Amen to that Mr Menin. More density downtown is a good healthy sustainable solution. Cities are more efficient than suburban or rural communities RE:energy use. We should think of Newburyport as somewhat 'undersized' By that I mean that our fixed costs can support a larger amount of variable costs, thus lowering cost/unit of service delivered. A number 'over 55 'residences on newly allowed extra floors downtown would be a net revenue plus for the City with very little incremental cost.
She/he raises an interesting point about whether this is the most sustainable solution. Is a green waterfront the most responsible use of the land?
Again, I'm surprised by the lack of response from the open waterfront folks.
There's still time. Get out the vote.
2 comments:
Hello Tom. 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.
Fair points Mary. I was at the meeting and will try to address your points later. But thanks for taking the time to comment.
Post a Comment