I enjoyed a fine Father's Day morning at Market Landing Park complete with sunshine, warm breezes and a bagel and lox sandwich from Abraham's.
(The perfect stuffing to my Fried Clams from Bob Lobster on Father's Day Eve and my anchovy pizza from Nick's on Father's Day night. Unfortunately, we had to import the Italian rum cake from D'Orsi's in Peobody.)
Anyway, two observations from the morning - other than how lucky can one man be.
1. We parked in the Western NRA lot using our new $5 resident sticker. That is money well spent. But then I watched visitors amble up to the parking meters without complaint, paying for the parking space, and I still see it as a positive. I get no joy out of drawing $3 or $4 from anyone, but it just seems fair to me that they pay to park in our downtown.
2. I've said this before and I'll say it again. On most weekend days, the waterfront park we have is more than sufficient. It was high noon, on a beautiful soon-to-be summer's day and there weren't more than a dozen families down there. I just think converting all of the NRA lots to parkland (with some parking) would create an open, unused field. Therefore, I support the NRA in its pursuit.
We don't need a place to shag fly balls along the water. We need a vital, economic engine.
We also need a decent Italian bakery.
9 comments:
seeing that the lots are technically public land, how would the NRA grant a business use of the land? Lease? Sale? In which case, wouldn't the city have to be involved?
Well,
The NRA was created to see through with the urban development plan of the downtown, and those are the final two undeveloped pieces. So it's their job, essentially, to see something done with the lots. These quasi-public agencies were created to essentially take the direct politics out of the development, not that actually happens.
NRA members are appointed by the mayor and ratified by the City Council, so they are public officials. (One exception, one member - in this case Shanley - is appointed by the governor.)
So the NRA is empowered to see the development through but it clearly needs political buy-in to accomplish anything.
It's really a fascinating history. You should check out Victor Tine's Port in Progress articles on the waterfront development. Great stuff.
http://www.newburyportnews.com/puportprogress/x845822047/A-Port-in-Progress-Archive
Fascinating! What you describe as potential open fields is what I describe as The Plains of Abraham in Quebec City, towering over the St. Lawrence River.
That is what I think about when I think about a waterfront park. And, it's anything but unused.
This is off topic, but I feel like posting it.
After six months in Hong Kong, I can say that the worst urban planning mistake the city made -- and there have been plenty -- was to follow the stupid 1950s trend of laying a highway next to the coastline.
We are on a group of islands in the South China Sea, and we are totally cut off from the water. If your apartment does not have a water view, you could go weeks without seeing the water -- and this place is tiny. I live two blocks from the harbour, and I don't see it much because, if I walk in that direction, I'm walking toward a loud, smelly highway.
So I guess my point is "Newburyport, please don't build a highway on the NRA lots."
What's the fine for dog poop on the Plains of Abraham?
Do you also describe the Tannery Range Light as the Washington Monument? http://www.nps.gov/wamo/index.htm
Someday I'll figure out how to link to text.
I think the rich food has gone to your head. So avidly concerned over Karp and his intense development to the left and right of the Central Waterfront but now so eager to people it with more buildings. I suppose you would consider Prescott Park in Portsmouth useless space or the important park at Charleston unnecessary.
Will healthier foods clear your thinking?
Doubtful, clams is brain fuud.
I admire the ability of the pro-waterfront to color everything in black-and-white.
I don't see value in turning both NRA lots into park therefore I don't like parks.
I do like Waterfront parks. I frequent ours quite ... frequently. But I see greater value in that land as revenue generators for the city rather than huge money pits.
So why not a blend of all three - park, parking and some commercial enterprises to make the world go around?
I find it amusing that such a stance is seen as the sign of a addled mind.
Oh and my concern about Karp has centered largely around the process rather than the project.
I run a pro-hotel establishment.
Post a Comment