March 11, 2010
If we're going to do it, let's do it right
The first screen shot is an overlay of the original and the revised parking lot with my comments as follows.
As an all-or-nothing proposal both of these stink, so how 'bout we consider another compromise? Premise: Design BOTH the road AND the parking lot to have the least impact on the existing park space. And that premise means you don't put it here!
The best location is just north of the area shown in the overlay drawing, just out of frame to the right. It can't be that hard to secure space on the east side for widening. ("For the consideration of $1..." comes to mind here.)
I don't understand why this isn't being considered and pushed from City staff and citizens. Or is it and we just don't hear about it?
Just saying "no" is not compromise and will not help make it easy for public use and enjoyment of the park. This "quiet end" of the park needs some kind of public access (read: "parking").
As shown on this annotated aerial photo from Bing there's plenty of space on the east side of the road to widen it, reducing the impact on existing park space. And there's a place just north of the proposed area that makes a much better location for a parking lot. This assumes two things - the east side space gets more used than as proposed (where it's not used at all on any designs I've seen) and the space gained on the west is used to preserve park space and help provide space for the parking area.
This is a FEDERAL HIGHWAY and the Fed is PAYING for it. For the construction to include replacing parking along Highway 51, the lots must be built when the highway is built. This is NOT using local tax dollars, it's not even using State tax dollars!
Let's do it now and let's do it right. (Or as right as we can make it.)
As an all-or-nothing proposal both of these stink, so how 'bout we consider another compromise? Premise: Design BOTH the road AND the parking lot to have the least impact on the existing park space. And that premise means you don't put it here!
The best location is just north of the area shown in the overlay drawing, just out of frame to the right. It can't be that hard to secure space on the east side for widening. ("For the consideration of $1..." comes to mind here.)
I don't understand why this isn't being considered and pushed from City staff and citizens. Or is it and we just don't hear about it?
Just saying "no" is not compromise and will not help make it easy for public use and enjoyment of the park. This "quiet end" of the park needs some kind of public access (read: "parking").
As shown on this annotated aerial photo from Bing there's plenty of space on the east side of the road to widen it, reducing the impact on existing park space. And there's a place just north of the proposed area that makes a much better location for a parking lot. This assumes two things - the east side space gets more used than as proposed (where it's not used at all on any designs I've seen) and the space gained on the west is used to preserve park space and help provide space for the parking area.
This is a FEDERAL HIGHWAY and the Fed is PAYING for it. For the construction to include replacing parking along Highway 51, the lots must be built when the highway is built. This is NOT using local tax dollars, it's not even using State tax dollars!
Let's do it now and let's do it right. (Or as right as we can make it.)
