Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cotuit

Providence Parks and Green Space

Recommended Posts

They are not chain linked fences. They are aprox. 2.5' tall by 5" diameter, grey metal posts stuck permanently in the ground. They have loops on them so one short chain can be strung between each pair of posts creating a continuous semi-decorative "fence" around the park. This fence provides no security, only a reinforcement of the edge of the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


They are not chain linked fences. They are aprox. 2.5' tall by 5" diameter, grey metal posts stuck permanently in the ground. They have loops on them so one short chain can be strung between each pair of posts creating a continuous semi-decorative "fence" around the park. This fence provides no security, only a reinforcement of the edge of the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are not chain linked fences. They are aprox. 2.5' tall by 5" diameter, grey metal posts stuck permanently in the ground. They have loops on them so one short chain can be strung between each pair of posts creating a continuous semi-decorative "fence" around the park. This fence provides no security, only a reinforcement of the edge of the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think urban agriculture is all well and good, but I'd rather it be a volunteer led initiative and not something that too many city resources go toward. We have a state approximately the size of some cities, we should really focus on housing and jobs in the city and let the rest of the state feed us, they are better equipped to do so.

That said, I do think it is great to have community gardens and for people that can and want to to be able to grow their own crops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think urban agriculture is all well and good, but I'd rather it be a volunteer led initiative and not something that too many city resources go toward. We have a state approximately the size of some cities, we should really focus on housing and jobs in the city and let the rest of the state feed us, they are better equipped to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report really focusses on how the Comprehensive Plan and renewal of the zoning ordinance can be used to encourage green space, support small businesses and improve environmental, economic & social conditions in the city. There's not really anything in there about city resources being dedicated to the effort. (There might be something about financial incentives for people to convert paved yards to gardens.)

Also, much of the issue is about residents having outdoor space for personal and family use (meaning yards, not just community gardens), and encouraging local economic activity, not about trying to feed the whole city through agricultural businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't understand how yards can be considered an issue in a city. people should want parks that are well taken care of. there are currently a ton of parks in the city taht could use a ton of work. if they city kept up those parks, there wouldn't be much need for yards. and if someone really wants a yard, maybe they should consider the suburbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't understand how yards can be considered an issue in a city. people should want parks that are well taken care of. there are currently a ton of parks in the city taht could use a ton of work. if they city kept up those parks, there wouldn't be much need for yards. and if someone really wants a yard, maybe they should consider the suburbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would generally agree, except for two things: 1) most houses in the city DO have yards, except that they are currently either paved or contaminated by lead & other toxic stuff, so they can't be used for the things yards are supposed to be used for; and 2) many neighborhoods in the city do NOT have easy access to parks, playgrounds or public gardens. We need to improve the conditions of both public and private spaces to improve the environmental conditions in Prov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
improvement of private land is left up to the owners. currently, there is good reason to pave a yard so you can make a parking lot. if the city would lift their stupid overnight parking ban, there wouldn't be this problem.

i do know that most houses have yards, but if you really want a yard, move somewhere that has one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, if you read what I wrote above, I said we need to improve CONDITIONS of private and public spaces.

We also could use more neighborhood parks in many parts of the city. If I don't have a yard, I would want my kids, elderly family members, etc. to have some kind of outdoor recreation space closer than .75 mi. But of course those parks need to be well-maintained.

I'm the kind of crazy idealist that thinks we should hold the city accountable for BOTH clean parks AND enough parks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These 2 points seem contradictory.

The point of the pamplet is that the city should have policies that encourage good use of the "yards" properties currently have. This means, yes, lifting the parking ban, among other things. (And maybe providing incentives to help convert pavement to green space and improve environmental conditions.) People can't improve thier properties if city policies don't allow them to.

On the one hand, you are saying we need better city policies. On the other hand, you are saying to move to the 'burbs if you don't like the bad policies. Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
better policies are needed and there should be incentives to convert a paved yard into a yard with plant life. but those policies will hold no use until the parking ban is lifted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well... it indirectly affects yards. i doubt the city generally looks at it as a policy that causes people to pave yards. there's also a lot of opposition to lifting the ban from residents. i came across this at the providence tomorrow charettes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually, they absolutely look at it that way. and the opposition is very much neighborhood by neighborhood. generally the support is overwhelming across the city, just not in certain neighborhoods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, you know how it is. the people who have the most time on their hands to attend meetings are often often a very different demographic from the rest of providence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeedy. So we need to stop having meetings about it, and just have the city council & mayor show some leadership and make this happen. If there are neighborhoods who REALLY REALLY don't want it, let them keep things the way they are (to their own detriment). But let the rest of the city get on with it, already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where it doesn't need to be lifted, frankly, is where college students live, because they don't need cars if they live within walking distance to their university, like Brown or RISD. Where it does need to be lifted are very dense neighborhoods where not everyone is a student, nor has a walking commute, like Federal Hill, Olneyville, upper south Providence, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.