I think the mayor makes an effective argument in favor of the senior center. (See The Mayor Makes His Case.)
I never really had a strong opinion on the Cushing Park location. I acknowledge a senior center is a worthwhile service. I question whether we can afford it during these tough times.
My concerns eased a bit when I learned the building could be built with donations and non-budget dollars. If that can be done--and that's a sizable if--than I say let's try.
So, putting aside the financial concerns for a moment, is Cushing Park the answer?
I put forth the idea two months ago about finding a temporary home downtown. The not-to-be Chico's site is one possibility. I'm sure there are other suitable sites, but they've been vacant and suitable for some time and nothing happens. I take this to means some integral part of the equation isn't interested in the idea.
So if I'm on the council, here are what I'd see as the key questions.
1. Will it ruin the dynamic of the neighborhood?
No. It'll change the dynamic, yes but not ruin it. I walk through the park everyday. It's an empty wasteland most days. I think a small, tasteful senior center wouldn't be a problem. In fact, it might be an improvement.
2. Where will people park during snowstorms?
I'll admit this up front. I have a driveway, a sizable driveway that fits my car and my neighbor's car. So this doesn't impact me. But I think it's a mistake to maintain an ugly, empty parking lot for 360 days per year because someone must park their on five days (or 15 for those folks who abuse the parking privileges and leave their cars for days on end.)
One possibility? Can't we allow some on street parking in the North End during snow storms? Some of the streets certainly are wide enough (including mine) to handle the flow.
3. Will seniors use it?
This is my biggest question. I'm told there are surveys that suggest they will, but I haven't heard anyone saying they absolutely love this site.
They love the possibility of having this site, but is anyone really excited about the idea of having the senior center here? And if they're not will they use it once it's built and the novelty (and accomplishment) is over?
4. Is this the quickest route?
Some are concerned opponents will tie things up in court challenging the legality of the park's status. Read George Roaf's letter for more. Well, I don't think the potential for litigation should sway the council from doing something. Approve the site, and if folks sue we'll cross that bridge then. But then it's clear that those folks are the obstructionists, not the council.
Roaf makes some good points about the status of the park. But one thing to remember is the senior center won't require the entire park. We'll still have the courts, the playgrounds and good deal of the parking.
The mayor makes a good case. I think I vote yes.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Friends from Afar
-
-
-
-
A Confession6 years ago
-
Nokia Lumia 925 Review8 years ago
5 comments:
Great analysis, Tom! If we're going to do this (permanently) right now we have to go forward with Cushing Park and let the chips fall where they may.
I am skeptical that the senior center could be built with "donations and non-budget dollars," whatever that is. The state and feds are not raining down grants for public buildings. And an override is very unlikely. Is everyone getting worked up about something that will never be built?
We don't need to cannibalize a neighborhood recreation space -- a well-loved if somewhat scruffy area used by upwards of 150 people during the winter and many more than that the rest of the year for recreation.
(Tom, would you so blithely give up Perkins Park or Woodman Park or any other neighborhood space? Go take a look at any of them at the same time of day you walk through Cushing. No neighborhood park is busy all the time. I was at Cushing Park just yesterday afternoon, where I encountered two other dog walkers I know, as well as several parents with young children. Some of the kids were learning to ride bicycles on the hardscape. Other kids were throwing balls around.)
We can and will, one day, fix up the park, but not if we've given away -- forever -- the place where we nurture neighborliness and protect the quality of life of a dense neighborhood.
Don't fool yourself -- if we give up the site as a neighborhood recreation area, we give it up. Even the proponents admit the one remaining basketball court would have to give way to parking whenever the need arises, which it surely will. Don't forget that several nearby residences were given permission to add units based on the proximity of nearby parking. Those folks will be competing for the center's parking.
Are you also willing to ignore the adverse impact of other uses of the proposed building on the neighborhood? Some proponents look forward to renting out the building on weekends and evenings to help cover maintenance and other costs. That's likely to affect street parking year-round, add noise and traffic, and change the "you must be my neighbor" feeling of the area.
The trend nationwide is to *add* neighborhood parks to promote the health and civic engagement of residents and to enhance a community's appeal for economic development purposes. Chicago, to name just one place I was reading about recently, is actually tearing down buildings to create neighborhood parks. In fact, Newburyport is also actively working to increase public recreational space, to provide more places for kids to play.
We don't need to give up a neighborhood park!
So what about a senior center? For starters, we may want to rethink the criteria for site selection.
If what we're talking about is a senior center intended to appeal to some large percentage of the city's 4000 seniors -- a center that can readily adapt to the changing needs of a diverse group of seniors in the coming decades -- a center that reflects best practices in land use and urban planning -- a center that can incorporate some self-financing component to assure its operation in tough fiscal times -- then we need a malleable space in a commercial/institutional area, and we need a programming and a transportation plan to go with it.
In this scenario, we could partner with a developer to build above existing retail, or partner with a redeveloper of sites downtown, at Storey Ave, or at the traffic circle. With a transportation plan and handicapped upgades, we could use the Kelley School.
If, one the other hand, what we're talking about is the senior center that Ed Cameron describes -- a center designed to serve the perhaps 5-7 percent of seniors who are socially isolated and uncomfortable socializing in more community-oriented spaces (such as the library program room, a park, a coffee shop, or one of the existing large common rooms in our senior housing complexes), folks who have difficulty traveling to various locations -- then we're talking about a more specialized, social-services approach. (I'm told that an important component involves a volunteer sitting down with a group of seniors for a meal or cup of coffee, alert to any mention of hardship, so that services can be arranged to help that person.)
In this scenario, we could also be talking about a shorter horizon of need for a specific building setup, as technology and transportation changes, as well as demographic changes, will shape how such services are delivered in the future. We don't need as large a building as is now proposed, because a simple staggered schedule will accommodate the programming for this relatively small, relatively homogenous group. We could look for an agreement with a church for use of space on weekday mornings and early afternoons. With some bridge financing, we could buy a building such as the one mentioned by Kathleen O'Connor Ives at the last public meeting on this issue. We could revisit some hastily rejected options with a clearer idea of the immediate need.
I'm skeptical as well. I think I suggested it's a big if.
You raise an interesting point though. What if the CC votes to change the designation and the center can't be built for whatever reason.
Is the door open for another use?
Tom, to answer your question in a word, "No."
The vote tonight is on whether to change the designation from municipal parking to municipal parking and senior center.
That would be the use.
Post a Comment