PROPOSED: WATERFRONT PARK

[Cotuit]

did I just hear somebody say Station Park?

I'm all for Station Park being Providence's/Rhode Island's gathering area, front lawn if you will. If this polo talk would go away, ownership were sorted out, and whoever owns it would maintain it. But there is something to be said for having the city's 'central park' be on the water.

Also, the neighbourhood groups in the Jewelry District have been crying for guarantees of green space in their area. Now that they are getting it, they are crying because it puts the kibosh on their unfunded canal pipe dream (although, nothing has been stated that says that this park would quelch the canal, in fact the people who submit designs for it could well include the canal, or future consideration of a canal in their design).

[Frankie811]

I'm all for Station Park being Providence's/Rhode Island's gathering area, front lawn if you will. If this polo talk would go away, ownership were sorted out, and whoever owns it would maintain it. But there is something to be said for having the city's 'central park' be on the water.

Also, the neighbourhood groups in the Jewelry District have been crying for guarantees of green space in their area. Now that they are getting it, they are crying because it puts the kibosh on their unfunded canal pipe dream (although, nothing has been stated that says that this park would quelch the canal, in fact the people who submit designs for it could well include the canal, or future consideration of a canal in their design).

http://www.providenceri.com/press/article.php?id=91

[eltron]

Yet again people on the board are all up in arms and spouting off on things after a report in the Phoenix (which is dare I say more reliable than the Projo)!

I wholeheartedly agree with Jen on this one (and as usual)...especially since the whole thing is based on a couple of soundbites. I'd venture to say the story in reality is a bit longer and more involved than this little story let on.

[runawayjim]

http://www.providenceri.com/press/article.php?id=91

hmmmm... teh competition link off that page has prizes for the winning team and teh finalists. i think it'd be something great for UP to do. it'd be a great donation to support UP and give us some press as well.

[brick]

hmmmm... teh competition link off that page has prizes for the winning team and teh finalists. i think it'd be something great for UP to do. it'd be a great donation to support UP and give us some press as well.

I like that they claim it is open to "the public" but then stipulate that you need a licensed architect to participate. That doesn't sound all that public to me. In fact it just sounds like a clever way not to pay an architectural firm for the design. Not that it's a bad idea, mind you, just an interesting phrasing.

It might also be a good requirement if at least half of the design "team" be made up of people who pay rent or taxes in the city of Providence.

[runawayjim]

I like that they claim it is open to "the public" but then stipulate that you need a licensed architect to participate. That doesn't sound all that public to me. In fact it just sounds like a clever way not to pay an architectural firm for the design. Not that it's a bad idea, mind you, just an interesting phrasing.

i think it might be more to attract established organizations (the neighborhood associations for an example) that might know an architect, landscape architect, or civil engineer. it does kind of rule out most of the "public", but it is necessary to be able to make sure that everything is actually feasible and within the budget. the average joe isn't going to know.

[provid]

Photo from the Projo.com

[brick]

I have to admit that I would not mind seeing the East side of that park be developed instead, most preferably with restaurants that have outdoor cafe type things going on. I don't see the point of extending the linear park even further, really. Nobody really uses the existing linear park on the east side of the river. for instance, someplace along that line would be perfect for a relocated Goffs, maybe with a full kitchen like the one in Bristol.

[Cotuit]

[Cotuit]

A designing moment for Providence's waterfront [ProJo.com] [ProJo Survey]

Waterfront Park Design Competition [City of Providence website]

[jencoleslaw]

so there'd be a park on both sides, with a bridge connecting? How neat! I wasn't able to go to the press conference because i had an intern at the office, but it looks pretty cool to me.

[Cotuit]

I have to admit that I would not mind seeing the East side of that park be developed instead

I agree a bit. The east side section isn't terribly large, it could be put to productive (read tax generating) use by developing it, but at the same time, being so small, it shouldn't really tax the budget much to maintain it. And if anything were developed on that side, it would be forced to leave a public corridor open at the water. I could see something at the corner of Point and South Water as a way of finishing that intersection, designed wrong, the park at that corner (where it's the largest) could be a wasted void. I can see a restaurant on the corner, maybe upper floor(s) being a community center. I think that corner would be good for some sort of concession stand (ice cream!) and restrooms.

[Garris]

so there'd be a park on both sides, with a bridge connecting? How neat!

All of the proposed designs going all the way back through Prov 2020 have had that as a design feature...

That's why so many of us have been pro-development of the South Main area, as Wickenden would get reconnected with Main Street and the Waterfront entertainment areas and the area gets a new park connected via bridge to the new JD park... Everyone wins!

Could someone point out to me the following areas on the map Cotuit posted?

- Where would 200 Dwyer be?

- Where is the "Chestnut Square" that some have suggested could be the new mixed use Thayer St/Wayland Sq equivalent of the new 195 developed land?

Rather than crying and whining about not being called about the park designs, maybe the JD Neighborhood Assn can now use their new found energy to figure out how to keep the JD from being an eyesore and one of the least satisfying neighborhoods of the city from an aethestic and walkability perspective, despite its recent economic successes.

