I don't like either proposal. The drawings I've seen for Titcomb Street concern me. It does look like an imposing structure at the gateway of the city. I envision a parking garage creating an ugly mate to the Horton's Terrace structure that currently stands across from the former Fitness Factory, a pair of oversized book ends blocking too much sky and light.
I actually do prefer the Green Street site. However, I bow to those concerned about the historical and commercial impact of tearing up and then building on the site. I think it can be done well, and I just find Green Street to be such a superior setting. But the concerns are legitimate.
I wasn't sure why I couldn't get behind either plan. Then Jim Roy helped me out. I missed Ed Cameron's dramatic reading of Jim Roy's statement at the public hearing last week (I arrived late with Boy Two in Tow), but Ed kindly published Jim's written thoughts on his blog here. (Jim submitted a cleaned up version in a letter to the editor here.)
Jim cleared up my confusion quickly with this statement.
... building a downtown garage is part of a quid pro quo -- without it, we will never have a completed, open, green waterfront in any of our lifetimes. It's that simple.After reading that I realized that I didn't feel strongly about the parking garage because I'm not a fan of establishing a park on the NRA lots. (BTW, Jim is just incorrect in stating that ALL of Newburyport wants a park. That's not true.)
I absolutely don't think a wider stretch of grass will add much to the downtown. And I am worried that it will cost us money, too much money. Not only will we not collect taxes on potentially taxable land, but we'll be paying some serious cash out for park maintenance. Money we simply don't have. But let's not go there again.
Perhaps I'd be more supportive of the garage if we were using the lots appropriately, but this whole battle has proven one point that I firmly believe.
Questionnaires, polls and vague, dreamy questions about the waterfront are fine. Sure, ask the people if they want a park downtown and they'll say yes about half the time (maybe more, whatever.)
But when the discussion slips into details: Where are we going to put the cars that are currently parked there? Who's going to pay for the construction of the park? How are we going to maintain a park when we can't fix our sidewalks (Yes, this is a real issue) or properly educate our kids? The support easily slips away.
23 comments:
bottom line, no one ever said they don't want to come to newburyport because of the dirt lots on the waterfront, but people will say they don't want to come to newburyport to pay to park in a garage, and residents especially won't pay to park in their own town.
Well, you're half right.
The dirt lots don't keep people either,but neither will paying 25 cents an hour for parking.
I'm completely behind a paid parking program.
Yes, but those companies charge fees for the use of those facilities.
Are you in favor of charging admission fees to use the park?
Or perhaps they'll mow the grass into a Bud Light logo?
Either scenario doesn't sound at all appealing.
Ari, people LIKE to park on the waterfront. There is plenty of grass there already. No more is needed. Too much time and effort is being spent on this. Kill this idea already. Nothing ticks the public off more than when every few years, the stupid parking garage get brought up again. Enough already!
I love it when bloggers fight!
We're not fighting. We're exchanging.
More information has come to light in the last couple of days since I published my blog (www.croninward3.com) concerning the parking garage vote and site selection. Councillor Cameron is introducing an order to vote for approval of the Titcomb St. site at our May 10th meeting.
I have been advised by the MVRTA and others that the following factors are in play:
If the Titcomb Street order is passed (or any other order regarding site selection for that matter) then that location is etched in stone, save killing the entire project down the road. The MVRTA will own/manage and maintain the building. The management will be put out to bid to a private company. Profits, as defined by the MVRTA, would go to the city. Lawrence is running at a deficit, there is not enough data from Haverhill to determine if there is a profit.
There is no new information from either NE Development or the NRA as to timelines. I am taking every step to make an intelligent decision on this very important matter.
It is my opinion that this is more than a "broad brush" approval. This is a giant step whichever way the vote is cast.
I also got the exexutive summary of the traffic study from the mayor's office today.
Bob
@Bob. Thanks for the info. I still can't get the link to work to your blog. I'll need to google it.
@Ari: Well, you did proclaim the Facebook page you administer to be the official City page. With great power ...
Regarding the revenue, I don't think the business would be there to offset the costs, not with our relatively short season (which admittedly seems to be getting longer.)
what about the fact that traffic getting into downtown from merrimac street is already a nightmare during the summer, with cars routinely backed up to market and summer streets, putting a garage on titcomb street, in addition to karp's plans, will greatly increase the number of cars in that area, pushing traffic past the intersection at the bridge and further down the street, infringing on the neighborhoods that aren't "downtown". anyone have an answer for that, because i haven't heard one from any councilor/mayor/official....???
All due respect Ari,but I think your logic is faulty here.
Traffic patterns HAVE to be considered when approving a project like this, and anonymous raises a legitimate concern about the potential for a bottleneck on Merrimac that causes back ups down that street and possibly onto the Route 1 off-ramp. (We'll need lights there for sure.)
I largely agree with your point about NED's plans, but the uncertainty of Waterfront West certainly raises two interesting scenarios.
First, if it's found the NED can't build a hotel/retail outlet there because of flood plains wouldn't that be a viable spot for a parking garage which is better able to handle a little water.
