PROPOSED: WATERFRONT PARK

[brick]

I don't know if Thom still reads the forums here, but they have a parsing problem which makes it look like the second design is the one with elements that aren't within the budget. I believe that statement should live with the Team 9 design. this is an important distinction because the team 9 park without the embre house and with cut backs on things like the amphitheatre will be pretty boring. If they have some kind of co-sponsorship deal where those things would still get built, it would be much better.

Like others, I can't see enough of the Team 4 design to really appreciate it. However I think it is the better design in terms of reaching to a broader demographic.

I'm all about lobbying to get the chicken incorporated into whichever plan wins.

How about starting a tobaggon run from right between the legs of the RI Red?

[provid]

I like alot of the elments of the second one but its really hard to see without an overhead view. I love the stage made out of the hill ( The people looks like trees in the drawing )

[quente]

why is that website so crappy in firefox?

It doesn't look good in Safari, Netscape or Opera either (couldn't get IE to open it without crashing) - black type on dark blue background. Little contrast - very hard to read. Obviously a browser/platform issue; I suspect that Windows users are seeing a very different looking (ie., legible) web page, right?

[runawayjim]

It doesn't look good in Safari, Netscape or Opera either (couldn't get IE to open it without crashing) - black type on dark blue background. Little contrast - very hard to read. Obviously a browser/platform issue; I suspect that Windows users are seeing a very different looking (ie., legible) web page, right?

i am a windows user, but i refuse to use IE for a page that should work fine in firefox. even the menus and everything all suck in firefox. who's in charge of the design?

[quente]

The Team 4 design looks promising but as several of you pointed out, is difficult to read because of sparse documentation (perhaps the actual boards on display at the casino are easier?).

I think the 3 "rise" elements on the west side of the park are a terrific feature because they allowed the designers the space to tuck-in kiosks, restrooms and storage without sacrificing greenspace. The fact that these rises provide seating in the summer and a place to go sledding in the winter is brilliant (though I wonder how long the grass would last on a slope that is constantly being walked/sat upon).

The island idea is interesting but it's not clear if they're meant to be functional or sculptural (I don't see any tiny bridges in the very nicely done, but oh so small, perspective).

By comparison, Team 9's proposal is better documented and as already stated, traditional. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, it appears that the "riverwalks" have been pulled away from the river - kinda of missed opportunity, no?

I think the playfulness of the proposal by Team 4 is more appealing than the straight-laced approach by Team 9.

[quente]

i am a windows user, but i refuse to use IE for a page that should work fine in firefox. even the menus and everything all suck in firefox. who's in charge of the design?

Couldn't agree with you more - the page should look right in all browsers and across all platforms. Since I'm on Mac, I've gotten used to seeing some messed-up pages. Kinda surprised that it doesn't look right in Firefox. Perhaps the folks who designed the site at Embolden Design are unaware of the problem? Here's their site if you'd like to contact them:www.embolden.com

[provid]

I think an example of grass holds up on a slope would be the waterplace stage-- It does have a sprinker though.

The Team 4 design looks promising but as several of you pointed out, is difficult to read because of sparse documentation (perhaps the actual boards on display at the casino are easier?).

I think the 3 "rise" elements on the west side of the park are a terrific feature because they allowed the designers the space to tuck-in kiosks, restrooms and storage without sacrificing greenspace. The fact that these rises provide seating in the summer and a place to go sledding in the winter is brilliant (though I wonder how long the grass would last on a slope that is constantly being walked/sat upon).

The island idea is interesting but it's not clear if they're meant to be functional or sculptural (I don't see any tiny bridges in the very nicely done, but oh so small, perspective).

By comparison, Team 9's proposal is better documented and as already stated, traditional. Unless I'm reading it incorrectly, it appears that the "riverwalks" have been pulled away from the river - kinda of missed opportunity, no?

I think the playfulness of the proposal by Team 4 is more appealing than the straight-laced approach by Team 9.

[Cotuit]

Garris and I headed to the Casino this afternoon. Here's some photos of the Urbanscape model.

[xine]

Excellent - thanks for the photos!!!

