The designs for the pavilion have evolved and, soon, it will be time for the S.H.G.A. members to make an important choice. Unlike decisions made in the past, the Board of Directors took the unusual approach of asking anyone with an opinion – even non-members were heard – to comment on the plans and they are leaving the final decision up to the club at-large.
What is at stake is the appearance of the structural focal point of our flight park. As our gliders are a statement of our individual identity to others, the pavilion will define our club's identity to our visitors and neighbors.
We need to put our best face on. We need to do something special, something aesthetically and architecturally unique.
We need to build Plan “C.�
I was told by one member that this kind of argument didn’t move him; that he cared what others thought but that the new pavilion should only address members’ needs. Which members? What do we need? A lean-to? A clubhouse? A shady place to sit and drink beer? Maybe a place that attracts and helps keep new pilots and their families?
What about the needs of the community we depend on for good will?
Plan “C� serves the needs of everyone in this club, present and future, and the needs of the surrounding community. By showing our councilman and the neighborhood council that we’re serious about our sport and that we have pride in our property and its appearance, we become a more important entity. That recognition aids our long-term survival even more than money.
About money: nothing good comes cheap. This is an expensive undertaking. Some members have already expressed a desire to contribute toward the construction costs or their precious time and skills to get this done. Personally, I believe that with the participation of the members, this won’t cost as much as advertised but I won’t back down on the estimates. I’d rather be conservative and come in under budget. However, even if it cost more than the estimate, it’s still better to do something really great than wish we had, later.
I took a count today of all the members of this club that appear current in their membership. This issue will be decided by a mere, 140 to 150 voters; that includes Mary Dahlsten. I hope the majority of you feel as I, that we should take advantage of the moment and build a pavilion that is a worthwhile legacy.
I forgot to mention, my suggestion to the club is to name this the Dahlsten Pavilion. Has a certain ring to it, huh?
OF PAVILIONS AND MEMBERS
Moderator: Chip
-
SHGA Communications
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:20 am
- Location: Hang Gliding Capital of the World
From Joe Greblo's private mailing list:
Dear Windsports Customer:
I'm writing because I would like to influence your vote on an
upcoming club issue, namely the new pavilion project (Gazebo
project). SHGA members have provided lots of valuable comments of
what they'd like to see built in the landing zone and soon you will
be asked to vote for one of 3 designs for a new Gazebo. I find both
options B and C very nice, and each one adequately accommodates the
basic needs of most club members. Both B and C are improvements over
the existing shade structure that will get removed before
construction of the new pavilion begins. Both are relatively
spacious. Both will provide shade and comfort. Both will provide us
with glider storage and harness storage opportunities and thousands
of dollars in storage income each year for the club. Like I said,
both B and C are very nice.
But it's option C that I hope will receive the largest number of
votes. Below are a few reasons why.
Reason 1.
Option C incorporates the largest number of pilot requests provided to
the planning committee. It is designed to be the most versatile for our needs today, and accommodates changes we may desire in the distant future. It gives us the best platform for observing flights and landings whether in full shade, partial shade, or full sun. It has separate modular spaces that facilitate several small gatherings or one large event. Portable room partitions provide a place for seminars, ground schools, food prep, or a little more privacy. It's designed to be comfortable and pragmatic.
For long term, the architect has chosen a decorative metal roofing with large skylights instead of composite shingles. Extremely importantly, the entire substructure will be built in anticipation of future restrooms and expansion to a fully enclosed club house, should our members ever desire them. Plans A and B do not address these issues
Reason 2.
Plan C offers the most to our non-flying community.
Why should we care about the community? We've been fortunate to
garner the support of many groups and individuals that have carried
our club through several serious political battles in the past. Our City Councilman, Chamber of Commerce, equestrian groups, Sylmar Baseball League, Sylmar Women's Club, and neighboring property owners and homeowners associations were instrumental in securing a 5 acre land grant to our club. Our city department of Building and Safety has forgiven our club for 2 serious code violations. Our local FAA Flight Standards District Office continues to support our activities in the midst several near mid-air collisions in some of America's most crowded airspace.
The county Fire Department provided the critical support necessary for our Forest Service permit to launch from the Towers area at a time when most Forest Service fire roads have been closed to the public. And many, many supporters helped us win a battle that prevented a world class golf course from being built in the wash adjacent to our grass L/Z.
