Wowzie.

Oh my. This was quite a surprise, and a pleasant one at that.

So the NRA is discussing plans to erect some buildings on the DMZ that runs between our downtown and the Merrimack. Any regular readers to this blog might remember that I not only think this is a wise idea, it's a necessary one.

It's foolish for the city and even quasi-public agencies to maximize our resources. And turning the entire DMZ into a park is not maximizing our resources, it's merely fulfilling the fantasies of the battlescarred open water front folks who think such a massive park will draw visitors to Newburyport.

It won't. People have parks. They don't have downtowns. I love going to Portsmouth. I've never been to Perkins Park (or whatever it's called.)

So I'm quite excited that the NRA is still pursuing the idea of very limited, responsible and potentially lucrative development along the water front. (And I'm somewhat bemused that the member cited for crafting that vision, Adam Guild, was appointed to the board by Mayor Donna Holaday, a strident supporter of an open waterfront.)

I don't know Adam Guild, but he and I appear to share some opinions. From the article reporting on Guild's appointment.

"It is apparent that the property that the NRA oversees is vital to the community, whether it is for parking, parks and recreation, or providing space to support city events," Guild wrote in his application letter to Holaday. "The future development of this area is extremely important to me whether it is for possible additions to the Custom House, expansion for the parks and performance areas, or enhancements to attract the community and its visitors to the waterfront while connecting it with our historic downtown."


Drawing people to the waterfront is key for him, Guild said yesterday.

As a parent of two young children, Guild said he would like to see parks and recreation space developed, especially along the waterfront. Performance areas are vital to the city as well, he said.

Guild said he hasn't formulated an opinion on adding buildings and market places to the Cecil Group designs

I didn't attend the meeting so I don't know how Guild came to make this presentation. But this proposal warrants examination.

At the NRA’s meeting Wednesday, member Adam Guild shared his idea for how the Cecil plan could be revised — adding two more buildings for a total of five, while keeping landscaped areas and open space, as well as areas for amenities such as sculptures, gardens, outdoor seating, eating areas and a plaza. His idea also called for underground parking.

Guild’s draft of a design positions the new buildings to conform with the existing properties in order to leave sight lines unobstructed.

“The whole point is not to obstruct the views of the water,” he said.

During a presentation to the NRA, Guild gave a financial outlook for the project, based on preliminary calculations and basic estimates. Using an assumption of 100,000 square feet of buildable space, Guild estimated it could bring in $4 million in rental income and $500,000 in tax income for the city annually.

He estimated it would cost about $43 million to construct the 100,000 square feet of buildings, which could hold restaurants or businesses. “I think we could attract some very good tenants,” Guild said. 

 Yes, I know, we've talked about development in the past. But that doesn't preclude us from doing it again. I don't know if anyone is noticed, but the days of big daddy government are gone. We're on our own to come up the means of supporting the city services we currently have. The lodging/meals tax is one idea. This is another. And cutting costs is a third, but that's never as easy as anonymous posters like to make it sound.

And a park that size could be expensive to maintain. Take a look on page 3 of the paper today. The sinkhole near the boarwalk ultimately could cost $500,000 to fix!

And for those who feel the people voted Donna Holaday into office because she -and not James Shanley - supported an open waterfront are dead wrong. Donna Holaday won for a lot of reasons, not just the waterfront, and although I voted for Shanley I've generally been pleased with her performance. (For example, the doggie park compromise is a wise one.)

But it's wrong to suggest her victory should be seen as an endorsement for an open waterfront. After all, John Moak favored development or parking lots over parks along the water. And had he run for re-election he likely would have cleaned Holadays's clock. Well, that's not true, because neither she nor Shanley would have even bothered running against him.

I'm eager to see where this goes.