Shain Park tops the agenda
Two posts, and not a single issue. Well, I guess three's the charm...Things have been slow lately, but not that slow.
Here's one issue that has been occupying the time of city officials lately: Shain Park.
It's on the front burner again, in the form of underground parking.
Check out the Buzz Forum for some good chatter from some pretty informed people about what's up.
(Yes. I know. We still need to add a link to the Forum to our page.)
Honestly, we're still undecided about the whole thing, but we sure like to watch, and sometimes make, the sparks fly.
A few things are pretty clear:
* We don't need the extra parking. Nobody really disputes that. The city's parking committee has divided the city up into segments, and the segment that's served by the Chester Street structure has more than enough parking, even considering the addition of 300+ workers at the new McCann Erickson building.
* It seems to be mostly about the Community House and, to a lesser extent, the Townsend Hotel. Few people want to admit it, but the whole thing about parking in that area is about maintaining the convenient parking for those institutions and their patrons. Look: There's a beautiful, relatively new -- and virtually empty -- parking structure just two blocks away from the Community House on the corner of Chester St. and Maple. For what may be perfectly good reasons, some people don't think that parking structure is good enough for the CH. That may be. I don't know. Maybe the Community House is such a valued institution in this town that parking right outside its front door is perfectly warranted. If that's the case, then we just wish people would stand up and say so. The nonsense about underground parking being a "compromise" just kills us, because...
* Underground parking isn't a compromise, as some would have you believe. Maybe we're splitting semantic hairs here, but it looks a lot more to us like a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too solution. Isn't a compromise a trade-off? Doesn't it involve concessions? The only concession in the underground parking scenario is the one that involves spending a bunch of money to allow a lot of cars to drive in and out of our city center. The idea, to be fair, is that if we want a bigger park, and we want to maintain the current level of parking, then underground parking is the only logical solution. That's the "compromise." As we see it, a compromise would involve somebody giving up something (like a few parking spaces, maybe?) in return for something else (a bigger park, maybe?). Take it from somebody with a long history of getting his cake and eating it too, who has a somewhat obsessive desire for clarity of thought and expression: Underground parking ain't a compromise!
* Aside from the Community House, the other thing this seems to be about is the aesthetics of a butt-ugly parking lot in the middle of town. Truth be told, if they just cleaned the thing up -- get rid of the parking meters, make it an attended lot, plant some trees and shrubs and flowers -- a lot of people would probably be satisfied. Let's face it, the last time I wanted to throw a frisbee with my kid, there was plenty of room. The last time I attended a concert, there was plenty of room. The last time I went to the Village Fair carnival, it was cramped, but it was kind of cozy, and everybody seemed to make do. Ford manages to set up its Dream Cruise event without much complaint. So for me, it really isn't as much about making Shain Park bigger (although that might be nice) as it is about eliminating an eyesore that's within spitting distance of at least four of our most valued institutions (the CH, the Townsend, the library and City Hall).
* We can't help but wonder why we don't experiment with some less costly and less permanent alternatives. Landscape the parking lot. Or go with a Duany-style plan (bigger park, with parking around the perimeter) that fits in as much parking as possible, without being held hostage to the we-can't-lose-a-single-parking-space mentality. Or just close off a quarter, or a third, or even half of the existing parking lot to see what the effect would be of a loss of parking.
* Truly, a dearth of creative thought has been brought to bear on this question. The committee that concluded underground parking was the only alternative? It was populated with (please, don't laugh) the executive director of the Community House, the general manager of the Townsend Hotel, the library director and an assortment of other "stakeholders." The City Commission told it that its recommendation MUST (please, don't laugh again) maintain the number of parking spaces that currently exists. (Get the idea that underground parking was a fait accompli?) So far, the creative minds behind the whole thing include George Dilgard, a Planning Board member who is very, very good with numbers, and Paul O'Meara, the assistant city engineer who designs our streets and sewers. All due respect, these guys will be the first to admit their creative limitations.
I don't know. Underground parking may ultimately be the way to go -- despite it all. At this point, the City Commission is leaning toward allowing voters to decide. If you were against underground parking, or if you were interested in getting re-elected anytime soon, you might agree with that approach. If you really, really were convinced that underground parking was the way to go, however, you might just find the guts to make the decision yourself and make a real compromise by issuing bonds at a consequently slightly higher interest rate.
Posted by on 01/17 at 07:30 PM
Previous entry: Number 63-BULLETIN-Nov. 4, 2003