Second, if NED is allowed to build its retail site there, the proximity of the garage (and it's positioning to grab traffic before it enters downtown) could make that area the commercial center of downtown. Would State and Pleasant Streets become secondary retail spots. I'm not really sure about this one, just speculating.
Back to traffic, the patterns don't change much. They've been the same my entire time here (starting in 93). Your transportation effort is laudable,but I'm not going to count on that as generating a solution.
Thanks for commenting,
Tom
"who's to say a private company wouldn't want to pay the city for the privilege of managing it?"
Um, no. Just no.
And in all honesty, Green Street is the better location (and arguments about historical preservation for that site fall flat; it's a freakin' parking lot already)
- The Carrot
ari, are you honestly suggesting we build the garage first then worry about the impact it will have on traffic? how'd you get elected?
ari, the site you select will directly affect the traffic, not realizing this prior to selecting a site is ignorant. do your due diligence and think (tough for any politician)about the consequences of the site selection. the fact that citizens have to explain this concept to you frightens me and should frighten the rest of the city's residents....i hope the other councilors to follow your folly...
I appreciate the comments, and I know this is a hot button issue but let's keep it constructive.
Is traffic in 2010 important to site it? Definitely. But should it be a motivator for 2015?
My answer is yes.
It's easy to say you're just siting the garage right now but that's the most important element.
And once a spot is selected, that's it. It won't be moved without some act of God (God, God, not Steve Karp). People will get comfortable with the idea. Over time, many people will forget what the opposition was about.
Furthermore, I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where a city board rejects a parking garage because of traffic concerns.
Once this is picked, it's picked. This is why those supporting the garage are so eager to get this done. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
If I held their opinions I'd feel the same way.
Re Anon 5/6 "traffic getting into downtown from merrimac street is already a nightmare during the summer, with cars routinely backed up to market and summer streets", I'd suggest that some (not all) of the backup is due to people hunting for parking, circling for a better street spot, waiting for an elusive spot in the Green Street lot, avoiding paying $8 bucks for a dirt lot space when all around is free.
anon above, that is most likely true, but moving the parking two blocks west is only going to push the same cars further west, they may be parking on titcomb street, but there is only one real way to get there at that is via merrimac street, its just shifting the traffic west. also, since there isn't going to be any real net gain in terms of parking spots, once the garage is full all those cars are still going to be circling for a parking space. think of the traffic jams that will occur in and around the garage once it fills up. none of this even touches on the fact that once waterfront west opens up, there will be additional traffic in that same area, an area that already can not handle it...
NBPT = City of NO. NO parking garage, NO park on the riverbanks, NO dog park, NO historical preservation area, NO Panera Bread, NO Black Duck at the Tannery...All I seem to hear is NO NO NO change whatsoever. Ever? Really? Hmmm.
First, let me assure you I stand 100% behind Panera bread.
Seriously, construction of parking garage and waterfront park that will remain largely vacant nine months out of the year is a measure of progress?
I don't think it's fair to label the city a a community of No (could be a community of yes if you rephrase the question.)
As any organization of more than one there's going to be disagreement over issues and that's great.
I respect those who want the garage and the open waterfront. I know they see this as the next positive step for the city.
I don't. I can't see how following a 40-year-old template for the downtown's redevelopment represents real progress? At this point, I think this is just mental and emotional muscle memory for some.
As for historical preservation, a band of citizens is moving forward with drawing up a plan that eventually will be presented to the city council. Isn't that progress?
As for the Black Duck, I wasn't aware of any opposition so you've got me there.
I'm not sure where Melanie's living, but Panera Bread was approved, there ARE parks along the river, historical preservation is frequently discussed (in the context of not being a burden for property owners), the Black Duck is a 'go', the garage is being voted on tonight, and nobody cares if the mutts have a playground provided public money isn't used to fund it.
- The Carrot
Glad to hear there is some positive news here. Perhaps I was too exposed to the negative when @NBPTBIZ. Everyone had an opinion, and most of them seemed to be anti-change!
So City Council voted for the Titcomb Street site. Considering that stretch of Merrimac is currently such an eye sore (delapitaed homes, empty buildings, sidewalks never plowed, etc.), I'm not overly opposed.
However, I agree with you Tom that something will need to be done at the Merrimac and Route 1 intersection. That is a deadly intersection as it is, and Merrimac backs up frequently during summer months. Once a garage goes in, I would expect a big impact on traffic. On street parking should also be addressed since that is a busy, narrow street.
On a related note, you can buy a beautiful brick townhouse for only $1.2 million that will back right up to the new garage! Prime real estate! Just call Margaret Cargill at Re/Max on the River
From today's Daily News: " The Titcomb Street choice puts the city in "a position of strength" to negotiate with Karp's team as he develops Waterfront West, across the street, Cameron said."
Um...Ed, Karp owns the property and doesn't have to do a damn thing with it. He holds all the cards and you can be assured that his allowing a garage to be built on his property will come with a quid pro quo. thanks for thinking this one through!
Post a Comment