreage but required that it be used for a public park. A majority of Town Council voted last month to explore purchasing the remaining five acres, which would allow it to be used for other purposes. Ideas such as a corporate meeting center or a performance venue have been floated for the five acres that would be phase two of the park, but nothing has been decided. Santos and Councilman Joe Bustos opposed the measure, with Bustos questioning spending public money to buy land for private use. Under the agreement with the DOT, the town will not own the 19 acres that is the first phase of Memorial Waterfront Park, but it will own the improvements. No schedule has been announced for phase two of the park. Reach Prentiss Findlay at 937-5711 or pfindlay@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 14 comment(s)
Posted by stand828 on July 27, 2008 at 5:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How ridiculous is even the thought of an ordinance to require rolling up your car windows on the bridge. What are they gonna regulate next...when you can take a s**t?
And wanting to vote down a dog park because it is too close to the veterans' memorial? These guys are pathetic...
Posted by Johnq2 on July 27, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Mayor Pro-Tem Kruger Smith, a veteran, said he was offended by the suggested dog park location because it was too close to the veterans' memorial."
I suppose Mr. Smith will have just as strong an objection to a convention center being built on the land. After all we don't want to have a monument to greed standing on the same grounds as the veterans memorial. God forbid we put a dog park there and upset this hero veteran we wouldn't want him to be offended by the city building what the citizens voted for.
Why do I get the feeling that this park is not really going to be meant for the average citizen of Mt. P but instead to provide a view for whatever the council decides will be built in place of the dog park.
Something is rotten in Denmark if those trying to subvert the peoples will introduce patriotism into the equation to try and make it sound like a dog park would be insulting to veterans. I guess Mr. Smith won't be going to the park in any of its forms when completed, there will be restrooms there for people and I am sure he will be "offended" that people will be pooping near the memorial.
Why don't they move the memorial over to Shem Creek!! It would be the perfect place for it. Then we wouldn't have to worry about offending the great American hero Mr. Smith and the people of Mt. Pleasant can enjoy their park with their pets in peace.
Posted by gencon1 on July 27, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There were letters to the editor about the park being too close to the bridge. They should have used the Grace Bridge pilings for the pier which would have put the park out of range of a bottle or object thrown off of the bridge. Idiots!
Just wait and see, there will be an ugly fence put up on our beautiful bridge because the numbskulls put the park too close to the bridge.
Posted by jammanofdi on July 27, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Southbound drivers must keep their windows up?? So, are motorcycles forbidden from traveling over the bridge then, or must they install something to comply with the town? One of my buddies has a jeep that he never keeps the doors on - I guess I'll have to let him know that he can't drive over the bridge anymore either. If our police officer's don't seem to mind truckers letting wood chips and gravel fly out of the back of their trucks and into windshields on I-26, why should they care about someone throwing a bottle off of a bridge?
Posted by HighDef on July 27, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
throwing bottles and pets being insulting to Vets.... ridiculous article, perfect scenario for a town called Mount Pleasant. I think a K-9 Cop dog memorial belongs in Mt P Mr. Smith, no need for a fence .
Posted by watchdog on July 27, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it, that all the public art sculptures have to be military or political figures in this town. Are we not creative enough? Lets get a public art movement going, I am tired of this same old crap.
Posted by a_set_love on July 27, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A simple solution, anyone caught tossing things from their car will be fined 1,000 dollars. A good way to raise extra tax money for the Town of Mt. Pleasant.
Oh dear, but there is already a law against littering with a hefty fine.
Who else but people living in Mt. Pleasant and the City of Charleston would even think of doing something so stupid as tossing bottles over the side of the new Cooper River Bridge.
Posted by shoelaces on July 27, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The town has considered passing an ordinance requiring southbound Ravenel Bridge motorists to have their windows rolled up." How would you like to be the cop assigned to patrol that???
I grew up in Mt. P and loved living there. I think it is a great idea to put in a large park. I hope it offers many different venues. A music venue would be nice. A dog park would be great too.
I know people who drive all the way to James Island just to take their pooches to the dog beach at JI county park. I don't think it is an inconvenience for people to drive to the Mt. P park for their dogs to play. Sounds like an excuse to do away with the dog park?
Where would town council like to put a dog park? Have they offered up some alternative sites???? Doubt it.
Posted by a_set_love on July 27, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The Ravenel bridge is not designed to have a tall fence attached as was done on the southbound lane of the Charleston side of the John P. Grace Bridge."
The fence was added later.
Posted by a_set_love on July 27, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What I really need to know is how soon can I fish of that pier?
Posted by hillbilly on July 27, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just can't wait to see the park built.
All of us in Mt. Pleasant need to send letters of thanks to the mayor and council for their insight and cooperation.
Posted by jhota on July 27, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
watchdog: "Why is it, that all the public art sculptures have to be military or political figures in this town. Are we not creative enough? Lets get a public art movement going, I am tired of this same old crap."
come to Summerville. since 1999 we've installed 18 sculptures, ranging from dogs to frogs to firemen, and will have 20 before the year is out.
that said, i'm also concerned we're looking at a reason to fear an ugly fence on the bridge.
Posted by grainofsalt on July 27, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hillbilly, I can't wait to see it done either. And I think the Mayor and council DO deserve some credit for the foresight to grab the property (and pierheads) when the old bridge was being demolished.
On a more cynical note, however, I have my doubts about how much this park will be for the "citizens" of Mount Pleasant. This is intended to draw in some tourist dollars. The more money spent at nearby restaurants and hotels, the more Local Option Sales Tax money for the Town to spend. Nothing wrong with that, but I laugh every time an official talks about how wonderful it will be for us MP residents.
It will be such a draw that I suspect summer months will find it crawling with tourists and a local will have to throw padded elbows just to walk anywhere around it. We residents might be able to find a place to park and use it in the dead of winter, however. Oh joy.
Posted by wpc3iop on July 28, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
People who are mad about no dog park will probably throw bags of dog poop from the bridge...