Why have I not responded to your poll? As a central waterfront park advocate, I find that the poll options do not express my views. If you were at the NRA's recent meeting, you'll know that many park advocates think a simple cafe, a bad-weather/summer-shade pavillion with hot chocolate and lemonade, or even a hot-dog stand would be just fine, as part of the park. A glass or open-sided pavillion tucked into the southwest corner of the east lot could also be a revenue-generating performance venue. Many of us also think it would be nifty if the lawn behind the Custom House were used for museum exhibition/expansion. The point is not that a park can't have any buildings, the point is that the buildings are there because they serve a park function. A park is about people coming together in a free and lovely outdoor setting. When Waterside West and "Waterside East" are developed, many more people will be using the park, and the small existing park is already overused. Newburyport's identity is bound to the river. We need access and space to be able to enjoy it.
I didn't want this comment to go unaddressed because it's an important one.
The proposal put forth by James Shanley--and supposed by others--goes well beyond an isolated structure or two that supports the function of a park. Instead, advocates of developing the lots see an opportunity to extend the downtown to the river, inviting all the human traffic and commerce that goes with it.
Green spots could be part of this, but they wouldn't be the keystone of the development. Buildings and businesses would be. (NOTE: I edited this last paragraph a bit. I may have overstated the extent of desired development.)
So here's my take. If I held a similar view, I'd likely vote for either of the negative offerings, either "I don't think so" or "No bleeping way" depending upon the strength of your stance.
Thanks again to all those who have participated (and commented.) Looks like we're hitting a wall at 35 votes, which is too bad.
3 comments:
Long, long ago, Tom, a non-binding referendum concerning the central waterfront went before the voters. I don't have the year but I believe it was in the late 80s. And the people voted against the development of the central waterfront.
However, that was probably 20 years ago and I've always thought the fate of the central waterfront should be decided by a binding referendum once and for all, with all the options spelled out clearly.
For instance, in a survey it is great to say you want a park, but where does it say how much the building of the park and the upkeep of the park will be?
If all sides could have their say in educating the public about the central waterfront it would be interesting to see what the people of Newburyport would want today.
In order for this to work, there would have to be various set plans on the ballot. And then let the chips fall where they may.
As for you comments about it being mostly development. I agree, but I believe it has to be development that does have green spaces and draws people to those spaces and to the waterfront itself.
Development for development sake wouldn't do Newburyport's waterfront justice, but development with an eye towards highlighting the waterfront and the waterfront park that now exists and is woefully underused, would be a win for the city and its residents, in my opinion.
Thanks.
Can I make an anonymous comment? Perhaps one way waterfront development can progress is when people such as Mary Harbough who you quote refrain from using terms such as "Waterside West" and "Waterside East." I don't have better terms right now, but the same buzzwords have been said for years and there has been little intellectual development, to pun. Change the terms for little Newburyport that doesn't like change, and see people's minds start to awaken...
I don't really have a problem with the terms used, but I'm for mixing things up. Ideas folks?
East Karp/West Karp
Karpville/Karptown
Thing One/Thing Two
Post a Comment