As I mentioned in an earlier post, I enjoy hearing James Shanley speak at meetings.
First, he speaks well. Second, he makes sense. Third, his positions typically mirror my own. (Yes, two and three are inextricably linked.)
So imagine my surprise when, a few weeks ago at the NRA's public hearing on the waterfront, I found myself having no idea what the hell he was talking about.
To set the scene, the NRA had just rolled through its Powerpoint presentation and opened the floor to comments. Not surprisingly, a slight majority of the comments (like 99.99 to .01) denounced the plan as having too much parking. The collection of politicians and candidates--the only folks wearing jackets and ties--had to rush to get their words in. They they were due to attend the Newburyport Mothers Club's candidates forum at another location.
Shanley was among the well-dressed fast talkers.
But, unlike the others, Shanley didn't talk about park space. Instead, he talked about economic engines. Instead of crediting or criticizing the NRA for its King Solomon-inspired proposal, Shanley said the NRA good intentions were being misspent, that this wasn't the right time for this project. That the land was too valuable to the city.
To be clear, he was using complete sentences that expressed lucid thoughts. But without some further context I couldn't believe what I was hearing. The NRA lots as a economic rather than aesthetic engine?
A few days later I emailed Shanley asking him to expand on his thoughts because I couldn't quite grasp his point. He graciously offered to do so, admitting he had rushed through his comments at the NRA meeting. He said he'd given similar testimony to the the NRA members before so he didn't feel the need to go into great detail in that setting.
So we met at Plum Island roasters, sort of Ground Zero for the Waterfront, and he explained his position further.
Shanley isn't in favor of park or parking. Nope. He'd like to see some commercial and mixed use development somewhere along the waterfront lots.
Interesting, more in the next post.
2 comments:
I agree with Shanley. It is a waste of space.
I agree with the part of the definition of smart growth that talks about developing what has already been developed. By doing this we could actually afford to leave other untouched open space alone. Development on the central waterfront could, if done correctly, enhance the waterfront experience for everyone.
Just look at City Hall Plaza in Boston. Every so many years Menino hires a firm to figure out why people don't use the Plaza. Simple answer: there's nothing to draw them there.
Smart development on the waterfront would enhance the park, the boardwalk, the waterfront itself. Not mega-development but the right kind of touches.
Perhaps a better discription of what either park or parking would be is a dead zone. Maybe not during Festival/Yankee Homecoming season, but certainly during the crummy months. A modestly sized, carefully tought out smart waterfront would enrich the downtown, and would provide a year round activity link for Waterfront West and what will most likely be known as Waterfront East.
The key is public access, not openness. Mr. Ryan is correct, City Hall Plaza is deadly, but it is open.
Post a Comment