Ropes Course Catching Civic Flack/Support
Opposition to the proposed ropes course in Byrd Park seems to be building. Two public meetings are scheduled where citizens can weigh in:
a public meeting about Go Ape sponsored by Marty Jewell
Friday, Nov 12th, at 5pm
900 E Marshal St, Rm 300
(its the building across street from City Hall)
“There will be a big GoApe meeting at the Carillon”
on Thursday, Nov. 18th, at 6:30 p.m.
(this announcement also mentioned the “Save Byrd Park” Facebook page)
Local resident Beth Bradford says the Kanawa Trace community is opposed to the development and she’s composed the following material to help YOU make up your mind and take civic action on the issue:
Hi neighbors-
Friday’s Richmond Times Dispatch had an article about a tree-top rope park proposed for Byrd Park in the area behind the Carillon. City officials are working with Go Ape!, a Maryland company, to develop a rope course that would allow people to experience two to three hours 40 to 50 feet above ground in the tree tops in a course including zip lines, Tarzan swings and other obstacles. According to the article, the city would lease the company the air space and then receive a portion of the profits. British-owned GoApe! has only one rope park in the U.S., a venture opened in May 2010 in Rock Creek Regional Park in Rockville, MD, a park 6.25 times the size of Byrd Park.
The area cited for use is 6 to 10 acres behind the dog park, which is the area on the left going down Pump House Road from Kanawha Trace. The rope area would form a circle extending up Pump House Drive behind the James Falls townhouses, ending just short of the entrance to Kanawha Trace. For the exact location, click the link below.
http://rvanews.com/news/go-ape-bringing-a-ropes-course-to-byrd-park/32708
I find this proposal objectionable for several reasons:
1. ecological – This is a lovely peaceful wooded park area where the public can enjoy the solitude of nature with trees, vegetation, animals and birds (including a rare type of owl according to the Audubon Society). Although the company claims that they construct the course without screws or attachments which harm the trees, vegetation will have to be cut and the birds and animals will be gone. The noise from visitors swinging in the trees will keep any living creature from returning.
2. It is highly inappropriate for the city to lease park property to a commercial entity whose sole purpose is to make a profit on the promise of returning some of the proceeds. It sets a terrible precedent of trading our parks and public property with commercial ventures all in the name of increased revenue.
3. This proposal first came to public attention on October 8th with the RTD article. It was scheduled to be sent for approval to the Planning Commission on Monday, October 18th. If approved, construction was scheduled to start in December.
This project has admittedly been kept under the radar while plans were been drawn up but it was decided this morning (Monday, the 11th) to hold a public forum on the issue following phone calls from myself and other concerned citizens.
As neighbors of Byrd Park and citizens of Richmond, I encourage KTOA residents to attend the public forum when it is held and, in the meanwhile, to contact the following parties to object to putting a commercial activity in the midst of a lovely green city park and close to our peaceful neighborhood.J.R. Pope, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities 646-3399 john.pope@richmondgov.com
City Councilman Marty Jewell 646-5724 marty.jewell@richmondgov.com
cc Jewel’s assistant francine.young@richmondgov.comMayor Dwight Jones 646-7970 cheryl.green@richmondgov.com
or by mail: Office of the Mayor
900 East Broad Street #201
Richmond, VA 23219
Actually, this won’t be the first time. The adventure camp that takes place at Belle Isle is one such example. Also, Riverside Outfitters must have some type of deal to allow tree climbing in the parks. I know the zipline across the quarry at Belle Isle is a bit of an eyesore, but if it encourages kids to want to maintain these great spaces, maybe it’s not so bad. It would have to be done in a very ecologically low impact/ positive impact way in my mind. There are ways of actually boosting that habitat through man’s intervention through bird/ bat houses/ etc etc..
“The noise from visitors swinging in the trees will keep any living creature from returning.” Have you heard the dogs at the dog park? I am surprised the squirrels don’t have PTSD.
Why is it highly inappropriate? Do you have a problem with Sally Bells selling hot dogs at fountain lake too?
I for one don’t have a problem with them doing it “under the radar” as I think it is impossible to get anything done when you have to have a public forum about every little decision. They aren’t doing anything permanent… like cutting down all the trees… which is something I would want them to have a forum before doing.