I love that the Urbanscape people are thinking about how this is used in the winter and at night - not just a sunny June 21st when the trees are all full grown. There's a real sense of playfulness and discovery with the hidden buildings that would be really fun to experience.

The other scheme looks like a bit of a snooze, just at first glance.

(Anyone besides me notice that they more than tripled the prize $ for the winner?! Hooray for the jury and the City!)

[jencoleslaw]

what are all those little red tic-tacs? Are those cars? I was stuck at the office waiting for the Dell guy to come for the 4th time and swap out a crappy tape drive so i missed the announcement of the finalists. I'll try to get to the casino to see the models.

yes, let's please lobby for the big chicken. Its popularity could easily rival the big blue bug.

[provid]

Anyone else notice these models and the renders aren't exactly the same? The "stage" area and the foot of the mound for one.

[Cotuit]

Perhaps the folks who designed the site at Embolden Design are unaware of the problem? Here's their site if you'd like to contact them:www.embolden.com

I'm pretty sure Embolden just designed the site, and it is someone from the city who is maintaining it. So anything that has been added since the relaunch, is the city's doing.

[runawayjim]

that model doesn't have an ampitheatre...

[Cotuit]

what are all those little red tic-tacs? Are those cars?

Yes, I'm all about everyone in the city being forced to paint their cars red. It would add a very interesting design asthetic to the city.

I'll try to get to the casino to see the models.

Only Urbanscape has a model. The entrants would told to make a choice, electronic rendering, or model. Urbanscape chose a model, team 9 chose an electronic rendering, which is also on display at the casino. The model makes an amazing impression, everyone was b lining to it.

yes, let's please lobby for the big chicken. Its popularity could easily rival the big blue bug.

I mentioned that I was looking for a place for the chicken to sit in each of the designs. I redesined Urbanscape a bit to make a place for the chicken.

[Cotuit]

The Team 4 design looks promising but as several of you pointed out, is difficult to read because of sparse documentation (perhaps the actual boards on display at the casino are easier?).

Well, as you can see, for Team 4 (Urbanscape) there is a model, so it's vry easy to make out at the casino. I video 'tour' of each proposal is supposed to be posted on the website tomorrow.

I think the 3 "rise" elements on the west side of the park are a terrific feature because they allowed the designers the space to tuck-in kiosks, restrooms and storage without sacrificing greenspace. The fact that these rises provide seating in the summer and a place to go sledding in the winter is brilliant

Only the central rise is budgeted for (there is a fourth rise at South Water Street and Point Street, which is also not budgeted for). The central rise, which is budget for would contain storage space for the parks department and restrooms, which was required by the deisgn guidelines, as well as a visitors center.

The island idea is interesting but it's not clear if they're meant to be functional or sculptural (I don't see any tiny bridges in the very nicely done, but oh so small, perspective).

The floating islands do have footbridges to reach them. It appears they are something like the floating docks that are in Waterplace and other areas. One has some plantings on it. This element is budgeted.

All entrants were told to design a pedestrian bridge solution, though it is not budgeted at this point. The city is very much intent though on building a pedestrian bridge, money just needs to be found.

There are a set of wind turbines at the Point Street end of the Urbanscape design. The project is designed to generate as much energy as it uses. I'm all about putting a few more turbines around, as rendered, they have a great sculptural look.

[provid]

I dont know if everyone noticed (I missed it) the better render for Team 9 - is locted half way down the page

http://www.providenceri.com/government/wat...1_and_B3_v2.pdf

Also for the other park

" The pedestrian bridge and the rises represented on the design, with the exception of the large rise in the middle of the west side park, are beyond the available budget for the park development. As you view this design, please consider if the park design as proposed works without these elements. "

[jencoleslaw]

you know, a small army of chickens would be pretty cool too. like they are guarding the waterfront like poultry sentries. Why the hell didn't we submit a design, dammit?!

[Garris]

It was an interesting evening. First, I don't know how well known the 6 PM presentation was, as there weren't many people there.

Second, I think Cotuit and I largely agreed that either park, if approved, would be a revelation for the city. I think we both preferred the #4 proposal, though, for a variety of reasons.

