On 8/11/2011 12:36 PM, Karen Allen wrote:
Apart from calling people "stupid" and "silly", Brian's attempt to
ridicule legitimate questions appears to endorse one thing: that
the "parklet" is primarily intended to provide free seating to
benefit private businesses, which was actually Glenn and Al's point.
*"As for the provision of extra seating for either the Green Line and
the Best House... well, this is actually kind of a stupid issue"*
It's not "stupid"- Al was raising the quesion of whether there was
bias in the choice of placement based on the people likely to use the
seating.
No, Al and Glenn were bitching about people they dislike, such as
"the anointed who sip their lattes and tap-tap-tap away on their
laptops," and insinuating bad motives about the parklet's placement.
Pretty much the definition of "silly."
*"So one can't argue that one place needs seating more than the
other, and then argue that there's no need for the Parklet. That's
silly."*
It's only "silly" if the assumption is that there is a "need" for
more public space to be diverted to the benefit of a private business
entity. We already have that now with sidewalk cafes, but at least
the business has to provide the chairs and tables and have a limit
on how much of the sidewalk can be used. "Parklets" provide chairs,
tables and a nice deck--put up and taken down--all for free, and the
residents lose two parking spaces. There is no "need" for a public or
quasi-public entity to use public space to provide free outdoor
seating to *any* private business. If they want seating, they can pay
for it themselves. And if there is a need for more space for rest and
reflection, why not simply ask the residential community where they'd
like it to go?
First of all... the parklet is not exclusively for Green Line
customers. Buy a sandwich at the Best House and eat it across the
street. Nothing's stopping anyone from doing this.
Second, the space taken up by the parklet was, previously, used
exclusively by Philly Car Share for several years. I haven't seen any
complaints about _that_ business taking parking spots away from others.
Third, you're complaining about public spaces being used to "provide
free outdoor seating to *any* private business." Really? So you object
to the use of, say, Clark Park as a place to eat the food purchased at
the Best House or Green Line or Milk and Honey? Because that's what
people do. That's one of the reasons why we put tables and chairs in
the park-- to give people a place to sit while they eat. And yes, it
benefits those local businesses. (Frankly, we hope that those
businesses will kick in funds for more tables and chairs.) So do all
kinds of public improvements. Install better lighting and trash cans,
fix the sidewalks, you're encouraging foot traffic, and nearby
businesses benefit.
But if the benefit to local businesses is such a horrible thing,
please, tell me about public improvements that _don't_ also benefit
local businesses. I'd be fascinated.
And fourth, you ask, "And if there is a need for more space for rest
and reflection, why not simply ask the residential community where
they'd like it to go?" Guess what: _they did ask_. UCD didn't just
come in and drop the thing in place. To get the exclusive use of those
parking spaces, UCD had to get the signed consent of the property
owners on that block of 43rd street. And they got it.
**
*"It went up in a few hours, and it can be taken down in a few hours,
and relocated to other stores and events... so why not try suggesting
a few locations to them? (In front of the pet shop and Bindlestuff
Books is a possibility.)"
*Why were the pet store and bookshop included here if the primary
purpose is for a "public" amenity?*
*
It was just a suggestion. (It may not work there because of the
trolley line.) Feel free to think of other places.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.901 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3827 - Release Date: 08/11/11
02:34:00
