Jump to content

The New Waterplace Park


brick

Recommended Posts

What exactly do you mean by "parks." This perceived need for greenspace came up several times during the Providence Tomorrow meeting tonight. What I see is a lot of greenspace that no one ever uses. A combination of poor maintenance and poor location (i.e. not being conveniently near where people live/work/play) leaves our existing greenspace unused and translates into a perception of a lack of greenspace. That's also coupled with a general lack of urban tree canopy. If our streets themselves were greener, perhaps people wouldn't percieve that we lack greenspace.

Ok, I didn't really elaborate on this. I agree that the majority of the parks in the city are either poorly maintained or in a terrible location. The few well maintained parks and/or popular parks get allocations from private sectors for upgrades. For example, Davis Park on Smith Hill is widely used by the neighborhood, and although it is under the juridsiction of the Parks Dept, receives almost zero maintenance during the year from them. Improvements to the park have come from open space legislation. Roger Williams Memorial on No. Main is a National Park so it doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the Parks Dept. It is also widely used and kept up. When you subtract these parks out of the equation that receive improvement grants and the like, you are left with a hodepodge of small parks across the city that are neglected and eventually become eyesores. I don't think there is a lack of greenspace in the city, but I question what is so difficult to do basic maintenance in the parks that already exist.

The Woonasquatucket corridor is in the process of getting built. This area is going to open up a ton of greenspace to the residents of the city. If this park is run federally, I think you will see it being widely used.If the city were to run this, could you imagine what this would become seeing the location? Hmm....and then the extended water park@ 1-195....I rest my case..

Do you know what's even more ironic? I live on Smith Hill and the councilman, Terrance Hassett?, lined Smith Street with metal trash canisters all the way down the sad commercial district. I've witnessed two weeks in a row the public works dept. coming by and emptying them @ 9:00 AM. If they could come 2 weeks in a row to empty half-used trash bins( noting the lack of use seeing all the trash on the streets)why couldn't the tiny park on Sutton that they demolished a church for be picked up every now and then? Also, an actual street sweeper came down my street yesterday. I thought it was the dawn of the apocalypse. City services should not be spotty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Also, an actual street sweeper came down my street yesterday. I thought it was the dawn of the apocalypse. City services should not be spotty.

Hey Jerry, we actually agree completely on something! But seriously, you are completely right. Basic city services in Providence are abysmal and compare very unfavorably with other cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waterplace Park... theres no reason why that should become anymore private than it already is. Residents that come to Waterplace need to understand that they are By a park that is there for their enjoyment, and that they do not own it as their condominium's backyard. Waterfire will still go on, SoundSession will still go on, the little artsy students will still come to draw on the grass or practice instruments or read/write poetry and that is not their perrogative to change. If what some people seem to be fearing will happen begins to happen, with the new residents starting to privatize Waterplace, we need to push back. Simple as that. They sure as hell aren't going to keep me from reading a book on the grass next to the new towers. If they try, they're going to get an earful.

It surprises me how many people are either oblivious to the laws of this city/state or decide to blatantly disregard them. I had a car honk at me as I was crossing Broadway the other day (In a crosswalk) and pull over and start yelling at me for being an irresponsible pedestrian. I'm standing there shaking my head and took the liberty to 'remind' the man that it's state law that cars stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. It's also Providence city ordinance that pedestrians always have the right of way, crosswalk or no. He had a Virginia license place, too *smirks*. So if these Condo owners think they're going to "adopt" Waterplace park as their own and discourage public use of the amphitheatre et al., I'd like them to try.

And agreed about the parks. I'm waiting until i have aorund 20-30 bucks in my pocket before I go to the Home Depot on Charles and get some pads and graffiti remover. I'm gonna attack some of that Waterplace grafiti. I tried once before and was actually told to leave by one of the Yellowjackets. *shakes head*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the majority of the parks in the city are either poorly maintained

Does anyone have any insight as to why? I mean, really, I don't get it... I'm doing long runs for marathon training that take me jogging often through Providence, Pawtucket, and East Providence all in one run. And I tell you, the difference in upkeep of pocket parks and greenspace is night and day between Providence and its two neighboring towns. East Providence in particular does a very, very nice job in many areas in all phases... Grass upkeep, weeds, signage, sidewalks, benches, etc. And actually, in my runs, it appears to me that proportionately, those two municipalities have somewhat more pocket parks, street planters, landscaped medians, and open space, so it's not a volume issue...

So then why does the East Providence Parks Dept so badly trump Providence's?

(BTW, off topic, East Providence is doing some very, very nice street signage in places, I'll need to take a photo or two)

For example, Davis Park on Smith Hill is widely used by the neighborhood, and although it is under the juridsiction of the Parks Dept, receives almost zero maintenance during the year from them.