I believe that all of these groups that have supported us share one
thing in common. They all want to see our flight park develop into a
place that our whole city can be proud of.
For this reason, Jim Thompson asked our architect to design a structure that would be architecturally unique; one that would make a powerful statement to all the different people and groups that have supported us and the many more that we will need in the future. Jim and I both believe that not only do our club members deserve Option C, but so do all those
that support us.
Dear Windsports Customer:
I'm writing because I would like to influence your vote on an
upcoming club issue, namely the new pavilion project (Gazebo
project). SHGA members have provided lots of valuable comments of
what they'd like to see built in the landing zone and soon you will
be asked to vote for one of 3 designs for a new Gazebo. I find both
options B and C very nice, and each one adequately accommodates the
basic needs of most club members. Both B and C are improvements over
the existing shade structure that will get removed before
construction of the new pavilion begins. Both are relatively
spacious. Both will provide shade and comfort. Both will provide us
with glider storage and harness storage opportunities and thousands
of dollars in storage income each year for the club. Like I said,
both B and C are very nice.
But it's option C that I hope will receive the largest number of
votes. Below are a few reasons why.
Reason 1.
Option C incorporates the largest number of pilot requests provided to
the planning committee. It is designed to be the most versatile for our needs today, and accommodates changes we may desire in the distant future. It gives us the best platform for observing flights and landings whether in full shade, partial shade, or full sun. It has separate modular spaces that facilitate several small gatherings or one large event. Portable room partitions provide a place for seminars, ground schools, food prep, or a little more privacy. It's designed to be comfortable and pragmatic.
For long term, the architect has chosen a decorative metal roofing with large skylights instead of composite shingles. Extremely importantly, the entire substructure will be built in anticipation of future restrooms and expansion to a fully enclosed club house, should our members ever desire them. Plans A and B do not address these issues
Reason 2.
Plan C offers the most to our non-flying community.
Why should we care about the community? We've been fortunate to
garner the support of many groups and individuals that have carried
our club through several serious political battles in the past. Our City Councilman, Chamber of Commerce, equestrian groups, Sylmar Baseball League, Sylmar Women's Club, and neighboring property owners and homeowners associations were instrumental in securing a 5 acre land grant to our club. Our city department of Building and Safety has forgiven our club for 2 serious code violations. Our local FAA Flight Standards District Office continues to support our activities in the midst several near mid-air collisions in some of America's most crowded airspace.
The county Fire Department provided the critical support necessary for our Forest Service permit to launch from the Towers area at a time when most Forest Service fire roads have been closed to the public. And many, many supporters helped us win a battle that prevented a world class golf course from being built in the wash adjacent to our grass L/Z.
I believe that all of these groups that have supported us share one
thing in common. They all want to see our flight park develop into a
place that our whole city can be proud of.
For this reason, Jim Thompson asked our architect to design a structure that would be architecturally unique; one that would make a powerful statement to all the different people and groups that have supported us and the many more that we will need in the future. Jim and I both believe that not only do our club members deserve Option C, but so do all those
that support us.
Last edited by SHGA Communications on Thu May 17, 2007 7:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
SHGA Communications
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:20 am
- Location: Hang Gliding Capital of the World
[Reason 3.
Option C strengthens our position with regard to making our flight
park legal. Our club's board of directors is acutely aware that our
flying activities require a "conditional use permit" from the city of
L.A. Continuing to operate a flight park without one, only
perpetuates our fears of having our flight park shut down.
SIBL, our baseball neighbors to the south, were forced to comply with these laws and our political leaders have advised us to work positively in
that direction as we could be next. We anticipate that the terms of our
future use permit will include requirements that we connect our property
to the city sewer system and build proper ADA restroom facilities for our
members. Option C is the only plan that addresses our future restroom needs.
Reason 4.
Option C will help increase the club membership and encourage
responsible park use. Clearly this option is most inviting to families, friends of pilots and visitors. By providing a beautiful and comfortable environment, pilots wives and children will be more willing to spend and afternoon at the flight parl.
A family friendly park will increase membership. This has been demonstrated at Flight Parks such as Wallaby Ranch. In addition, Option C's accessibility to the disabled, gives our club the option of inviting a wider variety of visitors such as charities and school field trips to our park.
Reason 5.
Option C extremely affordable, can be paid for with a portion of
existing club surplus funds, and it will recoup its development costs
in just a few years.
