The 'Ville Voice header image 1

HEY LOUISVILLE: Do You Love Cherokee Park?

August 4th, 2010 by jake · 11 Comments

Then you should probably help save Hogan’s Fountain Tee Pee Pavillion. Or joint the cause’s Facebook group.


The historic structure is definitely at-risk. Here are the details:

In 2009 the Olmsted Conservancy and the Metro Parks created a master plan for Hogan’s Fountain. The plan is part of a continual development of our parks in Louisville. Though the plan included the “proposed” removal of the teepee pavilion. The teepee is the only structure of it’s design in the country and is unique to Cherokee park, Louisville and the Hogan’s Fountain area of the park. It has a history involving tens of thousands of visitors over the year and deserves the dignity it provided the park and it’s guest for so many years. Now the history and the future blend.

The history of this fine architectural piece needs to be preserved as does the structure. Helps us to make the future a historical one.

It’d be a shame to lose it.

You should also go to this benefit concert tomorrow. Starts at 10:00 P.M. at the Hideaway Tavern (1607 Bardstown). A $5 cover charge goes directly to restoration efforts and lets you enjoy some great local bands.

Tags: Highlands · Landmark · Parks · Possibility City

11 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Roger // Aug 4, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Why is it when something has a bit of uniqueness about it, it has to be removed? Do they need to make room for something vitally important, like another Starbucks?

  • 2 jake // Aug 4, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    That’s where they’re going to build a new animal incinerator for MAS.

  • 3 MetroHack // Aug 4, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Maybe Todd Blue will make a donation……….

  • 4 Bilski // Aug 4, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Any links to what the proposed replacement would be? It’d be nice to see the other side of the coin.

  • 5 45 years in the Cherokee Park area // Aug 4, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    It is not historic at all. I remember when it was built and could not understand why it was put there. I liked the old, park like pavillion that it replaced. That one was much more appropriate

  • 6 Roger // Aug 4, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    Ummm. ‘Historic’ seems to be a matter of perspective… and semantics. I remember many events that are historic, that are much less than the 40-some year age of the pavilion.

    Cars can get historic tags after 25 years. How old does a structure need to be to be considered historic? Will it be historic when it reaches 50. 100?

    If it’s not historic yet, maybe it should be given the chance to reach a ‘historic’ age.

  • 7 Steve Magruder // Aug 5, 2010 at 6:42 am

    Perhaps ‘historic’ could be argued, but this is clearly an unusual and longstanding landmark that we have no reason to get rid of. Why on earth do we have to keep tearing down functional things to build anew, especially when it is unnecessary?

    As human beings, we grow accustomed to our surroundings, and don’t want them changed without a very good reason.

    This pavilion is a part of our landscape and thus a part of our culture and heritage. It needs to stay.

  • 8 keatssycamore // Aug 5, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Steve wrote:

    “Why on earth do we have to keep tearing down functional things to build anew, especially when it is unnecessary?”

    Contractors & campaign contributions

  • 9 Fleur de gris // Aug 5, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Parks has an albatross…and they’re going to be forced to keep it, it looks like.

    Original detailing has caused structural issues that make its renovation problematic. It ain’t just the cost of a roof, folks!

    It’s a cool structure. If I hadn’t heard of its problems, I’d probably be fighting for it too. Even the roof cost, though, when made public, was treated as a gov’t conspiracy. Maybe why they haven’t shared the rest…

  • 10 jake // Aug 5, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    It’s time for $3 tolls to drive through Cherokee, amen.

  • 11 Lark // Feb 3, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Someone just turned me onto this blog today (yeah, I guess I’ve been way out of the loop) and since saving the Hogan’s Fountain Pavilion has been my life for the past year I had to check the archives to see if anything had been said about it. The erroneous comment by Fleur de gris is so far off the mark that I felt compelled to address it.

    Is IS just the roof (with some minor cosmetic masonry work at the support bases)! There is nothing structurally wrong with the pavilion. The Olmsted Conservancy got one (and ONLY one) bid to replace the roof with an astronomical price tag of $148,000. Many of us feel that they did that because they are the ones who want it replaced with a generic 25-person shelter like the one they built at the top of dog hill. Because “that’s what Olmsted would have wanted.” Just like those golf courses he strongly protested having in the parks!

    Our group secured our own bid at almost half of the cost of the Conservancy bid – $82,000, which includes painting the support beams. Since the City kicked in and finally painted the poor thing (after neglecting it for over a dozen years) we no longer have to deal with that cost. Currently another company is trying to lower the cost even more.

    The real mystery here is why the city lets the Olmsted Conservancy dictate what can and what cannot be permitted in a city park.

google

couk