#9 (i.e. traditional) proposal:

Pros:

- Excellent use of land on both sides of the river

- Nice continuation of the Dorrance streetscape into a beautiful, landscaped pedestrian walkway

- I like the hill created in the SW of the park. Having that geography next to Eddy will be nice.

- I like the "Fish Park" play area on the East Side bank

- The "Summer House," if built, would be wonderful for farmers markets

Cons:

- Perhaps too conservative? Nothing really groundbreaking here...

- I dislike the way the riverwalk part starts to move away from the water, eventually taking away a pedestrian SE viewing angle

- If walking up from the future Heritage Harbor museum, the area of the maintenance shed and the bathrooms are your entrance to the park

- The structures (the small bathrooms building and the maintenance shed built into the south part of the hill out of sight) are just begging to be vandalized

#4 (i.e. radical) proposal:

Pros:

- Truly iconic design for the 195 area and the entire city, filled with great ideas

- Excellent entries and exits

- Visitor's center designed not just to be a gateway to the park, but a gateway to the city, and it faces out to the city, not into the park, making it a great gateway to those coming from the Heritage Harbor Museum

- I love using the rises covered with lawn to construct the buildings. The one in the NE corner (not in the budget) would make a great canoe/kayak rental site

- I just love the idea of the pedestrian floating islands (which, in their photos, have chairs and benches on them). Proposals have paid lip service to involving pedestrians intimately with the water. This ones delivers.

- I also love the idea of the shallow pools, water near the water, although it might not be the best use of space

- Wind farm near Point St is a great idea, although I'm sure someone in Fox Point will object...

Cons:

- I don't understand why they're included "wetlands" on both sides of the park. My guess is these will become garbage strewn mosquito breeding grounds.

- I hope there are funds to maintain the visitor's center

- Aside from the wind turbines and the suggestion that farmers markets could happen there, the Eastern bank doesn't seem as well planned or utilized as in the other proposal

- Can the parks maintain the shallow pools? If not kept just right, there's no point.

Those are my inital impressions. Both teams should be proud of putting together first rate proposals.

I think that the losing proposal, either one, should become the template idea for redoing Station Park. Both (especially the traditional one) would apply beautifully to that space as well.

- Garris

[Cotuit]

I think we both preferred the #9 proposal, though, for a variety of reasons.

Wait, were you in the same room with me? I was all about the radical one.

[Garris]

Wait, were you in the same room with me? I was all about the radical one.

Ack! Baaaad typo... #4, #4, #4!! I need more sleep... Original post is corrected...

- Garris

[Recchia]

I love those criss-crossing pedestrian bridges in the Urbanscape model!

[Frankie811]

With this park there will still be room for the proposal @ 200 Dyer St, correct?

[Lone Ranger]

Cons:

- I don't understand why they're included "wetlands" on both sides of the park. My guess is these will become garbage strewn mosquito breeding grounds.

- I hope there are funds to maintain the visitor's center

- Aside from the wind turbines and the suggestion that farmers markets could happen there, the Eastern bank doesn't seem as well planned or utilized as in the other proposal

- Can the parks maintain the shallow pools? If not kept just right, there's no point.

If windfarm proposal is a serious element, the City could possibly sell the additional energy collected (a la Portsmouth Abbey) and flag the funds thus raised for maintenance of this particular park.

[Cotuit]

With this park there will still be room for the proposal @ 200 Dyer St, correct?

Yes.

If windfarm proposal is a serious element, the City could possibly sell the additional energy collected (a la Portsmouth Abbey) and flag the funds thus raised for maintenance of this particular park.

That's what I said, they could build a few more and sell the energy to the grid to pay for the unfunded elements. The person hosting the event seemed to think that was possible, but current the windmills are not set up as a money making venture, just to provide energy. The park is supposed to have zero emmissions, all energy used, should be able to be generated by the windmills.

[Garris]

With this park there will still be room for the proposal @ 200 Dyer St, correct?

If you go to the post with the photos that Cotuit took of the Urbanscape model and look at the third picture down, the building to the farmost right on the Riverwalk is an imaginary model of the 190/200/whatever Dyer St site.

- Garris