Anyone visiting City Park probably notes the following: The lovely grounds, the Fort Sherman Playground, the Rotary Bandshell, the tree stump art, and the Gazeebo. Oops!
The other day I was out taking my morning constitutional and I noticed this:
I hadn’t heard anything about the gazebo going, so I was agog. I remember renting it out a few times, some birthdays and other events. I remember one day when I was raining and we all ducked under the thing. We invited some exchange students from Korea in to use a BBQ.
Well it’s gone!
Being a concerned citizen, I phoned up City Parks Director Doug Eastwood. He explained that the poor building, originally put up in the 1940s, was seriously suffering. The winter was tough on everyone in North Idaho, and Mr. Gazebo was on his last legs.
Doug told me that the wood was rotten. Terribly rotten. He was afraid that with a strong summer wind the thing would come down. So they dismantled the Gazebo before anyone could get hurt. I applaud that decision.
Eventually something will be built to replace the Gazebo. That’s cool. I hear stories from people who’ve been in town a long time, stories about how bands once played in the gazebo a long, long time ago. It’s admirable that the City pays attention to its history, and that good people like Mr. Eastwood take care of our parks.
I think that the original gazebo was relocated to a park in Cheney. The museum could verify this.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 12, 2008 @ 8:31 am
They don’t need a new gazebo. Just a few short miles away is the massive and concretely comfortable amphitheater at the new Riverstone Park. The city can have great big concerts there and throngs of CdA residents can fight for the 200 seats. They’d better not touch that lake water, though. That’s illegal. 🙂
Comment by Wallypog — April 12, 2008 @ 9:51 am
One thing that puzzles me, and I should have asked Mr. Eastwood about this: Why destroy the concrete slab? If they’re going to rebuild it, wouldn’t it be easier (not to mention cheaper) simply to re-use the existing slab?
Comment by Dan — April 12, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Doug Eastwood does seem like a nice guy and quite reliable. He takes care of business in our city parks which are truly something to be proud of. They are clean and very well maintained. I will miss the Gazebo. All that’s left now are the memories. On another note, I know a porch cam exists; so how about a Dan cam which could accompany you during your morning constitutionals? Your snappy commentary will more than offset any video shortcomings; kind of like the riveting city council discussions and the LCDC verbal sparring which ooze from the new room where public meetings are held in the new library. Did anyone, I repeat anyone, look at the design of that room considering the planned usage? I’m sorry I got off on a tangent. I will miss the Gazebo, but I still think the Dan cam would be fun.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — April 14, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
doubleseetripleeye,
Someone dropped the ball when the Community Room was built. Clearly they knew the room would be used for live television; that’s why they built the control booth, installed cameras, and prewired for multiple mics. The live audio (what the audience hears) could not be worse except to have no audio reinforcement at all. The speakers are inadequate in placement, number, and quality. That results in spotty audio into the audience and feedback through the sound system. Knowing the room was going to be used for television, they should have used studio lighting and control.
Watch a Council meeting when someone speaks from the floor podium. Movie and television lighting designers are paid good money to design in the ghoulish effects our City has achieved in the Community Room.
It would be easy to blame the architect who should have brought in someone competent to design a room intended to be used as an audio visual studio. The architect may have wanted to do that, but the City or whoever was controlling the purse strings may have nixed it. After all, we do live in the “City of Expedience.” Whoever made the recommendations and decisions that resulted in the disgustingly and avoidably poor lighting and sound in that room deserves to be publicly identified.
Comment by Bill — April 15, 2008 @ 9:22 am
Correction, Bill: They did not install cameras. The Channel 19 crew did that. And they had to put the cameras in after the fact and on extensions jutting down from the ceiling. I’m not sure about the audio, but that might have been added later as well.
I was educated in theater design and the flaws in the room are abundant. Your typical, mediocre architect believes an “auditorium” is merely a box with a riser on one end. In this case, the box has non-acoustical walls reflecting the sound god-knows-where. The “stage” is in its own box and the sound stays inside, plus there is no stage left exit. The stage right exit dumps out into a dead-end corridor, which means should there be a fire the people on stage would have to run through the audience to exit. All in all, it’s a terrible design and a terrible process. The City Council paid $100,000 extra for that room. I assume they can upgrade it and charge us even more for that.
Comment by Dan — April 15, 2008 @ 9:39 am
Dan, who installed the cameras is of less concern to me. The point was they knew when the building was designed that the room was going to be used for A/V. You’re exactly right. The room was not designed properly. Hard parallel surfaces, inadequate lighting and control, etc. I noticed, too, there are no speakers on the stage. The Council and Commissioners seated on the stage are hearing reinforced sound (when they’re able to hear it) from the speakers over the audience. Can you imagine sitting through four-hour P&Z meetings in that room? Arrrrggghhhhhhhh!
Comment by Bill — April 15, 2008 @ 9:58 am