A City owned gym at Cubberley will not happen unless the City can buy some of the School District’s 27 acres. Long term leasing is not ownership. So these negotiations will now involve three parties, the new Friends Group, the City, and PAUSD and finally our ~68,000 residents to come together on this project. South Palo Alto already has the YMCA and the JCC for recreation/gym facilities. Let’s work with them on meeting these athletic needs and spend our funds on other Palo Alto issues.

A gym (or 2 or 3) at Cubberly has always been part of the cities planning effort for a redeveloped Cubberley. I don't think this should be a case of "either or". The Friends have been focused on funding an addiitonal gym beyond what has been planned. Currenly the city rents gyms at Cubberley so those would need to be replaced if no longer rented, but they could continue to be rented for along time. If not the number of gyms would actually decrease, not increase.

That is why a location like Greer is being evaluated - to increase the total amount of gym space. A gym facility on one of the city's larger parks near playing fields would be a great addition.

I would be in favour of City spending money on a gym as it would benefit residents of Palo Alto primarily and it is about time our facilities' infrastructure was prioritized. Greer Park would be my choice as it would fit in with what is already there and there are many different ways to access the park.

This got started under one circumstance, and then gathered momentum under a different one.

It could still be a good idea, But if it goes on Greer Park, then we lose some open park space in perpetuity. The City needs to take an evenhanded look at which use of that space serves Palo Altans better.

Is this really needed? How many other gyms are currently in Palo Alto?

I would have thought there are many higher priorities for the city like low cost housing, better support for EVs, robust electrical network, etc. than a public gym.

While it's nice that it will be paid for with private funds, I suspect the ongoing costs will be paid for by the city.

Echoing BobH about other priorities and asking how many commercial gyms are already here.

While plans for the gym may have been buried in various city planning documents, I don't understand why the city is so eager to spend OUR money to compete with existing proven commercial enterprises like for Fiber-to-The Home which many of us currently get from the companies the city's paying.

Yes, donations were made for the PA Junior Museum and Zoo but it STILL cost the city and residents a lot of money, esp. since they employed yet another consultant with no local knowledge who thought it was great idea to hike admissions prices.

Re priorities, how about doing a REAL survey about if residents prefer to have libraries FINALLY reopened 7 days a week and / or to see our utility rates reduced as people keep telling the city when they advertise this on FaceBook and NextDoor.

I am opposed to the city spending any money or resources for this effort given the many other things of greater importance such as extremely low income housing, a robust electric network, traffic law enforcement, street resurfacing and more. You don’t need a gym to get and stay healthy. We have the Y and maybe something could be worked out with Stanford or JCC for those who want greater gym access. A city owned gym would need ongoing city dollars to maintain it even if building costs were funded by private donations.

The only reason that this idea for yet another new City of Palo Alto project got on the priority list was the offer of a very generous donation of 30 million dollars by developer John Arrillaga to fund and build a new gym. I am sorry that he died and the offer was dropped but I do not understand how this project should now be a high priority for our city. Was this project on the top of the list of that survey that many residents completed a few months ago? It was not on my response.

I agree with BobH's comments on this article:

"I would have thought there are many higher priorities for the city like low cost housing, better support for EVs, robust electrical network, etc., than a public gym.
While it's nice that it will be paid for with private funds, I suspect the ongoing costs will be paid for by the city."

I belong to the Palo Alto YMCA, which has a large ADA compliant facility and a huge gym that often has just a few kids shooting hoops when I walk by. The rates are family friendly and very low in contrast to fitness clubs. The nice thing is that it is already there and serving our city.

For that matter, the City of Palo Alto already owns a two story elevator-equipped ADA compliant fitness building on 455 Bryant Street. This was formally Form Fitness and it was walkable for the residents and employees in the downtown area The last time I looked it was empty, reflecting wasted space and lost rents. Make it a priority to lease this to a fitness operator and let the many gyms already in Palo Alto cover the need for large-space indoor activities such as basketball.

As another example of the City of Palo Alto backing competition TO local businesses, today's front page of the other paper reports the city contracted with a Berkeley bike shop instead of Palo Alto Bicycles to offer consumer discounts under its Ride And Drive Clean program. This must be the 3d or 4th city failed program trying to rent / provide bikes first to commuters and now to residents in the last decade.

Comes down to what is a gym? Are we talking about a fitness studio or a facility with indoor space for basketball and gymnastics?

I think we have plenty of fitness studios. I think we need more indoor space for basketball and gymnastics? I have seen kids trying to train basketball outside in the drizzle with car headlights. At this time of year, indoor basketball facilities are not only for teams to train, but a great way for pickup games for teens at weekends and time off school.

The two gyms at Cubberley (on the PAUSD portion of the community center ) have been closed due to water intrusion for over a year. The need for a gym is an urgent problem because the city and PAUSD have been actively neglecting maintenance and bumbling through "negotiations" and "master planning" re: Cubberley's future for decades. We HAVE a site at Cubberley that is perfectly located to meet increased demand for gym and recreation services in close proximity to the parts of Palo Alto that are slated to get the lion's share of state-mandated high density housing. Cubberley desperately needs timely attention.

Gennady, if you are going to call one person out for being a neighbor of Cubberley, check to see where the well-heeled, well-connected "Friends" group members live--some in north Palo Alto and others in easy walking distance of Greer Park. (With the exception of Tom DuBois, who lives north of Meadow). Be fair. Acknowledge the gross inequity of community services and city facilities between north and south Palo Alto. Acknowledge that the southeast and southwest quadrants of PA are getting the lion's share of new high density housing--thousands of units.

That meeting was billed as an opportunity to "provide feedback on location of a future Recreation & Wellness Center with special attention on Greer Park and Cubberley." ALL of the concepts shown were for Greer Park. The only people who raised the issue of a gym at Cubberley were residents of south PA who were upset to see zero attention given to Cubberley by the city and "Friends" group. The "Friends" group actively argued for the Greer site. South PA continues to lose on services and get housing-- thousands of units. North Palo Alto, where are the big housing projects in YOUR neighborhoods? To which community center site in North Palo Alto is the city proposing to add high density housing as they have at Cubberley? Name one. Oh, you can't. This story reads like a press release. Money talks.

"That meeting was billed as an opportunity to "provide feedback on location of a future Recreation & Wellness Center with special attention on Greer Park and Cubberley."

Yup. And when this notice was posted on NextDoor, 80% of the commenters there asked why this was a priority and gave real feedback listing THEIR OTHER priorities.

Maybe Gennady could "report" on those others??

This is the same deceptive way Fiber-to-the-Home was pitched in that "survey" where they were already soliciting advance service deposits and there was no way to respond that you DIDN'T want it at any of the prices proposed.

Yup, money talks AND gets wasted on these fake community engagements, fake surveys, fake requests for feedback re specific issues like these and broader City PRIORITY SURVEYS that get 330 responses and with fixed broad alternatives like SUSTAINABILITY rather than underground wiring, MENTAL HEALTH vs removing "traffic calming" ...

Stop taking away open park space to cover it with cement buildings that are bad for the environment.

While a gym is a good idea, in and of itself, put human centered construction on areas that have already been covered and destroyed by people. Put it at Cubberley where there is already a gym, on ground that is already covered with buildings.

Leave what few open grassy areas we still have in this city alone. Leave Greer park green and unbuilt on.