For any one of us to spend $30,000 on an improvement to our home, we would have to consider it very carefully. But $30,000 split up among 200 club members is inconsequential. That's like 200 families all deciding to pitch in for a deck in one family's back yard. Suddenly it becomes very affordable.
Although a recent newsletter suggested our club membership has diminished in size, this is largely due to the fact that we have done little to encourage our current flyers to renew their memberships. Many pilots are simply behind in their payment and are technically no longer club members.
So, those are my reasons for asking you to vote for Option C. I
hope you'll consider them.
Happy Flying,
Joe Greblo
Option C strengthens our position with regard to making our flight
park legal. Our club's board of directors is acutely aware that our
flying activities require a "conditional use permit" from the city of
L.A. Continuing to operate a flight park without one, only
perpetuates our fears of having our flight park shut down.
SIBL, our baseball neighbors to the south, were forced to comply with these laws and our political leaders have advised us to work positively in
that direction as we could be next. We anticipate that the terms of our
future use permit will include requirements that we connect our property
to the city sewer system and build proper ADA restroom facilities for our
members. Option C is the only plan that addresses our future restroom needs.
Reason 4.
Option C will help increase the club membership and encourage
responsible park use. Clearly this option is most inviting to families, friends of pilots and visitors. By providing a beautiful and comfortable environment, pilots wives and children will be more willing to spend and afternoon at the flight parl.
A family friendly park will increase membership. This has been demonstrated at Flight Parks such as Wallaby Ranch. In addition, Option C's accessibility to the disabled, gives our club the option of inviting a wider variety of visitors such as charities and school field trips to our park.
Reason 5.
Option C extremely affordable, can be paid for with a portion of
existing club surplus funds, and it will recoup its development costs
in just a few years.
For any one of us to spend $30,000 on an improvement to our home, we would have to consider it very carefully. But $30,000 split up among 200 club members is inconsequential. That's like 200 families all deciding to pitch in for a deck in one family's back yard. Suddenly it becomes very affordable.
Although a recent newsletter suggested our club membership has diminished in size, this is largely due to the fact that we have done little to encourage our current flyers to renew their memberships. Many pilots are simply behind in their payment and are technically no longer club members.
So, those are my reasons for asking you to vote for Option C. I
hope you'll consider them.
Happy Flying,
Joe Greblo
Jim,
Great idea for the name. I cannot think of a better one.
The Dahlsten's were the best neighbors this club ever had and this is a great way to honor their name. Although Carl passed away many years ago, Mary is still with us and continues to support the club. I would love to be there when she is told, assuming that is the name the club ultimately decides.
Great idea for the name. I cannot think of a better one.
The Dahlsten's were the best neighbors this club ever had and this is a great way to honor their name. Although Carl passed away many years ago, Mary is still with us and continues to support the club. I would love to be there when she is told, assuming that is the name the club ultimately decides.
Wives (or husbands) coming to the LZ? That's just not right!Christian wrote:Oh all right, I'll vote for Option C, the "Dahlsten Pavilion."
I just have to get used to the idea that my wife now may want to come to the LZ.
Not that there's anything wrong with that....
/
In the last 16 years, mine still hasn't found the LZ, not that she wants to.
-
JT
option C
I'm putting my support behind option C.
My initial reaction is to support a simple box-like design like a Wal-Mart warehouse, but then I remembered the Sydney Australia Operahouse.
http://www.sydney.com.au/images/sydney-opera-house.jpg
It looks strange but really puts the place on the map and gives it character. I hope we get a huge majority and thus the momentum to press on through the hoops and barriers that remain.
Doug
My initial reaction is to support a simple box-like design like a Wal-Mart warehouse, but then I remembered the Sydney Australia Operahouse.
http://www.sydney.com.au/images/sydney-opera-house.jpg
It looks strange but really puts the place on the map and gives it character. I hope we get a huge majority and thus the momentum to press on through the hoops and barriers that remain.
Doug
, I'll vote for it.
I went down to Torrey Pines this weekend to look at the headquarters they have there. They have a little cafe, office, pro shop/ gift shop, and a gazebo. There was also a digital windspeed readout inside. When visitors or tourist show up there, they see a well established organization. It looks more permanent. That's why I'm also for the option C.
-
gregangsten
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 11:22 am
- Location: Westchester
A, B or C?
