But she didn't mention the most poignant moment.
Following the presentation of the two potential scenarios, which you can read about here, the consultant from the Cecil Group (
Then came this question:
Audience member: Where would the money come from to maintain this [park]?
Consultant: Um….
Audience: Snicker
Consultant, after getting little input from the NRA: That remains to be seen.
Indeed it does.
I'm still not sure how we'll pay for this. I see some inconsistences in the position of people who rail against the city for building senior centers or maintaining the Kelley School while simulataneosly insisting we just insert a big green patch of grass along the waterfront.
I don't see how we'll keep the park in good order. We couldn't even afford to build most the parks we currently have.
Furthermore, I don't see how a wide open space would generate enough traffic to the local economy to offset the loss of parking.
Overall, I liked the plans presented. (BTW, I couldn't grab a copy of them. If anyone can send me an electronic version I'll post them up here.) I'd probably scale down on the elements within the green space (garden, sculpture park, etc) but stick with the bike path, tot lot and a smaller cafe.
But I could also support erecting some buildings on the Merrimac Street side of the east lot. I agree with the Cecil Group. While presenting a pleasant view of the river, the street lacks cohesion with the rest of the downtown. Take a look at some historical photos of the street and you'll see buildings lining Merrimac Street, injecting some vitality to what's currently an empty walking space.
Furthermore, the proceeds from selling the lots or working with a developer could help maintain the rest of the park.
Finally, I counted about 60 people there, with a lot of familiar faces. This matter isn't resonating with the public. It should be.
But The crowd correctly gave a nice bit of credit to the NRA for moving this forward.
10 comments:
There is currently almost no money for park maintenance. In my neighborhood, the tennis court in Atwood Park is a disaster. Someone (to whom we owe thanks) dropped off a new net, and one of the neighbors put it up. I'm promised that they are going to patch the worst of the holes in the asphalt, but that's all they can afford. We're grateful for that, and we understand the lack of money, but we don't see how we can afford any more space to maintain.
There IS no free parking, or, free parks for that matter.
This plan will cost us, not only financially, but also as an opportunity lost. We as a city do not have the money to build this and we don’t have the money to maintain it either.
Suppose someone told you about a place where the citizens decided to turn their most valuable real estate into a parking lot surrounded by a park that they could not afford to keep up. Not to mention the fact that fully half of the year was so cold that the citizens wouldn’t be able to use the park. You would think there was something wrong with them. And yet that is exactly what we are proposing to do.
We could view this an opportunity to add to our city revenues by developing this parcel responsibly. This land had buildings on it that were torn down for “urban renewal”. Imagine something the scale of Inn Street continuing right down to the water. Imagine being connected to the river with outdoor and indoor spaces flowing together, a place where commerce and leisure would draw people year round. In other words, a place very much like Newburyport was in early days with wharfs, taverns, work places and shops lining the waterfront surrounded by spaces to just sit and watch the river flow. In other words, a vital and prosperous place, not a passive space, dead half the year.
Karen, well said.
It's one thing to design and build a park. It's another thing to take care of it. Mixed use, that being residential/business and recreational would be wonderful and people would actually have a reason to go there.
Smart growth = developing what's already been developed.
if we can't afford a park that everyone will use, how can we afford a rail trail that a fraction will use?
i have to disagree, its city owned land and should not be sold off to developers, we've made that mistake before. it should be there for the citizens to either utilize or enjoy, not so some private party can profit off it.
I have a lot of mixed feelings here, and I am hearing vergy cogent points on both sides of the fence.
Tom, I agree that erecting buildings on Merrimac would bring more congruity. I do think we still need some open space, however, to offer views. How about a structure similar to Rowe's Wharf, with a giant archway? Might be a good compromise. A nice thought anyway.
Kpbattles, I agree with you on many levels also. The parks will see little to no use in the winter time, yet will require constant upkeep and maintenance. Developing the lots makes a lot of sense, but would that add to or detract from our vibrant downtown? Certainly more development would require even more parking, so the dilemna remains.
I'm excited that this is moving forward, though, and wish I attended the presentation.
X, who is "everyone?" I hardly ever use the one that's there now! But I have to say, I probably won't use the Rail Trail at all.
I am not advocating selling the land off to developers, but rather, that the NRA develop and lease it to others. I'm suggesting that we use limited development (that the NRA totally controls) to help sustain a waterfront park. Something along the lines of the arrangement between the Firehouse and Not Your Average Joe's.
It appears that the NRA is ok with being in the parking lot/park maintenance business for the foreseeable future, so why not be the landlord of a passive waterfront park and the commerce that pays for it?
Personally, I don’t think cars belong on the waterfront at all. I’d like to see us have paid parking throughout the City to help pay for the maintenance of the downtown. We are giving away thousands and thousands of dollars every year by not charging a nominal fee for parking.
Bill Harris brought up an intriguing suggestion at the NRA meeting the other night. He suggested the use of outlying parking lots and a shuttle service to connect to downtown. What if we had paid parking downtown and free parking on the outskirts, on weekends during the summer, then people could choose between economy and convenience?
rockport has a satellite parking program, i believe it only costs a dollar to park and ride, but i might be mistaken on that figure. i've advocated that idea for a long time, perhaps using the old highway as a parking lot right off 95 with shuttle service downtown.
as for paid city parking, citizens should not be charged to park in their own town, any plan would have to include resident parking permits, and similar permits for people who work downtown.
Post a Comment