- Garris

[spanishboy]

I'm glad to see the proposal of all these trees....can't go wrong with too much green

[Cotuit]

- Where would 200 Dwyer be?

- Where is the "Chestnut Square" that some have suggested could be the new mixed use Thayer St/Wayland Sq equivalent of the new 195 developed land?

200-190 (?) Dyer is my best guess. I asked Thom to explain where it was, but I'm not sure I understood. I've heard Chestnut Square referred to as Chestnut Circle before too. The JDA bills it as kind of J&Ws Harvard Square. It's currently pigeon poop covered surface parking under the highway.

JDA also has a parkway proposal for Eddy and Point Streets.

[Garris]

Ok, this may be a very unpopular opinion, but I think this park has the potential to fail quite badly...

Looking for good photographic vantage points, I've gone wandering all throughout that area already many times before, and while I've thought "boy, this would make great parkland" I've amended it by saying to myself, "boy, this area is kind of isolated... Who would come here?"

I think the success or failure of that park will depend not upon the qualities of the park itself, but of the nature of the surrounding development (which isn't of as great a scope as I initially thought). The quality of 190-200 Dwyer and the other fronting property on Eddy and what will become Chestnut Square/Circle will completely make or break the park itself.

If this all becomes offices/commerical where people hop in their cars at 5 PM and go home, then the area will not change at all. It'll go from becoming a vacant, isolated area under a highway to a vacant, isolated park. This is already the situation with the Waterplace extensions down Water St. and Memorial Drive...

If there's dorms and residential and retail to attract and keep people there and it becomes a true neighborhood and the folks from the new South Main/Wickenden/Waterfront neighborhood on the East Side hop over the pedestrian bridge to their new "backyard," then the situation will be a smashing success.

There shouldn't be a design competition for the park, but for the surrounding neighborhoods!

Other thoughts:

- With so much waterfront with that park, there really should be some utilization of it... Marinas, kayaking, etc.

- Chestnut Square/Circle really is a decent idea. That area will need a "focal point," as the JD really has none right now.

- I wish the park was in the middle of the 195 land, not the waterfront, as we lose an opportunity for a new waterfront streetscape like what exists on South Main/Water St. Also, I bet a hypothetical retail/residential focal point would do better bordering a park than just having one nearby. Look at Union Square in NYC as an example...

- Garris

[DavidSegal]

Do you guys know where the money is coming from? I also haven't seen anything on who's going to own/maintain it. Will RIDOT hold onto it, or will it transfer ownership to the City? If so, is the City buying it, and if so, where's that $ coming from?

On the other point -- to what extent local groups should have a say in all of this -- I think it's quite important that JD and others be significant participants. Ideally, people will have a say in government's decisions that's proportional to the extent to which they're affected by those decisions. JD residents will be substantially affected by this project in a million different ways. Noise, traffic, property value increases (for better or for worse) and so on.

While they obviously shouldn't get a blanket veto, they should be participants from day one, and their voices should carry some weight. (And, of course, we need to make sure that those participating on behalf of the JD are actually representative of broader sentiments, and aren't just from the NIMBY class...)

[eltron]

Do you guys know where the money is coming from? I also haven't seen anything on who's going to own/maintain it. Will RIDOT hold onto it, or will it transfer ownership to the City? If so, is the City buying it, and if so, where's that $ coming from?

On the other point -- to what extent local groups should have a say in all of this -- I think it's quite important that JD and others be significant participants. Ideally, people will have a say in government's decisions that's proportional to the extent to which they're affected by those decisions. JD residents will be substantially affected by this project in a million different ways. Noise, traffic, property value increases (for better or for worse) and so on.

While they obviously shouldn't get a blanket veto, they should be participants from day one, and their voices should carry some weight. (And, of course, we need to make sure that those participating on behalf of the JD are actually representative of broader sentiments, and aren't just from the NIMBY class...)

Again good points.

While the park is a City park, it will be most used and loved by those who are near it on an almost daily basis, namely, the people that already live and work in the JD. We have all seen how the city takes care of the parks in the neighborhoods, and have you SEEN Burnside Park? It takes people that CARE to make sure the park is maintained and used properly, and that will come from the people living in the JD.

Parks all over the city most impact the people that live right near them, and this one is no different.

[Cotuit]

Ok, this may be a very unpopular opinion, but I think this park has the potential to fail quite badly...

I think the success or failure of that park will depend not upon the qualities of the park itself, but of the nature of the surrounding development (which isn't of as great a scope as I initially thought). The quality of 190-200 Dwyer and the other fronting property on Eddy and what will become Chestnut Square/Circle will completely make or break the park itself.

If this all becomes offices/commerical where people hop in their cars at 5 PM and go home, then the area will not change at all. It'll go from becoming a vacant, isolated area under a highway to a vacant, isolated park. This is already the situation with the Waterplace extensions down Water St. and Memorial Drive...