Yup, thanks for pointing this out. This should be the poster child park for neglect. I drive/walk by this almost every day and it's probably the most used park in the city I've seen, with people/kids packing it at all hours. But it just looks soooo shabby. Yes, it looks like someone rides a mower through every once and a while, but in overall upkeep, road maintenance, weeds, ballfield maintenance, signage, etc, it just looks sooo forgotten. It should be a jewel... Quite sad.

- Garris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, when we were walking all over town last week, it sure looked like there was plenty of tree canopy, at least compared to most cities. On a lot of the streets, two people can't walk side-by-side without one of them smacking into a tree every 50 feet or so.

You're looking for more trees than that? :silly:

Urb

was in seattle last week. i was amazed that the city had sooo many trees. trees in an urban setting looks great

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waterplace Park... theres no reason why that should become anymore private than it already is. Residents that come to Waterplace need to understand that they are By a park that is there for their enjoyment, and that they do not own it as their condominium's backyard. Waterfire will still go on, SoundSession will still go on, the little artsy students will still come to draw on the grass or practice instruments or read/write poetry and that is not their perrogative to change. If what some people seem to be fearing will happen begins to happen, with the new residents starting to privatize Waterplace, we need to push back. Simple as that. They sure as hell aren't going to keep me from reading a book on the grass next to the new towers. If they try, they're going to get an earful.

It surprises me how many people are either oblivious to the laws of this city/state or decide to blatantly disregard them. I had a car honk at me as I was crossing Broadway the other day (In a crosswalk) and pull over and start yelling at me for being an irresponsible pedestrian. I'm standing there shaking my head and took the liberty to 'remind' the man that it's state law that cars stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. It's also Providence city ordinance that pedestrians always have the right of way, crosswalk or no. He had a Virginia license place, too *smirks*. So if these Condo owners think they're going to "adopt" Waterplace park as their own and discourage public use of the amphitheatre et al., I'd like them to try.

And agreed about the parks. I'm waiting until i have aorund 20-30 bucks in my pocket before I go to the Home Depot on Charles and get some pads and graffiti remover. I'm gonna attack some of that Waterplace grafiti. I tried once before and was actually told to leave by one of the Yellowjackets. *shakes head*

here's the problem about soundsession... waterplace condo owners will be paying big bucks to live there. the city doesn't want this place vacant. i woudln't be surprised if soundsession doesn't get permission to have concerts at the ampitheatre after people are living there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, when we were walking all over town last week, it sure looked like there was plenty of tree canopy, at least compared to most cities. On a lot of the streets, two people can't walk side-by-side without one of them smacking into a tree every 50 feet or so.

You're looking for more trees than that? :silly:

Urb

that's a condition of sidewalks being narrow, not there being too many trees. Metro Providence has the least amount of canopy cover of any New England city. We need to be at least 18% in order for the city to reap some benefit from it (ie., cooler temps, stormwater etc) and I think at last check we were at about 12% but it has been at least a year since i looked at the data very closely. A study done by some Roger Williams College students found that in order for Providence alone to have a good enough tree cover to start getting benefit from it, we'd need to plant 40,000 trees within the city limits, and stop taking perfectly healthy trees down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metro Providence has the least amount of canopy cover of any New England city. We need to be at least 18% in order for the city to reap some benefit from it (ie., cooler temps, stormwater etc) and I think at last check we were at about 12% but it has been at least a year since i looked at the data very closely. A study done by some Roger Williams College students found that in order for Providence alone to have a good enough tree cover to start getting benefit from it, we'd need to plant 40,000 trees within the city limits, and stop taking perfectly healthy trees down.

Jen, do you know of any map that break down what parts of the city are in particular need? I certainly can think of a few off the top of my head...

- The hospitals and their expansive parking...

- Certainly many other areas of South Providence/Washington Park...

- Some areas of Smith Hill...

- Some streets in Fox Point (ironic given it's the home of the crazy raving highway tree lady)

Where areas are dire in terms of trees?

- Garris

PS: Also, Jen, have you ever tried to contact Lifespan or Women and Infants (Care New England) to see if they'd be interested in bankrolling some trees for their expansive asphalt lands? Many of those areas don't even have trees ringing them or even for decoration. An absolute ton of trees could be planted without taking away one parking space. It's pretty scorched earth there... I imagine you could help turn it into a big PR thing for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jen, do you know of any map that break down what parts of the city are in particular need? I certainly can think of a few off the top of my head...

- The hospitals and their expansive parking...

- Certainly many other areas of South Providence/Washington Park...

- Some areas of Smith Hill...

- Some streets in Fox Point (ironic given it's the home of the crazy raving highway tree lady)

Where areas are dire in terms of trees?