I am happy to see the city working with companies to bring jobs and get the most use out of our public spaces. And anything that engages kids in a productive manner is good in my book!
While I agree that it is odd that public park land is being considered versus privately-owned land, at this point I would support anything positive that goes on in parks. Byrd Park is one of the most historic and oldest of Richmond’s parks, and I’d support most anything that encourages people to love the outdoors and our park systems more. We need to continue to grow our outdoor sporting opportunities and greenways.
Seriously, I have to agree with Jacob here, there are many examples of profit making ventures using, and in course paying the City it use, our City parks. Think of River City Sports and Social Club. They use City fields for there events and I’m sure they have to pay the City since they are charging players. All this opposition sounds more like uppity NIMBYs not wanting anything to change. I’m all for a little more sunlight on the liability protections for the City and being sure that the setup is as protective of the environment as reasonable possible. Overall, though, I think this is a great recreation use of park property.
Certainly is an interesting choice of locations for the proposed ropes course. Wonder if it has anything to do with the number of large trees in a mostly wooded area with plenty of parking, traffic entry / exit points already established and the other numerous “outdoorsy” type attractions in the immediate area? Nah, probably not. More than likely just another conspiracy where a big awful company is trying to take advantage of the little people because of greed.
[...] had a story about the proposed Go Ape rope course awhile back. Today there was a post up on Byrd Park quoting Beth Bradford on some reasons why the Kanawa Trace community is opposed to the development. The comments last I [...]
Jackster, forgot to include centrally located in the region. Must definitely be a major conspiracy.
Save Byrd Park — http://fdhub.net/save-byrd-park/
I have a hard time believing that pruning some trees to add a couple of zip lines and swings in the woods is going to make the birds and animals disappear. Pruning the trees in my backyard 2 years ago certainly didn’t deter the squirrel population (though I wish it had) nor the owl who hangs out in the alley . I don’t get the impression that they’re razing the forest to put in this course…the whole point being to play amongst the trees and not in an open field. I applaud most things that get families together for outdoor activities.
The Facebook page for Save Byrd Park is here — http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_152990461412762¬if_t=group_r2j
Good to see the favorable comments, and I agree with all of them. This will bring more people to the park for healthy, positive outdoor recreation: precisely the intended use of public parks. Opponents remind me of a similar cadre we had in Forest Hill who were against restoring the lake in Forest Hill Park.
Richmond’s Byrd Park has a natural gem that is threatened by the city’s push for economic development. The park’s last remaining passive natural area is located between the Carillon and Pump House Drive. City officials want to commercialize this area of the park by allowing a company called Go Ape to build an adventure course with zip lines and Tarzan swings.
The area at risk is a forest treasure. Several access points make it relatively easy to enter if you know where they are. In an area hidden by the surrounding terrain, there is a babbling creek between steep slopes with old growth trees. It’s like being in a valley in the mountains far from Richmond.
If you look long enough, you may see the deer that are ignoring you and watching you at the same time. You can look up and marvel at the height of the trees and watch a variety of birds flitter from tree to tree.
Unfortunately, the city wants to replace the birds and animals with people paying $35 to $55 to swing through the trees screaming like Tarzan.
In Byrd Park as it exists today, one has the opportunity to visit this area and be entertained by nature for free. One can observe nature taking care of itself by accepting fallen trees into the landscape and allowing the spring fed creeks to seek their own paths. The history, serenity, and real beauty of a forest can be observed only at ground level.
Byrd Park’s natural treasure is at risk and needs protection from the city.
The real question is if this is the best place for this activity. Flippen’s point about the proposed area being relatively undisturbed and natural should be noted.
Why not use someplace else in the City Park system that has already been disturbed by human activity and yet is even more underutilized? Its not like this the only place where there is room for GoApe.
If there’s really no difference between a softball field and a wild area, why not go whole hog and have a McDonald’s right behind the Carillon? After all, all those folks who contributed to its building are dead now, and they won’t care.
Softball fields and McDonald’s cause long-term damage when the trees are removed. If done correctly, you can build stuff like this in and around trees without causing this type of damage to the forest. If the business fails in the future, it can be removed without permanent trace. And in the end, you may have a nice memory or two of it. My personal memory of this space is of jogging around the loop, seeing trash on a dead-end road, with a wonderful old pump house that no one ever visits.
