I mean, the News today suggests that James Shanley, city council president and author of the Shanley Plan, is under consideration for the soon-to-be open seat on the Newburyport Redevelopment Plan. (I would link to the Daily News article but I can't find it on the g--d-mned web site.)
In the article today, Shanley notes that he wouldn't look to rock the boat too much. But he'll certainly bring a fresh and critical perspective to apparent chosen plan, which still isn't a plan but rather a concept or a conceptual plan or something.
The wide open waterfront folks probably winced a bit at the news as they want nothing to disrupt their vision for a sea of green along the Merrimack, particularly as its coming more clearly into focus.
I doubt Shanley will be carrying a monkey wrench with him to NRA meetings if and when he's appointed. But I'm willing to bet he'll have some reasonable questions.
Now, a blast from the past, the Shanley Plan as it ran in this post way back. BTW, that term is ours and ours alone. I haven't heard our City Council Plan slip into third-person self-references. I doubt he'll start now.
Plus, his plan isn't even a plan. It's a concept or an idea. See, he'll fit in nicely on the NRA.
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.
For more on this discussion, click on the James Shanley label along the lower left.
