« Lime Scooter Economics | Main | No Train Horns... in Fulton »

June 19, 2018



Survey doesn’t load. The page mentions a problem my computer has never heard of except on this survey page.

PS- Wasn’t this tax to benefit the police and potholes as well as fancy-smancy new offices for our employees?


Yes, the survey tool they chose is really slow to load. I ignored the "content blocker" message, let it sit for a couple minutes while I did something else and it loaded on Chrome eventually.

Watching how Measure I funds (or debt backed by future I funds) are used promises to be entertaining.


Thank you, Joe.


When will the current Rec Center close for demo / new construction?

What is the plan / location for rec activities during the period from when the current Rec Center is demoed until th enew center opens?

Do they plan to find a new temporary location or not offer activities during the construction phase?


That is a very good question Fred..
Where will the employees work from?
Will there be any Classes/Events?
Will Playground be closed?
Where will all the Construction be stored?
I still believe the Removal and Replacement of a Rec Center in Washington Park is the most ridiculous plan that has ever been considered in the History of Burlingame.
If I lived anywhere near the Rec. Center during and after the project I would be very angry.
I am in favor of enhancing Washington Park and relocating the Rec Center out near the Bayfront.


I am surprised that this project has been approved to go forward.

What is the return on investment?

Is the current Rec Center limiting or prohibiting and activity or service?

I recall about 4-5 years ago they spent $ on small face lift. New granite counter tops, etc.

Bruce Dickinson

This survey is about as useful as a stick in my eye. The key issue for Burlingame, in Bruce Dickinson's view, is the relative cost of the Rec center designs. Does "Pavilions" save $25 million dollars compared to the out-of-control, HSR-like $50 million dollar price tag of the "Spanish" design?

If cost is similar, would go for the Spanish, but this seems like a survey completely stacked to go for the most expensive option, without people realizing it!

Is there a Survey 101 course offered during the summer at the Rec center??!?


More Cow Bell!


wow Bruce Thank you! I fell into the trap of voting for the spanish style design without realizing it was twice the price.Yikes

Bruce Dickinson

Becca-Baby, the point is Bruce Dickinson doesn't know the price differential, but suspect the modern design to be the cheaper option. I'm saying the information should be disclosed given the key issue is the ever-escalating cost. How can any proper cost-benefit analysis be done?

Why do you think all developers of commercial properties love to propose modern designs?


Brucie, Brucie-baby It's government contracting. You want the Spanish style but you are worried about the cost. They want to know how much you want it to cost. I thought you were a man of the world


My kids took classes in that building over the years. In damp weather the smell of mold and mildew will make your eyes water, esp. in the room where piano lessons are offered. There is a gas leak in the kitchen that you can smell in the back parking lot or in the hallway near the desk. That building is a hazard!!!


Yes,HMB, that building is a hazard and needs to be replaced. The mission style was the one that was originally approved by residents and that was the design that the architect presented to Council. Council sent the architect back to the drawing board to bring back the Pavilion style and present both styles to residents for another vote. The big push for the Pavilion is the addition of solar panels. Solar panels on a Spanish style roof, not too sure how it would look. Yes, they do have tile solar panels but at a cost that does not fit into the budget. The mission style if done correctly, is beautiful. A mission style done with a limited budget, looks like school and is not that inviting to the youth groups. The push for the Pavilion, was not due to budget but due to that being the favorite design of some on the Council.


As a service to the Voice readership I checked with our City manager, Lisa Goldman, regarding Capital F Fred's questions and learned "while we don’t have a construction start date yet, City staff is currently working on a plan for the continuation of services while the community center construction is in progress. The options could include a short-term lease of another building, the use of portables and other City buildings, and working with other service providers to offer programming.

While the goal is to continue the majority of current programming, programs with low enrollment may be discontinued during construction. In addition, staff will begin community outreach to design a new playground in August 2018. The goal is to have the new playground and a renovated picnic area completed prior to the start of construction so those park amenities can remain open during construction."