I think what we have here is the age old conservation/ preservation land use argument. I recently came back from a trip to Costa Rica where these two concepts could not be more perfectly melded. In the Monteverde Cloud Forest Region, you have many rope, bridge, and zipline developments in close proximity to wildlife preservation areas. While there is no doubt more fauna seen in the areas without heavy human intervention, you do develop an appreciation for the jungle by having a new vantage point.
This development could provide education for the greater James River ecosystem and provide tax dollars for maintaining the more pristine outer reaches of the park beyond pump house and texas beach.
Given that the proposed area is already one of much human intervention, being that it is surrounded by a neighborhood, dog park, toll road, and amphitheater; I can’t imagine a better place to add an attraction of this adventure type to our already nationally known park system.
Take that Costa Rica!!
Sounds pretty overwhelmingly in favor. Add my vote to that.
Our city parks should remain free and open to the public. Even if one likes this idea, how many Richmonders can afford the $50 or so it is going to cost to play Tarzan for a few hours? It would cost my family of four $200 to visit this currently free park. We might even have fun, until we realize that going to a city park has now turned into a vacation-like experience that we need to save up for since we can no longer go on a regular basis as we do now. Go Ape seems to be the only winner here – they are getting access to free public land. If the city likes this idea so much, why don’t they put in a free rope course instead so that the average Richmonder can still enjoy their park? Go Ape is a private company. They should put their course on private land instead. The city should not take the park away from the public and allow the Go Ape owners to make a profit at the expense of the citizens of Richmond.
I would urge every interested party to READ the proposal from Go Ape before making any decision (pro or con.) This company is grounded in eco-friendliness. They’re a front-runner in developing sustainable treetop recreation. More public in the public park system is a pretty good thing, IMHO.
Two Questions to Think About
Background
Regardless of what Go Ape writes in PR articles or edits into their videos, if you pay attention to the pictures and news videos from the park in Rockville, Maryland, you can see what they will actually do to Byrd Park. Trees that are in the rope line paths will be removed. Trees surrounding the paths will be limbed up to above rope line height. The result will be the equivalent of a series of power line clearings. Tree top canopies will not be cut, so the forest destruction will not show on Google aerial maps. What city officials are proposing to do to Byrd Park will be hidden from view except by those who visit the park.
Now, take another look at the pictures and news videos and pay attention to the people. They are having a great time, but they do not appear to be observing the environment below them.
Questions:
1. Will those who visit a rope course at Byrd Park go there to enjoy the serenity and beauty of what used to be natural forested area?
or
2. Will those who visit a rope course at Byrd Park go there because there is not currently a rope course at Kings Dominion or Busch Gardens?
If you read the minutes of the meeting, the city arborist is supportive of the the project and said it is non-invasive and that IF any trees needed to be removed the Urban Forestry gets final say and alternatives would be presented. He also said this part of the park will receive more arborist attention than it does currently. They also say that the course can be done without removal of any trees. To call this a Busch Gardens is ridiculous.
Pictures and videos of the Go Ape rope course in Maryland show straight line open pathways, which are not natural. Trees will be removed and limbed up in Byrd Park.
When I talked to the city arborist, he pointed out that his responsibility is for controlling, not preventing, impacts on city trees. He also pointed out that the city has no staff position that specializes in evaluating ecological and environmental impacts. Additionally, the Department of Planning and Development Review has stated that the Urban Forestry Commission is not part of the approval process for this project.
Economic development projects are high priority for this city administration. Therefore, it is probably difficult for anyone in the city to say they are not supported of this project.
It is true that Go Ape says that its designers and independent arborists will work closely with City of Richmond Park officials to establish an environmental management plan that will ensure that the impact on the park and trees is minimized.
However, regular visitors of Ricmond’s parks may have noticed that Department of Parks & Recreation employees never miss an opportunity to drive large trucks across the root systems of trees struggling to survive in the open park areas. Go Ape’s arborist should have no trouble convincing the city that a tree is going to die anyway.
Dennis – you are saying things that you want to be true but simply aren’t. Go back there and it is easy to see there are plenty of places with the changes in terrain where you can put a walk line 30 feet up. You say Urban Forestry is not part of the process but yet there they are saying they support it and will work to make sure the area is not adversely affected. It says right there in black and white that the final decision to remove ANY tree is left to the city. And since you don’t have an argument you insult the staff and try to make them look like idiots.
