My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: City Hall Complex Strategic Issues
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 04/26/06 Work Session
>
Item A: City Hall Complex Strategic Issues
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:00:35 PM
Creation date
4/19/2006 3:41:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/26/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />City of Eugene <br />City Hall Complex Master Plan <br /> <br />Community Forum #1 Questionnaire Responses <br /> <br />Project questionnaires were distributed to all the participants at the March 23, 2006 Community <br />Forum, and 69 completed the questionnaire. Participants' responses to the questions follow. <br /> <br />Question #1-What do you like and/or don't like about the current City Hall <br />building? <br /> <br />. Dislike current earthquake-risk problem. Very much like having City Council chambers <br />at center of complex. <br />. It is ugly and looks run-down. <br />. Democratic-rooms and passageways are communal-like, on same level. External spaces <br />compatible with internal focus. <br />. I do not have a lot of experience with the present City Hall, but the City Council "island" <br />strikes me as pretentious; an adequately sized, integrated meeting room would be just <br />fine. <br />. Like location. Do not like ugly building, services not consolidated. <br />. It is ugly and not inviting to the public. <br />. Like open space and central council chamber. <br />. Outdated and not very attractive-could be renovated or moved to current Federal <br />building. <br />. ( +) Good location and great inner courtyard. (-) Not energy efficient and aesthetically <br />unpleasing exterior. <br />. Too dilapidated. Inaccessibility. <br />. Ugly one-story, dated building==no civic presence. Poor use of space (one city block). <br />. Lots of wasted space. <br />. I do not want to see us having to dig first responders out of rubble or civilian command <br />and control in the event of an earthquake. <br />. It is there, and it is paid for. A big plus! <br />. I like the open design, especially the pond. <br />. Like that it is paid for. <br />. (-) Too removed from sidewalk, aloof, unfriendly. (+) Symbolism of council in center. <br />. Unattractive, uninviting, does not promote civic pride. <br />. It is paid for already. Our streets are falling apart and the City wants to build a new City <br />complex. Think again! <br />. Do not like: energy use is high, lack of space, accessibility, departments scattered in other <br />buildings, no bathroom in City Council chambers. Like: openness. <br />. Poor signage-how about maps like they have at malls which show where various shops <br />are located. Like the architectural style. <br /> <br />The JD White Company, Inc. <br /> <br />Page 1 <br /> <br />April 2006 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.