@Laura, not sure we want to be taking architectural guidance from the kids! :-)
Besides, the Glass Box looks a lot more like the school additions at BIS and McKinley than the Mission design by a long ways!

Bruce Dickinson

If the cost is really the same, which if true, is a complete rip-off for the modern design, then Bruce Dickinson's stamp of approval goes to the Mission style. It is a better reflection of the train station and due to it's well-established architectural vernacular, will age well over time.

Look how many "modern" commercial and public buildings built in the 60s, 70s, and 80s aged extremely poorly and now are complete eyesores! Unless Burlingame hires Frank Gehry, there is no modern architectural trend-setting genius coming out of these parts.

Better stick to something that they are less likely to screw up!!


Joe, I'm not saying I want the Pavilion style. I was just saying how it came back and the comments that brought it back at the Council meeting. Youth and Solar panels being a large part of the decision. The mission style was chosen already until that meeting. My comment on cheap mission being not so nice, was not a vote for the Pavilion.


I agree with Brucie Baby. The Mission style is consistent with the train station and the library - both of which are beautiful parts of our fair city. And also importantly, I imagine we will have this thing for quite a long time, and totally agree that Mission will age better than Pavilion. At the time of taking the survey, I assumed they would cost about the same, because I figured they would say if not! I was not aware of the solar panel issue, but while I like the idea of solar panels that would not change my vote.


And I'm not shooting the messenger (you). But the message (i.e. the Council's preference for an ugly Glass Box; with solar panels or not) deserves one in the head. Bruce said it more politely, but he's just more polite.......

Cathy Baylock

Please attend the meeting tonight at City Hall at 7 p.m. to chime in on the proposed architecture for this building. Remember, it's going to be with us for decades to come.

Here is a quote from the staff report regarding community input:" The result of the community outreach is that 51% of the respondents (827 votes) preferred the Mission design, while 49% (796 votes) preferred the Pavilions in the Park design. Those preferring the Mission option noted that they valued the historic character of other community buildings in Burlingame, while those supporting the Pavilions in the Park option recognized that the contemporary design would allow a more seamless integration of the indoors to the outdoors."

As a committee member for the past five years, I vote for Mission design. Make a note of it!

Cathy Baylock

In just reviewing the comments, Bruce had questions on the costs. Cost for either design is the same. Also, 50% of the mission style roof can be utilized for solar panels. I don't believe solar panels should be driving our design decisions. My two cents.


What is stopping the "Poll Taker's" from counting Burlingame Citizens position regarding whether or not a Recreation Center should be built in Washington Park, or built anywhere at all.
That should have been the "Starting Point," before design concepts are discussed.


They did ask, but only to craft their tax proposal. The information meetings were just crowd control.

One question asked of the crowd was something like, “If we have a tax increase, would you like it to go to the police or recreation center?” Most answered, “Police, of course.” You need safety before a place to play Bingo.

Anyone know how much money has gone to the police department so far?


Most likely a "Proposal," "you know, like fake news."
My understanding regarding the Removal/Replacement Project of the Wreck & Park Building, has been put forward by "Newish" Rec & Park Director.

In my opinion,she is a Pitbull when it comes to management, and foresight.

I do not care for a Building with underground parking in Washington Park.
In my opinion, taking for granted beautiful open space to install an ego driven project from the City Manager, is an obvious waste of resources.
The City of Burlingame is just one earthquake away from Bankruptcy.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About the Voice

  • The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. On it you can read and comment on important city issues.

    Note: Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice Blog are those of the poster and not necessarily the opinion of the editorial board of the Burlingame Voice. See Terms of Use

Contributing to the Voice

  • If you would like more information on the Burlingame Voice, send an email to editor@burlingamevoice.com with your request or question. We appreciate your interest.

    Authors may login here.

    For help posting to the Voice, see our tutorial.