I have a nagging fear that the 195 land will become the equivilent of Kendall Square in Cambridge, especially with the chatter that Brown is eyeing some of it. While we need Brown to expand, and we need biotech industry (any industry) to expand in Providence, we need to be extremely careful to ensure there is a mix of business, industry, retail, and residential in this area to make a real neighborhood, instead of an urban office park.

That said, I had lunch a couple days last week in the new park land south of the Crawford Bridge (on the west side of the river, the area I'm calling Dyer Street Landing for lack of a better name), and though it was a bit chilly, even downright cloudy one day, and judging from the overflowing trash bins ( ) full of coffee cups, and take out bags, I'm not the only one having lunch down there. The sunnier of the two days there were many people strolling and some people who brought there lunch there.

- I wish the park was in the middle of the 195 land, not the waterfront, as we lose an opportunity for a new waterfront streetscape like what exists on South Main/Water St.

South of the park (on the west side) we have development parcels north of the South Street Power Station and it's likely the parking lot on the Point Street side of the Davol Square complex will be developed. It won't be a waterfront streetscape, but done right that area has the potential to be as good or better than the Corliss Landing area.

[Cotuit]

Do you guys know where the money is coming from? I also haven't seen anything on who's going to own/maintain it. Will RIDOT hold onto it, or will it transfer ownership to the City? If so, is the City buying it, and if so, where's that $ coming from?

RIDOT would use the winning design to develop and construct the new park, and the City would own and maintain the green space as part of a unique partnership between the City and the state, according to the Mayor. RIDOT has earmarked nearly $4.5 million for the project.

link

I have no idea where the city will get the money to maintain it. There's always my favorite option, setting up a not-for-profit management agency along the lines of the Bryant Park Conservancy in NYC. We should be looking at how Boston will pay to maintain the Central Artery greenspace or how Chicago plans to care for Millenium Park, neither city is exactly flush with cash.

I do worry how the city will pay for things, but I don't think that should hold us back from planning for the future. We still have some time before the city takes this park over. We need to find a way to maintain all the city's park and I feel optomistic (I didn't use the word confident) that we will be able to find a way.

[runawayjim]

That said, I had lunch a couple days last week in the new park land south of the Crawford Bridge (on the west side of the river, the area I'm calling Dyer Street Landing for lack of a better name), and though it was a bit chilly, even downright cloudy one day, and judging from the overflowing trash bins ( ) full of coffee cups, and take out bags, I'm not the only one having lunch down there. The sunnier of the two days there were many people strolling and some people who brought there lunch there.

either that or the city does a lousy job emptying the trash barrels.

[Thom]

200-190 (?) Dyer is my best guess.

I've heard Chestnut Square referred to as Chestnut Circle before too. The JDA bills it as kind of J&Ws Harvard Square. It's currently pigeon poop covered surface parking under the highway.

Right on both counts. We are hoping that J&W will hold a neighborhood design charrette in June or July to establish the design parameters for Chestnut Square.

[Cotuit]

either that or the city does a lousy job emptying the trash barrels.

Yes, they do. The trash itself though is mostly coffee cups, and salad containers, and bags from lunch places, and no one is walking into the park just to throw this type of stuff in the trash, they're bringing it to the park to consume there. The overflow of trash is annoying, the make-up of the trash is encouraging. I'm sure they do an equally poor job of emptying the trash in Waterplace, but you don't find barrells overflowing with lunch waste. I did note there are more barrells along the Monument Park section of the river (near the courthouse) and the barrells aren't overflowing there and there are likely more people using that area. It's likely a combination of too infrequent trash collection and too few barrells that is afflicting the Dyer Street Landing section.

And no, I did not go digging through the trash.

[Thom]

Do you guys know where the money is coming from? I also haven't seen anything on who's going to own/maintain it. Will RIDOT hold onto it, or will it transfer ownership to the City? If so, is the City buying it, and if so, where's that $ coming from?

AS part of the EIS process, RIDOT was required to replace the park land that was lost in 1955 when the highway was built and to set aside additional land for park land in exchange for the impacts of the new highway. It is my memory that approximately 14 acres of land are being dedicated for new or expanded parks. The new park land will be gifted to the city and the construction of the parks will be paid for by federal and state dollars. This was all committed to as part of the EIS that was accepted by the feds in 1996.

[Thom]

Someone raised the concern that the park on the east side of the river should have some commercial venue. The city has done this at other places and there is no reason that it couldn't be done here. We have been trying to get RIDOT to sell the development parcel on South Water St. where the helipad is located. The problem is that the state histoic preservation and heritage commission has placed some rather restrictive regulations that makes the parcel undevelopable. They don't seem to care. We will be meeting with them in the coming weeks to see if we can get them to change their stance. But another commercial building close to the Point Street bridge would add some interest to the park and potentially some revenue that would pay for the maintenance of these new facilities. Maybe one or more of the proposals for the design of the park will notice this possibility and set aside a development pad or two.