I invited polite rebuttal of my remarks below and got none. Most all I have
read regarding this issue on the List is the equivalent of flag waving to me.
So I ask, please tell me how I err in my posting below? Fran, Dean, other
naturalists?
In a message dated 11/15/01 12:09:18 AM
Central Standard Time, PennBroKeith writes: << Keith says: I am a MB of the
West Broadway Area Coalition (WBAC). Our board consists of Neighborhood group
leaders, educators on our avenue, business owners (including Mr. Baylor of J
A D T ), social service providers and others.
Our Board's goal is the best outcome for our challenged and deteriorated
Avenue. Our board knows well that the Avenue and the adjacent neighborhoods
will define and support each other. One can't succeed without the other.
Believe it or not we also have standards. Among our standards and goals
is to have "defensible space". Beauty is not enough if a particular space is
remote and it's "ownership" undefined, and there is nobody watching to see
whom is doing what, and to whom or what etc. On West Broadway we call it
"eyes on the street" development and it is to be quite different then
suburban style development.
In the matter of the Riverview Supper Club site, I believe it arguable
that having the housing development adjacent to the new park site will serve
park visitors well. As an example (you decide how similar) I offer up Wirth
Parkway. This stunningly beautiful and wild parkway area, over the last 20 or
so years that I have enjoyed it, has been relatively deserted. Virtually
abandoned, in so many ways, as a recreational and naturally scenic
destination because Mom, dad and the kids didn't feel safe enough, nor did
groups of women, and certainly not single women (alone). Please picture
people tripping over each other on south parkways, trails and paths that are
no more nor less beautiful, just more visited and crowded, and abutted by
housing.
People will go places to recreate, have fun and gather as long as they
feel safe. This mixed use of the site will add to safety, and hence
usefulness. People in a park must feel safe enough that they stop, for the
moment, from thinking and worrying about safety. Then they will come, and
come back.
My humble opinion, I am not shouting and welcome other points of view on
this.
Keith Reitman, Someday I'll see you on West Broadway or at the park,
Near North >>
--- Begin Message ---
In a message dated 11/14/01 5:17:34 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
While I very much appreciate that people are upset over the process involved
at the Z & P meeting. While I appreciate that many hours have been spent by
many people to design a comprehensive plan for the upper river. And while
it is true that JADT bought the Riverview site knowing they would have to
ask for a zoning change and were taking their chances. All that being said,
I feel that high-end housing is a good use for the land, and our city
government should not go around discouraging private development by persons
with money in hand who are not asking for a handout.
Throughout the history of any city, Minneapolis included, there will have
been any number of idealized plans with grand visions for land use >>
Keith says: I am a MB of the West Broadway Area Coalition (WBAC). Our
board consists of Neighborhood group leaders, educators on our avenue,
business owners (including Mr. Baylor of J A D T ), social service providers
and others.
Our Board's goal is the best outcome for our challenged and deteriorated
Avenue. Our board knows well that the Avenue and the adjacent neighborhoods
will define and support each other. One can't succeed without the other.
Believe it or not we also have standards. Among our standards and goals is
to have "defensible space". Beauty is not enough if a particular space is
remote and it's "ownership" undefined, and there is nobody watching to see
whom is doing what, and to whom or what etc. On West Broadway we call it
"eyes on the street" development and it is to be quite different then
suburban style development.
In the matter of the Riverview Supper Club site, I believe it arguable
that having the housing development adjacent to the new park site will serve
park visitors well. As an example (you decide how similar) I offer up Wirth
Parkway. This stunningly beautiful and wild parkway area, over the last 20 or
so years that I have enjoyed it, has been relatively deserted. Virtually
abandoned, in so many ways, as a recreational and naturally scenic
destination because Mom, dad and the kids didn't feel safe enough, nor did
groups of women, and certainly not single women (alone). Please picture
people tripping over each other on south parkways, trails and paths that are
no more nor less beautiful, just more visited and crowded, and abutted by
housing.
People will go places to recreate, have fun and gather as long as they
feel safe. This mixed use of the site will add to safety, and hence
usefulness. People in a park must feel safe enough that they stop, for the
moment, from thinking and worrying about safety. Then they will come, and
come back.
My humble opinion, I am not shouting and welcome other points of view on
this.
Keith Reitman, Someday I'll see you on West Broadway or at the park,
Near North
--- End Message ---
