Lynchburg plans city eco-park

Lynchburg plans city eco-park

CHET WHITE/THE NEWS & ADVANCE

A conceptual plan has been formed to create an ‘eco-park’ on the property where the old Allen-Morrison buildings stand on Rutherford Street.

» 10 Comments | Post a Comment

A boarded-up brick warehouse on Rutherford Street is a faint shadow of its industrial past — the roof sags, vines slink through broken windows and the air smells faintly of chemicals.

Starting in the early 1900s, the 16.9-acre site was home to the Thornhill Wagon Company, one of the largest manufacturers of farm wagons in the east. Later it became the Allen-Morrison Corporation, which produced the ubiquitous metal Coca-Cola signs that now populate antique stores and old-time diners.

When Allen-Morrison went out of business in 1996, the company abandoned a cluster of brick and metal buildings. In 2003, the city of Lynchburg acquired the property through eminent domain and developed a plan to transform the industrial wasteland into a cutting-edge “eco-park.”

“Our goal is that this park will model sustainability, and we want to use green building practices as much as we can as we design this park,” said Parks and Recreation Director Kay Frazier.

The project, referred to as “City Stadium Park,” was one of 16 chosen nationwide for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Brownfields Program. The program provides grant money for the redevelopment of property with hazardous environmental issues. The EPA grant, along with money from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, has funded the early stages of the site’s transformation.

For now, the dilapidated buildings remain an eyesore in the Fort Hill neighborhood, which is home to the future eco-park’s next-door neighbors, City Stadium and Lynchburg Grows, an urban farm that grows organic produce and provides outreach programs for people with disabilities, at-risk youth and others.

Soon that will change. The city has secured funding to deconstruct and demolish the buildings as soon as this summer.

The eco-friendly teardown will salvage materials that can be recycled or reused in city projects, such as metal, wood planks and bricks. The aim is to keep the materials out of the landfill, Frazier said.

This spring, the project received additional momentum when graduate students from the University of Virginia completed conceptual plans for the park for their urban and environmental planning class, taught by adjunct professor Karen Firehock.

The plan restores tree canopies and green space to an area that’s dominated by concrete and asphalt. It features a multipurpose athletic field, community center with an indoor gym, playgrounds, trails, picnic shelters and pedestrian access to Lynchburg Grows and City Stadium.

Sustainable design elements, such as green roofs and rain gardens, are central to the concept.

“They really took it to a new level of sustainable practices because they incorporated a lot of low-impact design strategies and were really trying to reduce the amount of runoff that would ultimately leave the site,” said Erin Hawkins, environmental reviewer for the city of Lynchburg.

The plans will serve as a “jumping off point” for the park’s final design, Frazier said, who emphasized that public input will be solicited before anything is finalized. She added that the park’s completion could be years down the road because of the project’s complexity and funding challenges, which have been heightened by the economic downturn.

“It will be at least several years, I think, before the city can entertain putting capital into that park,” Frazier said.

Still, the project has been far from stagnant.

Shortly after the site was abandoned, the Environmental Protection Agency cleaned up the site, removing barrels filled with chemicals like mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (substances known as PCBs that the EPA says may cause cancer).

When the city acquired the property, it worked with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to complete an environmental assessment to identify health and safety issues.

The upcoming deconstruction will constitute the most visible phase of the project to date. 

Before it’s time to move forward with construction, city officials plan to work closely with neighboring Lynchburg Grows and the City Stadium, along with community members. Frazier said that the Fort Hill neighborhood is presently “underserved for recreational space and park space.”

Following nationwide trends, Hawkins hopes the park will serve as a model of sustainability in the community by showing that going green can be more than just a trendy buzzword.

“To see it installed, to see it in place, to see it working, that’s a completely different thing,” she said.

Advertisement

 
View More: environment,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by Arthur Pewty on April 20, 2009 at 4:44 am

Mr./Mrs Lablover, you gave me a good laugh this rainy morning.  “the wealth and hard work of the productive”?  Where would I go to see that? 
  I also love the “green cult” business. 
  Then you go on to write,  “Why not use this money for a constructive project in an area of town where people would use the facilities?“
  You appear to be just as anxious as the next guy to spend government money.  Perhaps a new church facility?  Creation Museum?

Flag Comment Posted by lablover on April 19, 2009 at 9:30 pm

Newflash - there is no global warming.  People are starting to realize that you can’t keep taking the wealth and hard work of the productive in this country to keep throwing away at projects like this.  Our City should have been finding a way for business to come and occupy this space, not creating another “center” of expense for our tax dollars.  It’s funny that some justify this spending because it’s more federal and state money right now. (that money comes from us too) Who do you think will pay for the upkeep and management of this in the future?  It’s a shame that so many are being indoctrinated into this whole “green” cult that seeks to give govt unlimited authority in our lives.  Putting people to work in an industrial area would be a great use of this property.  It’s not a good location for a park.  Why not use this money for a constructive project in an area of town where people would use the facilities?  City Council does not get it that taxpayers and business are leaving the City because of taxes, spending and a bad use of resources by the govt.  It’s really time for a new generation of conservative leadership for the City of Lynchburg.

