By Matt Artz
Monday, June 29th, 2009 at 11:39 am in Uncategorized.
Saturday: 1,506 patrons
Sunday: 1,703 patrons
Park capacity is 1,300 at one time.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
Outstanding, as mentioned in my previous post:
My daughter is 3 and has been to the water park 2x already. The kids area w/ the fountains and padded grounds are amazing for this age group. So much, that my wife organized a play group of 3-5 yr. olds to attend the park bi-weekly this Summer. This park is a great addition for young families in Fremont, several friends in the Pennisula, with small kids are now heading out this weekend to see what it’s all about as they are reading about it in the press or seeing it on TV. i think it needs time to build up attendance w/ word of mouth and great weather conditions. I agree with Ishan, let’s now focus on a movie Theater, but I think the water park was very well worth the investment for growing families that will be in Fremont for years to come.
A city run kids waterpark is much better investment than a city subsidised Performance arts center.
Performance arts center will surely have less patrons, esp. in a city with a demographic like Fremont
Kids water park is probably the only thing that a city could run. The rest should be left to private companies. I am sure if left to private companies, no one will be ready to pick up the “performance arts thing”
An arts center will be a drag on the finances of the city and won’t be appreciated adequately by the residents.
Besides, why are we considering purchases of additional properties when we can barely keep basic services running — like say, the fire department?
But it’s great to see the water park be used. And I can say that it isn’t just children and families who are enjoying it. My girlfriend’s coworker talks about how he has gone there multiple times.
As much as I would hate to see the old Center Theater go, it really seems fiscally imprudent in this economic climate to invest in something this esoteric when the City has actual needs that are going unmet. The only thing I can say in support of the performing arts concept is that at least it would be open more than three months a year.
I know that sweet redevelopment money is just burning a hole in the City’s pockets, but there has to be a way to invest those funds in something that will bring a more tangible rewards than movies and dance recitals.
Can’t redevelopment funds be used in a way that would support and/or supplement the community? Some kind of publicly/privately partnered technology training facility for young people or a senior center that could meet the real needs of local seniors? How about rehabilitating a building to house a first-class day-care facility for local parents? They can spend money to get ‘em wet at the water park; why not spend money to take care of ‘em while Mom and Dad are at work?
There have to be some creative financial minds over at City Hall who could finesse something like this. They always seem to be able to find a justification for doing what they want. Why not do something that we need?
A diamond sparkles because of its multi-faceted surface. World-class cities gain their value based on the multi-faceted entertainment opportunities they provide their residents.
In other words one family water park does not a world-class city make.
Andy your remark, “Performance arts center will surely have less patrons, esp. in a city with a demographic like Fremont” is just plain wrong.
If the idea is feasible, then we should just let private companies build it. City subsidizing it, or taking partnership is a losing proposition I think.
This is especially true for a neighborhood like centerville. A second run theatre fits well with that neighborhood.
Performance arts center if feasible should belong elsewhere, mission, central park…
City also has to look at its finances. A day care facility does not bring any income to the city. A low cost second run theater might. Even the theater should not be subsidized in any way
When cities are already in a budget hole, its not wise to expand social care services
Andy, I agree with you regarding private investment. Look at any large public entertainment venue in the U.S. and you will see a corporate name attached to it. It should not and can not be done by city government. I have repeatedly used Greenville, SC as an example of a city totally rejuvenated with the aid of private and corporate investors. It wouldn’t have happened without them, although the city donated land for some of the facilities.
I guess it all depends on how you define a “world-class city”, and I don’t believe that should be based solely or even primarily on entertainment opportunities. As I’m sure you know, Doug, there are many services that a city can and should provide that impact resident’s quality of life; services such as infrastructure maintenance, open space, public safety, community and economic development, even schools, if you want to extend “city” to include the school district. Right now, those needs are not being adequately met.
City officials and management must be responsible to the voters. Fremont can’t become what the residents think of as a “world class city” if their representatives don’t listen to what the residents want. We’ve got a lot of work to do in the areas of fiscal responsibility and trust/communication before we can be what I would think of as a “world class city”.
Andy, while you may be correct that a day-care center might not bring a lot of direct revenue to the city, it is the kind of program that could significantly benefit residents. As an adjunct to other local business development, it could serve our interests by providing both early childhood development to our youngest residents, making local employment more attractive, and shortening their parent’s daily commutes, thereby reducing our environmental footprint.
Also, I may not have been entirely clear that I don’t think that such a program should necessarily be entirely a municipal service; if the City provided the place, couldn’t we partner with a private firm for the services? Don’t we do that all the time with CBO’s that administer drug treatment facilities? I’m with you on the public/private partnership thing, and there’s got to be more market out there for quality child care than for a tea house at the Lake.
Anyway, I’m not married to the idea. What else can we do with redevelopment money that will give us more than bread and circuses? There’s got to be a way to put that money to work on projects that will truly benefit residents.
My favorite uncle back in New Jersey had always wanted a pool table so he cleared out a spot in his basement and bought one. The first summer we played every chance we could and long into the night. It was really neat. The second summer we found ourselves not playing quite as much. By the third summer the pool table was hardly ever in use as we found ourselves distracted by new entertainment possibilities. The fourth summer found the table covered by a piece of plywood and used for storage.
Now that the water park is up and running, the city should consider turning it over to some private party to let them run it – this would give them funds to invest in new projects.
Projects like Performance arts center do need to be run by city (or by philanthropy organization) just because they create diversity and are not economically viable for any private company to invest in.
As for redevelopment of old Center Theater, the current plans (of what I have heard) do not reflect demographics of Fremont – so it will either become another project like performance arts center (which a city can only have few to fund) or a drain or redevelopment funds. We should let this be a private investment so that it does not drain the city funding in this economic environment.
I dont think the city should invest in anything that is not economically viable. WaterPark for kids or a second run movie theater will attract crowd, so it may work.
But performance arts center stuff can be put off till good times return. I dont want to see my city bankrupt
The water park is popular (it is also garish). And the city should invest in things that bring in crowds (and not go bankrupt), so much of the above comments are good.
Arguing the idea that Fremont folk will not use an arts center is a little Catch-22. It is because we do not have easy access to an arts center (plays, museums, concert halls, etc) that we have let slide our desire for those things. People in SF and Berkeley and Palo Alto go to museums, plays and concerts because they can walk down the street to find them.