Chillicothe — The plans to renovate Yoctangee Park and surrounding streets are almost finished, but one late revision was denied: replacing the brick pavement of the north end of Mulberry Street with asphalt.
One part of the ACGP (Appalachian Community Grant Program) plan for Yoctangee Park and neighboring streets is the intersection of Riverside and Mulberry streets, plus the short block of Mulberry Street just south of that.
The revised plan for this intersection, after a proposed roundabout was eliminated, showed a redirecting of lanes and reduction of pavement. Apparently the plans also included replacing the historical bricks (“paving blocks”) with new bricks (“pavers”).
In the September 8th Chillicothe Council, Finance / Technology Committee chair Jeff Creed outlined that because of increased construction estimates, brick might not go back into the reworked intersection.
City administration had requested the option to save money by repaving with asphalt, instead. A handout showed the comparison between deeper “paver” reconstruction (left) and asphalt (right).
The committee met again on September 17th, and the members said they had just visited the site, as well as spoke with some residents there, to see the situation firsthand.
Typical of a council committee meeting, the gathering was small. The five council members present consisted of the three committee members, two councilmen of the two wards that share the site, plus council president. Two members of city administration were also present, who gave clarifications.
Only three members of the public attended: Ed Kunzelman, who owns property near the site and is a major downtown property owner; John Thacker, council candidate; and me. All the three of us spoke on the issue. The meeting took about 90 minutes.
In the meeting, the council members pointed out that they agreed that Mulberry Street is dangerously wavy, and the bricks must be pulled up and the street base (foundation) rebuilt. They pointed out that the street must be made safe for visitors directed in from Bridge and Riverside streets to the downtown.
Committee Chair Creed pointed out that, as shown in a handout, that the new pavers (not the historical paving block) would be the cheapest alternative…in the long run. They were listed as lasting at least 100 years – but at a cost 3.35 times more than asphalt, initially.
Concrete pavement was listed as lasting 50 years, and asphalt only 10 to 15. But that means that asphalt must be replaced seven or eight times a century, multiplying its cost that much.
In addition, the “down time” during construction for the both the intersection and street was shown to be 1.25 months for asphalt, but almost four times that for hand-laid pavers.
Some of the council members asked how higher expense in this part might draw funds away from other parts of the park plan. Creed said not much, since costs are pretty much nailed down, though it might crimp the number of exterior and interior furnishings added. He also said the grant funds cannot be used for maintenance of the new construction.
They also discussed the intersection itself, but their main focus was was responding to the administration about their request on the street pavement.
The end result is that this committee meeting was mainly to vote yea or nay on the city administration’s request to consider replacing the brick pavement in Mulberry Street south of the intersection – not in the intersection – with asphalt. The committee voted “no” on that.
The administration had not requested to not put brick into the rebuilt intersection.
The committee said they want to see as many of the paving blocks saved as possible, but many are cracked. Creed said they could use a skid-steer front-loader (like a “Bobcat”) to save money by scooping up the paving blocks – but that would cause much more damage to them than prying them up by hand…which will take much longer, and even that has an estimate of only about 60% of the blocks intact and reusable.
They also suggested that the saved blocks be reused in the rebuilt intersection, instead of new pavers.
I spoke up, making it clear that I was acting as a historic preservationist, historian, and member of the local tourism industry. My main points, most of which were answered:
- Is this following the spirit and the letter of the city law to protect brick streets?
- I am amazed that there would be consideration to remove historic fabric in a project meant to facilitate appreciation of local history and culture. – Safety is the main consideration.
- How can you say the paving blocks are “worn out” when they would outlast civilization? – They said many of the bricks are cracked and will break when pried up.
- The hasty schedule of this project – only about 2 1/2 years from initial plan to final payment – is distorting decent planning and execution, and risking making generational mistakes by ‘breaking things that don’t need to be fixed.’ – Chagrined expressions.
- Can this be saved out for later, to be better planned and integrated into the plan for the visitors center when that happens? – To separate out from main ACGP project would take months with the state bureaucracy.
Note: I don’t often cover council committee meetings because I have time limitations for journalistic coverage, but this was an issue important to me…thus, a little excessive coverage here.