From reading the entries here, and listening to comments, it seems clear that a majority of people want a classier, permanent-looking structure and are pushing for option C. In fact, even the way the ballot is worded, you are made to feel like a reactionary loser if you vote for anything else. I can happily get on board with this if this is what is voted for, but I think a lot of us in conversation in the LZ have been saying that we just don't really like the design of C. All these little staggered pods and posts inhibit visibility and accessibility and we are predicting that everyone will be putting chairs out on the lawn anyway.
The layout of B seems much better to me, but my question is, how did these choices get cast in stone so quickly? I am hoping that we stay a little more flexible and see the vote as one where we decide how much money to put into this and how "permanent" a structure we build, but loosen our target fixation that design of C.
The layout of B seems much better to me, but my question is, how did these choices get cast in stone so quickly? I am hoping that we stay a little more flexible and see the vote as one where we decide how much money to put into this and how "permanent" a structure we build, but loosen our target fixation that design of C.
JT wrote;
Vrezh.
P.S. I agree with Greg. Even though I still don't get his avatar.
As for the given choices, I don't like option C, I am voting for A. See my previous post at:
http://www.shga.com/forum/phpBB2/viewto ... c&start=20
I think the name Jim Thompson Pavilion fits betterI forgot to mention, my suggestion to the club is to name this the Dahlsten Pavilion. Has a certain ring to it, huh?
Vrezh.
P.S. I agree with Greg. Even though I still don't get his avatar.
As for the given choices, I don't like option C, I am voting for A. See my previous post at:
http://www.shga.com/forum/phpBB2/viewto ... c&start=20
I am all in favor of option C for the reasons others have posted quite eloquently.
However, I DO agree with the comment I have repeatedly heard that the way the space is arranged is too broken up. Maybe it just appears that way because I haven't seen an overhead view, but maybe not. In any case, I think there are enough folks who have an issue with the layout that maybe we should address it. Everything else about it looks great to me.
However, I DO agree with the comment I have repeatedly heard that the way the space is arranged is too broken up. Maybe it just appears that way because I haven't seen an overhead view, but maybe not. In any case, I think there are enough folks who have an issue with the layout that maybe we should address it. Everything else about it looks great to me.
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
Funding, and social aspects
The club gets a lot of revenue from glider storage -- $200 per person or so, versus $60 dues. I noticed the ballot materials didn't quite point out that the Gazebo options that include storage actually pay for themselves over time (assuming that storage gets used). I think the bigger plan has the most storage, and would actually become a bigger money-maker over time.
I also sense the bigger plan has the biggest potential to strengthen and grow the club. I'd like to see the park become more civilian-friendly -- a place where a pilot's non-flying Significant Others might enjoy hanging out while the pilot flys. It's inharently strong for the sport that non-surfing girlfriends often enjoy sunbathing and swimming (not that I've ever kept a non-surfing girlfriend). I'd like our park to offer non-flyers: a comfortable scenic place to hang out in the outdoors, meet people, BBQ/picnic, go for a walk, and find clean restrooms and a drinking fountain. Thus, make it easier for pilots to fly and keep up their non-flying relationships.
I need the club to be strong, so there'll always be this local site for me to fly. I also notice Greblo has decades with his livelihood tied to how strong the club is, and hence decades studying this subject.
I also sense the bigger plan has the biggest potential to strengthen and grow the club. I'd like to see the park become more civilian-friendly -- a place where a pilot's non-flying Significant Others might enjoy hanging out while the pilot flys. It's inharently strong for the sport that non-surfing girlfriends often enjoy sunbathing and swimming (not that I've ever kept a non-surfing girlfriend). I'd like our park to offer non-flyers: a comfortable scenic place to hang out in the outdoors, meet people, BBQ/picnic, go for a walk, and find clean restrooms and a drinking fountain. Thus, make it easier for pilots to fly and keep up their non-flying relationships.
I need the club to be strong, so there'll always be this local site for me to fly. I also notice Greblo has decades with his livelihood tied to how strong the club is, and hence decades studying this subject.
Down the road, rest rooms are a significant part of the CUP and Option C arguments. I'm on board with Option C mostly because members have a vision and a passion for it, and that's nice to see. (Glad to hear the design is being opened up, with fewer vertical supports).
