Treehouse Issue Draws Large, Mixed Response

The Regent Square Civic Association hosted a community meeting and a presentation by the Pittsburgh Parks Conservancy on the topic of building outdoor learning spaces in Frick Park, most notable of which being a proposed "treehouse" in a section called Turtle Park that would honor the memory of Kate and Peter Ambrusko, and be part of the new Environmental Charter School.

Over a hundred people attended. City Council member Doug Shields, arriving only about 5 minutes late, had to stand against the wall of the large high-ceilinged school basement along with many, many others. About half of the assembled audience was wearing green, to signal support of the project. Half were not.

Marijke Hecht from the Conservancy led with a slide-show presentation (part 1, part 2) which emphasized several assertions in particular:

1) This is NOT GOING TO BE A PLAYGROUND -- feh, we have those! -- this is going to be a space which "creatively reimagines the concept of a tree house." Several widely divergent design concepts were shown.

2) It is VERY VERY EARLY in the process. There are about 12 steps in developing any such project, and we are still in steps one and two. This included issuing an RFP seeking out bottom-line costs.

3) It is going to be AWESOME, in that it will be an interactive learning place for small children, a "secret" space to poke around and be cozy; and sort of an inviting entryway for young ones from their dang video games to untrammeled nature.

It was also noted that the site at Turtle Park was one of several "dots" on a map which the Conservancy had long slated (since about 2004) for these outdoor learning space projects around Frick Park.

##

Next came the audience participation. Staff from the city's Planning Department were on hand to record all public comments. About 30 people chose to speak, and these speakers were also very evenly divided between Pro-Treehouse and Pro-Serenity advocates. Speakers were passionate but courteous to a fault -- and when they did reproach the opposition, they all did so in the circumspect and subtle manner that is so appropriate to these meetings.

Many Pro-Serenity advocates sought to clarify at the outset that nobody is against tree houses, and nobody is against memorials!! What concerned them for the most part was increased traffic through what they consider to be a tight little corner of Regent Square, up against Frick Park. They were also wary of increased pressure on parking in that area. One of them wondered how something like a school bus is even supposed to fit.

To a lesser extent, there were concerns about keeping Frick Park as filled with real nature as possible, rather than junking it up with little faux-nature developments. Some pointed out there is already a war memorial in that same clearing. One explicitly cited noise concerns, having purchased a home in that neighborhood because of its quiet. Only one warned ominously that "this park is going to be open 24/7" and "you know what that attracts".

I filmed the comments only of two friends of mine, one on either side of the question. Here is Matt Weiss:




And here is Madeline Hershey:




The event was like a very civil, methodical boxing match. Pro-Serenity advocates seemed to front-load their lineup with their most compelling speakers in front, while the Pro-Treehouse advocates led with youth and youthful idealism, then turned it on with debate-scoring points in the latter half.

##

Barbara Danko spoke to oppose the project on the grounds that it represents ever-more ravenous expansion of the Enviro-Charter School, and she further suggested that this one RFP went out for this one project in a curious fashion. This is noteworthy for two reasons.

Number one, the expansion of the school and its methods of facilitating that expansion is already a roiling sub-plot in that community. A different resident positively grilled the conservancy's Hecht about when exactly those dots on the map came to exist, the timeline concerning the issuance of the RFP, and conflicts-of-interest which had seemingly existed in the past among board members of both the Conservancy and the Charter School itself.

Number two, Danko is a Democratic party committee member, and its chairperson of the city's 14th Ward to boot. It is her role to advocate for the wishes of her community to local politicians, and to recommend politicians at election-time to her neighbors in return. Councilman Shields would not ordinarily be in the habit of doing anything which his ally Barbara Danko opposes -- and the City is not generally in the habit of pursuing projects which conflict with the wishes of the Council member in whose district a project would take place.

##

Along with the Charter-School expansion subplot, another subplot that came into focus was simply the unpleasant side of "change". Many residents bemoaned what has happened to Braddock Avenue since the parkway ramps and Edgewood Town Center came into being -- citing several recent pedestrian traffic deaths. Others looked ahead to the draw of major development activity planned in East Liberty with increasing apprehension.

Several of these residents, including the president of the neighborhood association, acknowledged that compared to these larger forces the tree house would be a drop in the bucket. (The president did mention that eliminating parking along Braddock Ave might help, although I can't imagine this would please the business district.) A picture began to emerge to me that this treehouse is one thing which the community can control and it's not going to pass on an opportunity to make a difference.

##

Many in the pro-treehouse crowd made compelling presentations as well. One young gentleman testified that his dad's (or was it grandad's) name is on the war memorial at Turtle Park, that he climbed on the Turtle at its old location at Forbes and Braddock whereas now his daughter climbs on it at its new location, and that he fully supports the project.

One speaker from the North Side -- a fan of That's Church -- said that he enjoys his Riverview Park, but also more recently has had to deal with PNC Park and so "doesn't want to hear it" in terms of this relatively teeny development project causing a bit of traffic and noise.

Most pro-treehouse speakers absolutely focused on the critical importance of environmental education, on the uniqueness and public benefit of the vision for this project -- and then on the notion that the generosity of the Ambrusko family in terms of fund-raising and visioning, followed by the Conservancy in terms of pursuing it, is a gift to Pittsburgh not to be looked horse in the mouth. No pro-serenity speakers held objections to any of that, but still were not enthused about it manifesting in their "back yard".

The Parks Conservancy maintains that this project is still in the very early stages -- so taken together with the controversy, my guess is the fate of this learning area will take at least 3-4 months to be revealed.