Tom –
We are communicating directly with city personnel, so we know who they say is involved with this project and who they say is not. I quote what city personnel have told us; I am not making it up. Also, I have Go Ape’s proposal that verifies that this is a top down economic development project.
Maybe it is good that you are insisting that no trees need to be removed. Some zip lines in the US are constructed within the tree canopies without clearing pathways below them. Go Ape is a British based company, and pictures of their courses show cleared pathways.
Are you willing to push for a canopy design that will help us save the trees if the project goes forward? Your help in figuring out what is true, regardless of what we wish, will be appreciated.
Might want to change the post title to: “Ropes Course Catching Civic Support (with the exception of a few squeaky wheels)”
Not that this is a referendum, but I’ve tallied the comments: 10 in favor and 4 against (from seemingly unique posters).
At FH Resident’s prompting, I’ve altered the title to reflect the divergent points of view.
Remember that not everyone has their minds made up on this issue (myself included, believe it or not). The information contained in your comments and the way you state them could help sway others in either direction.
Jay C – you forgot to add the coal trains roaring through at all hours of the day and night or the homeless people napping / hanging out in the shelter closest to the restroom on the hill above the Toll Plaza.
I’m shocked that no one has mentioned all of the trees in the park that have already had their tops or major branches ripped out by the recent storms. Would be nice if an arborist (or heaven forbid, the anti-rope course folks posting here who assert they really care about the Park trees) paid some attention and took care of the trees that are already in obvious need.
With the “Not In My Back Yarders” (previously mentioned by FredInRVA as NIMBY’s) against anything attracting “other” people into their “private paradise” it is a wonder how the North Bank Trail ever got extended all the way behind the Toll Plaza or how we got a well used Disc Golf course all around that part of the Park area.
All this said, as a corporate Environmental Manager I do agree with Dennis that if this project is to go forward, it should be as minimally invasive to the old growth trees as possible. Businesses and the environment can coexist quite well with proper planning.
Hey, by now, don’t we all know how these games in comments sections are played?
Some use their real names. Others don’t. Some are unafraid of the readers knowing who they are and why they say what they do. Others have an agenda they would rather you not know about. This style of communication may be free speech but it’s not particularly fair or trustworthy.
To suggest that a comments section of any blog is a referendum is absurd. But that doesn’t mean these discussions are useless. Some writers are their own worse enemy. Astute readers can read between the lines.
Counting votes here or at any blog is a joke. There a people who live to game these open discussions.
As a native Richmonder, I’m confident that if this issue receives a thorough airing the general public will overwhelmingly oppose the ropes course being installed where it is now set to go in Byrd Park. So, let’s keep talking about it.
We know that the city is not able to keep track of everything going on. After storms in Byrd Park, neighbors will drag branches into piles and then call the city to pick them up. We actually consider the park our front yard, and we like to keep it looking nice for everyone to enjoy.
The irony is that we believe that if more people would actually visit and enjoy the part of the park behind the Carillon, they would realize it is unique as an old growth wooded area in the middle of the city. As a natural area, it takes care of itself. When a tree falls, it is absorbed into the landscape.
Arbor Day is a great event at the Carillon every year. Hopefully, a rope course will not go in, and maybe we can include a tour of this part of the park. It is an area that could be considered to be a “paradise” if visited at ground level.
FT, you’ve been calling out anonymous commenters for ages, but keep allowing them on your own sites anyway. Everybody knows online polls of almost any sort are a joke, but you have my real name and I am for this. I’m not a native Richmonder, so maybe my votes doesn’t count.
To read “A brief history of Byrd Park” go here — http://fdhub.net/a-brief-history-of-byrd-park/
To wrap up earlier confusion in discussions on tree removal:
Urban Forestry is part of Public Works Operations.
My comments referred to the Urban Forestry Commission, which does not include city employees.
Neither Urban Forestry nor Go Ape has said that a rope course in Byrd Park would be built without removing any trees.
The Urban Design Committee minutes indicate that Go Ape’s business director “stated that they have been able to design the course [in other locations] without the removal of any trees and if there was a case that we would have to remove a tree [in Byrd Park] we would provide complete transparency of that happening before hand and will then present some potential alternative.”