1. I say forget incorporating rest rooms into the pavilion. You don't put a bathroom in your living room or dining room. There are sounds and scents and privacy and cleaning issues.
2. Build a separate rest-room facility, perhaps where the porta-potties are now. Make it a simple concrete block construction like a typical public park facility.
3. Public use toilets draw lines on crowded days, and even in casual weekend club use need frequent cleanup, mopping and hose-down, jobs that will fall to volunteers. Use andmaintenacne realities make them incompatible with a clubhouse and picnic setting.
No doubt the Code has a lot to say about all this. I'm just arguing that Option C doesn;t have to be, and shouldn't be, seen as the answer to our flush-toilet needs. They could be better handled with a separate building.
CW
1. I say forget incorporating rest rooms into the pavilion. You don't put a bathroom in your living room or dining room. There are sounds and scents and privacy and cleaning issues.
2. Build a separate rest-room facility, perhaps where the porta-potties are now. Make it a simple concrete block construction like a typical public park facility.
3. Public use toilets draw lines on crowded days, and even in casual weekend club use need frequent cleanup, mopping and hose-down, jobs that will fall to volunteers. Use andmaintenacne realities make them incompatible with a clubhouse and picnic setting.
No doubt the Code has a lot to say about all this. I'm just arguing that Option C doesn;t have to be, and shouldn't be, seen as the answer to our flush-toilet needs. They could be better handled with a separate building.
CW
I'll be darned. I agree with both you AND Christian at the same time. Will miracles never cease!JBBenson wrote:That is the best idea I have heard so far. Seems obvious now.
Seriously, as much as I am still attracted to Option C, it does make sense to have the toilets separate. And a concrete block building (or cement, or whatever) that can be hosed out would make cleaning less of a chore.
A "house-like" bathroom would look nicer when it was actually clean. But, it would be clean less often than a block-cement bathroom. An interesting trade-off.
I have seen some semi-nice but still easily cleaned bathrooms in parks. They were of the "hose-them-down and they are clean" type. Drain in the floor, stainless steel toilet, etc.
Fly High; Fly Far; Fly Safe -- George
-
JT
OK. No bathroom in the pavilion. Got it.
Now, do I hear a motion for a kitchen? Laurie Burgis wants a kitchen to cook for you guys when we have parties (doesn't that mean nearly everyday?).
Everyone should keep in mind, whether or not they've cast their ballot, that no single plan is cast in concrete yet. The plans evolved to where they are because of everyone's input and the chosen plan will evolve further. Things will be added and left out, materials will be selected and discarded. The shape may not change or, if it doesn't seem to work for us, it may change a lot. I think of this whole process as one of providing a general idea to discern what appeals to the majority of members and how much they want to spend. I personally think we should spend whatever it takes to make this a very nice building that can carry the club into the future. That means, to the dismay of many, pleasing the neighbors, too.
There isn't a single idea that wasn't given consideration. Just because I may not have mentioned it specifically doesn't mean I'm not thinking about it. Even yours, Greg. But it got overwhelming to try to make everyone happy when the suggestions were often so disparate that they were opposing each other. (Make it bigger - make it smaller) Some were outside the scope of this project.
That's why there are three proposals. Vote for the one that is closest to your vision.
Mine is still "C" but I will build whatever most of you want.
Now, do I hear a motion for a kitchen? Laurie Burgis wants a kitchen to cook for you guys when we have parties (doesn't that mean nearly everyday?).
Everyone should keep in mind, whether or not they've cast their ballot, that no single plan is cast in concrete yet. The plans evolved to where they are because of everyone's input and the chosen plan will evolve further. Things will be added and left out, materials will be selected and discarded. The shape may not change or, if it doesn't seem to work for us, it may change a lot. I think of this whole process as one of providing a general idea to discern what appeals to the majority of members and how much they want to spend. I personally think we should spend whatever it takes to make this a very nice building that can carry the club into the future. That means, to the dismay of many, pleasing the neighbors, too.
There isn't a single idea that wasn't given consideration. Just because I may not have mentioned it specifically doesn't mean I'm not thinking about it. Even yours, Greg. But it got overwhelming to try to make everyone happy when the suggestions were often so disparate that they were opposing each other. (Make it bigger - make it smaller) Some were outside the scope of this project.
That's why there are three proposals. Vote for the one that is closest to your vision.
Mine is still "C" but I will build whatever most of you want.