The Schlumberger site
The cultural concept
The municipal concept
Three options for 30-acre site
Three diverse visions for the remaining 30 acres of the Schlumberger property are offered for townspeople to consider and respond to:
• A cultural center with an outdoor amphitheater.
• A mix of municipal uses, including a new town hall, police station and firehouse.
• A “land bank” option without significant development of the site.
The three options — each multifaceted, including trails and parking, and contemplating potential re-use of the Philip Johnson building and nearby auditorium — are presented to townspeople in a survey offered by the Schlumberger Citizens Committee.
The committee put the options together based on the results of an initial survey last fall that drew some 1,400 responses and a charette in October that drew more than 80 people.
“Over the course of the last four months, we’ve gone from 34 fairly general uses to three very to help us shape the final recommendations,” said Dick Larson, committee chairman.specific options, and the committee is hoping for an enthusiastic response from the community
The committee plans to make its final report to the selectmen this spring.
The survey is available online at the town’s website: www.ridgefieldct.org.
It can also be accessed at .
And paper copies of the survey are available to be read and filled out at the Ridgefield Library and town hall.
The online survey went up on the town site Monday, Jan. 11, and will remain active until Wednesday, Jan. 27.
The survey is “easily done in 10 minutes,” Larson said.
The citizens committee was created by the Board of Selectmen after a vote in November 2014 when townspeople rejected a proposed sale of the 30 acres at the heart of the Schlumberger property to an art collector who wanted to re-purpose the Philip Johnson building.
The committee’s first survey — with the 34 general uses Larson spoke of — was available online through most of September 2015 and was taken by 1,400 people who made close to 2,000 comments.
The second survey’s goals include gaining insight into questions left open by the earlier survey, and helping the committee reach the value judgments necessary to make recommendations in its final report to the Board of Selectmen.
“It’ll be a comprehensive report,” Larson said. “We’ll make a series of recommendations based on the two surveys and the workshop, but we’ll have a preferred recommendation.
“And we’re not sure what those are yet.”
The survey asks respondents to rank in order of preference the three recommended options the committee is considering — “land bank,” “municipal uses” and “cultural uses” — followed by space for “additional comments about these three options.”
The committee arrived at its three options after months of research and analysis on the results of the initial survey.
“The first survey had 34 potential uses in the property,” Larson said. “And so what the committee did after we held both the survey and workshop, the charrette, was to do research on the applicability of all of those uses to the actual site.
“It’s kind of a sloping, rocky site, so some things would be pretty expensive to put in there,” he said.
“So through that research of the applicability of those uses at the site, and our desire not to duplicate existing venues in town, we reduced the 34 potential uses to eight: walking trails, biking trails, outdoor stage venue, picnic areas, potential museum or office space for the Philip Johnson building, and an indoor theater that would be the auditorium that’s connected to the Philip Johnson building.
“And then we formed three options from those eight uses,” he said. “Each of the three options has more than one use.”
Still, a few questions remained. And the survey — 16 pages in all — contains history and background that precedes specific questions designed to give insight into townspeople’s views.
Costs, income
The selectmen want more insight into conflicting attitudes the first survey uncovered. People are skeptical of more development, but want to recover more of the $7 million spent on the site.
The committee offers background before asking its questions.
“The Town can generate additional income from the property by selling land. Any such sales would generate not only sales proceeds, but also future annual tax revenues,” the survey says.
“The Town has sold already two parcels totaling $5.6 million versus the $7.0 million expenditure approved at referendum. The Town’s total expenditures on the property to date are $7.6 million, primarily due to larger than expected demolition costs.
“As a result of the sales completed to date, the Town has recovered all but $2 million of its total expenditures on the property.”
The 10-acre piece sold for townhouse development “is projected to generate $475,000 annually” when completed, the survey says, and the other parcel “will generate additional tax revenue once developed.”
With that background it poses a question and offers two answers to choose from:
“Should the Town sell a limited number of additional acres to generate additional income?
• “No — between the two sales already completed, the Town has already recovered enough.
• “Yes — we should sell additional property to generate more income for the Town.”
A follow-up question asks respondents to rank six potential sell-for-development options: “Office building, hotel, townhomes, condominiums, single-family homes, apartments.”
Municipal uses
A “municipal option” is sketched out in a rank-the-options question preceded by background information, and accompanied by a possible site plan showing a new town hall and fire and police stations with “parking for approximately 300 cars.”
The survey says: “As this municipal option is a conceptual plan only, detailed cost estimates are not yet available. However, one can safely assume that such a municipal campus would likely cost tens of millions of dollars to construct. For example, the Ridgefield Library cost approximately $20 million to construct.”
People may rank various combinations of doing all, some or none of the three.
Cultural use
The “cultural destination” envisions “construction of a covered, outdoor stage suitable for seasonal events (enabling removal of the stage at Ballard Park),” the survey says.
“Some of the on-site parking areas (approximately 300 spaces) would consist of reinforced turf, rather than pavement, to augment green space. …
“Preliminary estimates suggest the cost to construct this option is likely to be several million dollars, funded by a combination of private sponsorship and public funding.”
People are asked whether this option seems “reasonable” with regard to traffic, cost, and providing “a mix of uses that can be enjoyed by many.”
“In reviewing the conceptual plan,” it asks, “what uses would you add or delete, and why?”
Land bank
The survey’s “land bank option” assumes uses are found for the Philip Johnson building and adjacent auditorium “while retaining the rest of the property without developing it.”
Although the users would refurbish the two buildings, “parking and landscaping around both the Philip Johnson building and the auditorium would still need to be provided,” the survey says.
“Preliminary estimates for this work suggest total costs would be less than $1 million.”
People are asked whether the land bank option “would provide a viable long-term use for the site” — with options of “yes, no, maybe.”
The post Schlumberger survey seeks townspeople’s views appeared first on The Ridgefield Press.