According to J. R. Pope, design of a course for Byrd Park has not been initiated.
Overall, I support this concept. If this were a large national park I might be concerned about ecological impact, but Byrd Park is already heavily used. It’s a park for people to enjoy, not a nature preserve.
I also wonder whether most of the opposition is coming from Kanawha Trace residents. I find it hard to feel much sympathy for them, one of the richest neighborhoods in the whole City. Plus, I can’t see this having a huge impact on them. I doubt they’d be able to see the ziplines or the people, so the most impact they might get is a) traffic and b) sounds people woo-hooing as they zip line across the treetops wafting into their neighborhood. That could be mildly annoying, but then again those residents do live in a City and it’s silly to expect that they aren’t exposed to City noises already.
That being said, there are a couple of questions I have.
1) Does the City have to award to Go Ape? Or could they reject Go Ape’s application, put out an RFP, and hold a competition? I don’t know if that’s legal or not, but if they can then they should. There must be other zip line companies out there. I have nothing against Go Ape, but maybe other companies would be willing to make a stronger commitment regarding tree cutting, or find an alternate location, or pay more money to the City for the air rights.
2) How will traffic and parking work? I wouldn’t see this generating a humongous amount of traffic but it will generate some. Are we going to be adding a lot of traffic on Pump House Drive? If so, will Go Ape kick in money to replace the washed-out section of PH Drive? And when people exit Go Ape, are they going to be making a left turn from PH Drive onto Boulevard (just north of the toll plaza)? On a summer Saturday, when Go Ape will be busiest, the Nickel Bridge is also extremely busy and that left turn would be difficult at best. And is Go Ape going to have to create a parking lot somewhere?
If they could use revenue generated to restore Byes Parks totally destroyed and neglected infrastructure, Im all for it. The City Parks Rec Dept is a travesty in terms of upkeep and basic maintenence
I live in the Carillon neighborhood, and I’m opposed to GoApes! If I wanted to live in a neighborhood where you could hear screams from the treetops throughout a nice summer day or evening, I would have settled elsewhere. The miniscule $ 40,000 or so per year that I have read that this project will generate for the City of Richmond on an annual basis will be negated by the devalued property values of surrounding Carillon homes. This is not about NIMBY. It’s about an inappropriate venue for GoApes! It doesn’t belong on the fringe of a City Park that directly adjoins a tranquil residential neighborhood. GoApes needs to look for another location.
$40,000 is an amount that Go Ape estimates when the park reaches a speculated maturity in about 4 years. We cannot get the numbers to add up based on some lease agreement details provided by the city. The potential for revenue appears to be more of a marketing ploy because the city will likely get less than $15,000 a year.
Regardless of what the correct projections are, I do not believe that money justifies converting the last remaining passive natural area of Byrd Park to an active use adventure playground.
@Camille,if I may interject some actual numbers here, your argument is a bit ridiculous. Looking at a map of where Go Ape plans to build their ropes course, it is well down the hill from the Carillon neighborhood, and really much closer to Kanahwa Trace rather than the Carillon neighborhood. Thus, most noise impacts would be to the condos along Pump House Rd in Kanahwa Trace. Now, looking at the assessment records for the 14 parcels in Kanawha Trace along Pump House Road indicates they have a total assessed value of about $5.3 million, which at the current property tax rate of $1.20 per hundred dollars of value would equate to an annual tax revenue of about $64,000. So, for the City to lose in tax revenues from those properties the total $40,000 it is expected to receive from Go Ape, would assume those properties would lose 62% of their value. No reasonable person would seriously believe that a little additional noise from a ropes course in the woods would cause that great a negative effect on property values. I’m not saying their wouldn’t be some potential negative effect from noise, but I expect it would be extremely marginal.
Our parks should remain free and open to the public. They should not be given to a private company so they can charge our citizens $50 to swing from trees like Tarzan. What about the poor that can’t afford this, the kids too young to participate, the elderly too old or weak to hang from a rope, the handicapped who are physically unable? Should we allow Go Ape to tell these citizens that they are not welcomed in our parks anymore if they are either unable to pay or participate in this strenuous activity? Do this on private land, not in a public park.