- Garris

Federal Hill is the neighborhood in most need of trees, second only to Downtown. After that, it is the north end of providence (top of admiral/douglas, branch ave etc, beyond PC which i like to call "above the tree line"), the west end (beyond the Armory), Olneyville, Valley, and then maybe parts of south Providence (around the parking lots obviously), state house etc. Washington Park is quite well treed actually, although reservoir triangle could use some more. Elmwood has a good number of trees, blackstone, summit etc. Fox Point can use more, but has lots, they are just still small.

and i think that the Providence Plan might have some data on trees--i had worked with someone there to take all my tree planting data and turn it into maps but i don't know if they still have it up. I can probably dredge up a map at my office and scan it in and post it, but i've moved from a cubicle to an office and i have no idea where all my files are these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: Also, Jen, have you ever tried to contact Lifespan or Women and Infants (Care New England) to see if they'd be interested in bankrolling some trees for their expansive asphalt lands? Many of those areas don't even have trees ringing them or even for decoration. An absolute ton of trees could be planted without taking away one parking space. It's pretty scorched earth there... I imagine you could help turn it into a big PR thing for them.

yeah. they don't care to pay for trees. they'd rather i just do it for free. which i won't since those parking lots aren't usually in residential neighborhoods. since they aren't required to retro actively tree their lots (which are slowly disappearing thanks to the planning dept, CPC and the insitutional master plan) they have no incentive to get it done. since people get sick and go to the hospital with or without trees, they aren't going to do it in order to garner some good will or PR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to be at least 18% in order for the city to reap some benefit from it (ie., cooler temps, stormwater etc) and I think at last check we were at about 12% but it has been at least a year since i looked at the data very closely.

What does that mean 12%? Is that look at the city from space, and 12% of it is treetops? Including places like Roger Williams Park?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that mean 12%? Is that look at the city from space, and 12% of it is treetops? Including places like Roger Williams Park?

12% canopy cover, so yes....and yes it includes RW Park... of course the greater providence area covers a lot of area, not just Providence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you being sarcastic?!

No I thought 12% was bad for the city itself, but if that includes nearby EP, Johnston, Cranston... then it's truly terrible. The actual city must be below 12%, then take out all the parks like Roger Williams, and you've got almost no trees on the actual streets where we all live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I thought 12% was bad for the city itself, but if that includes nearby EP, Johnston, Cranston... then it's truly terrible. The actual city must be below 12%, then take out all the parks like Roger Williams, and you've got almost no trees on the actual streets where we all live.

my numbers may not be totally spot on, though, but i do know that just to make the minimum environmental benefit, providence needs 40K trees. and i do know that the greater providence area is the least treed in all of New England. I'll see if i can find the actual reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my numbers may not be totally spot on, though, but i do know that just to make the minimum environmental benefit, providence needs 40K trees. and i do know that the greater providence area is the least treed in all of New England. I'll see if i can find the actual reference.

what do you mean by "greater providence"? do you mean the metro (which is all of RI and SE MA) or just providence and the surrounding cities and towns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on. The greater Providence metro?

Last i heard, Rhode Island was still considered part of Boston's metro (Boston metro = 6 million people. 600k of that is IN the city of Boston. So it seems they decided to adopt Rhode Island).

Are we established enough that that data is incorrect and we are THE Greater Providence Metro, encompassing all of RI to it's borders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on. The greater Providence metro?

Last i heard, Rhode Island was still considered part of Boston's metro (Boston metro = 6 million people. 600k of that is IN the city of Boston. So it seems they decided to adopt Rhode Island).

Are we established enough that that data is incorrect and we are THE Greater Providence Metro, encompassing all of RI to it's borders?

the providence metropolitan area is all of RI and bristol county in MA. we don't fall under greater boston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RI is a very urban state, actually...when i go to urban forestry conferences, presenters often use RI as an example of the US' only "city state"

I suppose its because we just don't have a lot of undeveloped land anymore. there isn't much that is truly rural...

but in any event, Providence needs more trees. Maybe this should get moved to the greens thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose its because we just don't have a lot of undeveloped land anymore. there isn't much that is truly rural...

There's plenty of undeveloped land in the following communities, all of which I would consider rural:

Burrilville

Glocester

Foster

Scituate

West Greenwich

Exeter

Hopkinton

Richmond

Charlestown

Maybe even:

South Kingston

Tiverton

Little Compton

http://geology.com/satellite/rhode-island-...ite-image.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RI is a very urban state, actually...when i go to urban forestry conferences, presenters often use RI as an example of the US' only "city state"

I suppose its because we just don't have a lot of undeveloped land anymore. there isn't much that is truly rural...

but in any event, Providence needs more trees. Maybe this should get moved to the greens thread...

I've always thought of the reference to RI as a "city state" referred to the idea that the state is so thoroughly dominated by one metropolitan area. it is the only state in which every resident is within reasonable commuting distance of one center city, and as such it truly functions as a metropolitan area as much as a state.

On a related note, for such a small state built around such a large metro, there is a remarkable amount of undeveloped open space in RI, as Frankie mentioned. For all the talk of Centre of New England, Rt 2 (and the rest of Warwick), Fidelity in Smithfield, etc., I don't think sprawl has impacted RI nearly as much as it has most other metros in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.