Flag Comment Posted by Arthur Pewty on April 19, 2009 at 4:47 pm

Mr. Goodcarp, somebody is getting ready to make a killing on the government money headed Lynchburg’s way.  Business as usual. 
  Perhaps even some of the supporters of the tea bag party.  Thanks for the information on Lynchburg Grows.

Flag Comment Posted by goodcarp on April 19, 2009 at 4:45 pm

No need to split hairs daisy.  The cost is simply too much even if it’s ten dollars.  No level of govt. can afford to tackle major projects unless they are absolutely imperative in an economic climate like this.  One doesn’t need “inside information” to recognize the fact that what parks and rec. is proposing is one expensive undertaking.  I would estimate that the demolition alone would cost upward of a million dollars.  And sure this was planned some time ago.  Many spending projects were.  That’s the beauty of having a govt. that is designed to be flexible enough to respond to changing times.  What looked feasible five years ago no longer is.  Sell this albatross.  I bet a developer would pay a decent amount for the property now that it has been remediated.  We citizens should hold our leaders accountable and scrutinize partnerships very closely.  Doing business with a wasteful group with questionable leadership such as Lynchburg Grows is dubious conduct and should be investigated fully.

Flag Comment Posted by crispy daisy on April 19, 2009 at 2:39 pm

Sorry for the mistake in my post below—I meant StuartJohnson.

Flag Comment Posted by crispy daisy on April 19, 2009 at 12:50 pm

goodcarp and StuartGrant, of course I realize that the grants come from Federal taxpayers’ money. Goodcarp, you specifically were complaining about the LOCAL government spending money, and my point was that the local government does not have to repay grant money from the Federal government.

Unless either of you has inside information, you don’t know what the cost of this project is going to be to local taxpayers.

Plans for this park were started long before the current economic crisis.

Flag Comment Posted by StuartJohnson on April 19, 2009 at 11:32 am

I wonder if the same planners who did the renovation on a “City Owned” property on Polk Street are doing this project.

This project renovated a home for over $150,000.00 when the most homes sell for on Polk street is $65,000.

As for a “grant” that doesn’t need to be paid back comment. Me, my neighbors, my children, my neighbors children etc are going to pay for this grant. Something has got to give because we as a nation can not keep printing money and making unfunded promises. There is a bill to pay and if you look closely, we can not pay our current bills as is.

Flag Comment Posted by goodcarp on April 19, 2009 at 9:19 am

One word Crispy flower—Priorities.  We’re broke.  Plain and simple.  To suggest grant money is free money is disingenuous at best.  Where do you think these federal dollars come from?  Some magical money cloud?  The EPA grant is for the brownfield remediation and does not cover the cost of demolition or redevelopment.  Look we need money.  The city acquired this property through the condemnation process.  It turned out to be a bad move and will eventually cost taxpayers millions.  I say sell it to the highest bidder and wash our hands of it.

Flag Comment Posted by crispy daisy on April 19, 2009 at 9:03 am

goodcarp, the city already owns this property; they bought it six years ago. The article says it’s being partially funded by a grant from the EPA. A grant is money that doesn’t need to be paid back. They don’t give details about the other funding, but without knowing the sources, terms and amounts of the funds being used, how can you complain about it?

It seems that a park would be much more desirable use of the land than the dilapidated buildings there now.

There is nothing in the article indicating that this park is going to push any agenda, “green” or otherwise. From the article: “It features a multipurpose athletic field, community center with an indoor gym, playgrounds, trails, picnic shelters and pedestrian access to Lynchburg Grows and City Stadium.“

The “green” part of it seems to be in the re-use and recycling of materials from the demolition, the choice of materials used in construction, and planting trees and grass. The children using the park will probably never even be aware of how the park was built, much less be “indoctrinated” in some sinister ecological brainwashing.

I don’t know the effect of working with Lynchburg Grows. Presumably, there will be enough people involved in this project that they will not allow the project to be adversely affected by the partnership.

Flag Comment Posted by goodcarp on April 19, 2009 at 7:09 am

Once again I am amazed that the leaders of this city will throw taxpayer money into an unnecessary project.  The local government has no business spending money on efforts that will merely indoctrinate children with their definition of what constitutes “ecological” or “green.“  This is best learned at home or through ones own research.  While we can all agree that the environment is of utmost importance, we will never come to a consensus on certain concepts and/or practices.  Further it is shameful that city leaders would openly laud their intentions to partner with a shady organization such as “Lynchburg Grows.“  It is important that we pay close attention to where our money is going.  I suggest readers check out this site which clearly has some good information re: Lynchburg Grows:
http://lynchburggrowsstory.blogspot.com/

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement