There you have it folks

Polls have closed.

Nearly two thirds of the 42 participants want to see some type of appropriate development on the NRA lots. Another 14% are open to the idea and only one-fifth are aginst it.

Sounds like a mandate to me.

I do wish we had wider participation. I could have worded the question a bit better I suppose, but I think it conveyed the spirt of the discussion.

Thanks to all who voted.

More coming today on Chico's and The Man. Bad work week.

Poll is closing

The NRA poll closes in 13 hours. Why 13? I have no idea. The poll was supposed to run until midnight. Apparently, I didn't specify which midnight I had in mind. Hawaii maybe? Alaska?

Anyway, we need a few thousand more folks to make this a representative sample. So get on it.

More on the chain stores later. Mary Eaton has yet another excellent post today. (She's got a few in fact, but I'm referring to her take on the chain stores.)

I just happen to disagree with her. More later.

Nevermind, here's the guest post

This is the guest post. I'm putting it up tonight and extending the vote by a couple of days. Let's see what happens.

From the man himself, James Shanley who got this dialogue started. (See "Oh No He Didn't" Series to the right.)

Even its current state, the central waterfront is, from an urbanist's perspective, a Dead Zone. The part of it that is actively used, at least for some of the year, is the thin strip along the waters edge: the Board-walk. Excluding Market Landing Park, which is only heavily used for July and August, the Central Waterfront is a storage area. People will use the Ways to the Water to access the part they are most interested in using, which is the board-walk. The rest is something to get through. In my opinion, this will not change whether its an "attractive parking destination" or "attractive park".

One of the challenges we face with both Waterfront West and Waterfront East, is that they are for all intents and purposes cut-off from the core downtown by the undeveloped central waterfront. At one time in our city's history, the central waterfront was developed, and the city flowed from the water to the core, and vise versa. We need to re-establish that connection. Not to do so runs the risk of developments that become entities/destinations unto themselves instead of a seamless continuation of the core. While still providing needed tax revenue, this could have some not so good effects on the core city.

How do we do this? Limited, human scaled development, sited perpendicular to the river, with a mix of retail (especially food), office and residential. Even as few as three or four structures carefully sited so as to maximize views/ways to the river, would do a lot to stimulate the area, and make the West/East parcels connect to the core. Development along the easterly edge of Waterfront West should be sited so that the focus is towards the downtown, not towards Route 1. Get people looking/moving towards the core.

What makes cities work is density and people. Opens space and parks are good things, but they do not posses inherent goodness. Neither do buildings, but properly juxtaposed they can change an area from something to get through, to a place that you never want to leave.

Poll Closes Tonight

Stay tuned tomorrow for some analysis and a guest post.

Poll Comment

Happy to have Tom Ryan visit us in the comment column of the post below.

He raises an interesting idea about a binding referendum, but I sometimes I do wonder if referendums are the right way to make these decisions.

They sound nice in theory. And, hey, I love Democracy as much as the next guy, but in the the end I wonder if the campaigns that preceded such a vote would further divide the community, if that's even possible.

I also wonder if folks could shake hands, congratulate the winners and then move forward.

Seems to the the more natural solution would be to have an influential leader or leaders who could unite these visions--somehow--and sell the a single project to everyone. But we haven't seen that happen yet.

Until it does, I like the idea raised by John Macone in the News:

There have also been requests that the dialogues that Port In Progress has opened be extended and expanded. Issues like the future of the waterfront, the downtown, the balance between preservation and development, and the impact of gentrification have all been raised. We would like to help see this dialogue continue through public forums, opinion pieces and follow-ups to our series. If you would like to be a part of this, please let us know by e-mailing me at jmacone@ecnnews.com

Also, I'm told there are groups experienced in mediating disputes and breaking stalemates.

Perhaps this just invites more talk, but who knows someone might actually say something that is agreeable to everyone.

Wouldn't that be neat.

More Poll Stuff

Mary Harbough was nice enough to answer my question as to why few open waterfront folks or park advocates were participating in the poll. Here's her point.

Why have I not responded to your poll? As a central waterfront park advocate, I find that the poll options do not express my views. If you were at the NRA's recent meeting, you'll know that many park advocates think a simple cafe, a bad-weather/summer-shade pavillion with hot chocolate and lemonade, or even a hot-dog stand would be just fine, as part of the park. A glass or open-sided pavillion tucked into the southwest corner of the east lot could also be a revenue-generating performance venue. Many of us also think it would be nifty if the lawn behind the Custom House were used for museum exhibition/expansion. The point is not that a park can't have any buildings, the point is that the buildings are there because they serve a park function. A park is about people coming together in a free and lovely outdoor setting. When Waterside West and "Waterside East" are developed, many more people will be using the park, and the small existing park is already overused. Newburyport's identity is bound to the river. We need access and space to be able to enjoy it.

I didn't want this comment to go unaddressed because it's an important one.

The proposal put forth by James Shanley--and supposed by others--goes well beyond an isolated structure or two that supports the function of a park. Instead, advocates of developing the lots see an opportunity to extend the downtown to the river, inviting all the human traffic and commerce that goes with it.

Green spots could be part of this, but they wouldn't be the keystone of the development. Buildings and businesses would be. (NOTE: I edited this last paragraph a bit. I may have overstated the extent of desired development.)

So here's my take. If I held a similar view, I'd likely vote for either of the negative offerings, either "I don't think so" or "No bleeping way" depending upon the strength of your stance.

Thanks again to all those who have participated (and commented.) Looks like we're hitting a wall at 35 votes, which is too bad.

New Comment

On the second installment of "Oh No He Didn't." The anonymous poster seconds Bruce Menin's, hell, I'll just paste it here.

Amen to that Mr Menin. More density downtown is a good healthy sustainable solution. Cities are more efficient than suburban or rural communities RE:energy use. We should think of Newburyport as somewhat 'undersized' By that I mean that our fixed costs can support a larger amount of variable costs, thus lowering cost/unit of service delivered. A number 'over 55 'residences on newly allowed extra floors downtown would be a net revenue plus for the City with very little incremental cost.

She/he raises an interesting point about whether this is the most sustainable solution. Is a green waterfront the most responsible use of the land?

Again, I'm surprised by the lack of response from the open waterfront folks.

There's still time. Get out the vote.

More Waterfront Stuff

Mary Eaton posts again at the Newburyport Blog on the question of what to do with the Waterfront lots. She gets some straight poop from Mary Lou Supple, former NRA chairperson. Plus a link from an actual survey. Worth a look.

The Poll-Vote Early and Often

Incidentally, one thing about the Blogger polling system.

I can't explain this with any degree of certainty. I'm sure it involves cookies, and not the good kind.

But the Blogger polling program supposedly only permits you to vote once. However, I've noticed that if I access the blog from different Internet Service Providers I'm given the opportunity to vote again.

So I voted once from the in-laws house over the weekend. When I got home on Saturday, the Blog appeared as if I'd never voted.

I haven't done so, and I'm guessing that 90% of the people checking out the poll also haven't done so.

But since I can't fix this little bug, the only fair thing to do is reveal it to all.

So if you're really desperate to sway the outcome you may want to grab your laptop and access the wireless signals available at Plum Island Roasters, Nutcracker and our other fine establishments downtown.

But house rules say one vote per visitor.

Poll-Day Three

Well,

Hope you all had a good Thanksgiving.

In the spirit of the most favoritest of holidays, I'd like to thank Mary Eaton for alerting her readers to the poll. The more voters, the merrier.

I must say, I'm still a bit suprised at the outcome so far. Of the 19 people who voted, only one has registered any sort of reservations. I expect that to change shortly, but who knows.

To Mary's point that she feels this issue already has been settled, I can certainly understand that position. As I noted previously, I shared the same sentiments when James Shanley first shared his thoughts.

But clearly he's not alone. There is a significant number of people--I'm not willing to say majority--who believe neither park nor parking is the right way to go. At this point are they the most expedient? Perhaps. But is either right for the city? I'm not so sure.

I'm familiar with the history. Victor Tine wrote two excellent articles for the Port in Progress series. I also foolishly thought I was writing the final chapter on Roger Foster's fight in 1997 when I covered City Hall for a short-time. He and then Mayor Lisa Mead came up with a plan that appeared to green light the project.

How wrong was I?

So, I'll agree the idea of developing the NRA lots is a long shot. A mixture of parking/park seems to be the more likely arrangement. But I learned one thing back in 1997 when I smugly thought my words would be among the final ones about the decades old confrontation: Just when you think this story is over, someone goes on to write another chapter (or two or three or four...)

Please spread the word, email the poll to as many interested people as you like. Polls are open until Sunday.

Poll-Day One

Interesting first 10 votes cast so far in the poll. Nine of the 10 say this should happen with the holdout suggesting he or she is leaning toward the idea but needs more info.

I recognize this is a small sampling. We'll see what happens Monday when people break out of their holiday slumber.

But if this pattern holds the readership of this blog isn't nearly as progressive as I thought. It's that or my definition of a progressive doesn't hold water. (Course Shanley himself is supposedly a progressive and he started all of this.)

So, we'll see if the open waterfront folks show up or if the pro-development folks do a superior job of getting out the vote.