PROPOSED: WATERFRONT PARK

[mental757]

I think there is a middle ground in what is an affordble and maintainable park design and some of the features in that design too. I just hope that something NICE (or better) is actually built there, versus getting excited about an elaborate design only to have it fade due to economics. Whether we like it or not, public projects like this have to go through the financial grinding wheel...

[eltron]

trees are a cliche to me.

I just wanted to quote this....

[jencoleslaw]

"trees are dirty and robbers hide behind them." as heard on Federal Hill.

"Trees are a danger to children!" as heard by a councilwoman up in the North End of PVD

[runawayjim]

"trees are dirty and robbers hide behind them." as heard on Federal Hill.

"Trees are a danger to children!" as heard by a councilwoman up in the North End of PVD

maybe to blind children allowed to run freely without any direction, but then so are cars, buildings, holes, other people, etc.

i wanna know how trees are cliche. seriously.

[Mij]

trees are a cliche to me.

Going out on a limb here, but I agree. We dont need trees on every side walk. We dont need trees for the sake of trees. We need more of a bio-plantonic (i think this is the term) out look for the city. I would much rather see plant life on buildings rather in front of them. The side walks in providence are enough of an obsticle with dodgeing poorly placed tree's. Having plants on building would help with cooling and heating. Conserving energy is part of the equation, but what about design? All to often (sorry Jenn) tree people bark and moan about needing more trees. We dont need more trees we need better design with plant life incorparated.

[eltron]

Going out on a limb here, but I agree. We dont need trees on every side walk. We dont need trees for the sake of trees. We need more of a bio-plantonic (i think this is the term) out look for the city. I would much rather see plant life on buildings rather in front of them. The side walks in providence are enough of an obsticle with dodgeing poorly placed tree's. Having plants on building would help with cooling and heating. Conserving energy is part of the equation, but what about design? All to often (sorry Jenn) tree people bark and moan about needing more trees. We dont need more trees we need better design with plant life incorparated.

I completely disagree. Green roofs are all fine and good, but this is a city that most definitely needs more trees. I'll let Jen take this one though, as she is the expert...

[runawayjim]

Going out on a limb here, but I agree. We dont need trees on every side walk. We dont need trees for the sake of trees. We need more of a bio-plantonic (i think this is the term) out look for the city. I would much rather see plant life on buildings rather in front of them. The side walks in providence are enough of an obsticle with dodgeing poorly placed tree's. Having plants on building would help with cooling and heating. Conserving energy is part of the equation, but what about design? All to often (sorry Jenn) tree people bark and moan about needing more trees. We dont need more trees we need better design with plant life incorparated.

go out into some of the neighborhoods where trees are not an obstacle, but rather a source of shade... but there's no trees. it sucks. on days when i walk to work and it's sunny (which are usually the days i walk because i don't feel like getting wet in the rain), it gets really hot. the reason for this is because there aren't enough street trees. in neighborhoods like elmhurst, the streets should be lined with trees. instead, there's a few here and there, but not enough to provide any useful amount of shade.

i do agree that downtown, some trees are poorly placed and many of the sidewalks are not wide enough, and many shops and restaurants that put tables and signs on the sidewalk hinder good flow of pedestrians (the DCI sign for instance, although it looks like it will be hung at some point, and even bravo's outdoor seating).

but since we're talking about a park here... how are trees cliche in a park?!?! it's a park for crying out loud, it's supposed to have nature, which is trees.

[mental757]

trees pollute the air with oxygen, block the sun, and steal precious ground water from our aquafers - damn-it!!

[sarcastic]

[Cotuit]

tree people bark

Trees also make poor people homeless.

[Mij]

go out into some of the neighborhoods where trees are not an obstacle, but rather a source of shade...

Your missing my point. Trees become cliche by the fact that it is the first and only soultion to plant life in a city.

Trees also make poor people homeless.

No pun intended!!!

[runawayjim]

Your missing my point. Trees become cliche by the fact that it is the first and only soultion to plant life in a city.

cities need trees because they help bring down the general temperature, add oxygen to the air (moreso than most other plant life), and provide shade for people.

parks with other forms of plant life are still important, but trees serve a very important function in both parks and on streets. asphalt gets quite hot in the summer and that heat just spreads everywhere. when the street is lined with trees, the shade prevents the sun from heating up the asphalt. i think you get the point...

cities are also generally places without much room for yards and expansive lawns. these are replaced by city parks, which generally have large grassy areas with some trees as well.

[Mij]

cities are also generally places without much room for yards and expansive lawns. these are replaced by city parks, which generally have large grassy areas with some trees as well.

I understand your point. If trees were done right around here then I might be more in clined to agree with you. But I dont. Here is why.

North main street. The lanes of traffic would be better served if large trees spread their canvas over the lanes of travel. Making the side walks a cooler oasis to walk on. But it dosnt happen. It does happen on the Blackstone Blvd. But making streets like that are just not going to happen. Not in the middle of a city were the sidewalks are already slim. So thats why I insist on creative solutions.

Tree's are fine and all, but just not a solution some people would like them to be.

[MichaelQ]

Going out on a limb here, but I agree. We dont need trees on every side walk. We dont need trees for the sake of trees. We need more of a bio-plantonic (i think this is the term) out look for the city. I would much rather see plant life on buildings rather in front of them. The side walks in providence are enough of an obsticle with dodgeing poorly placed tree's. Having plants on building would help with cooling and heating. Conserving energy is part of the equation, but what about design? All to often (sorry Jenn) tree people bark and moan about needing more trees. We dont need more trees we need better design with plant life incorparated.

I'll jump in too.

I agree and I disagree.

Whenever I find myself standing in what I consider an ideal neighborhood or streetscape, I ask myself what makes it so. Some of the obvious things are storefronts that line the street, lively signage, appropriate lighting, well-lit and defined crosswalks, etc. One of the others is canopy coverage from trees. I agree with you that poorly placed trees do not add anything to a neighborhood. It irritates me when trees are haphazardly placed along a street. I mean, it's better than no trees, but it looks stupid. But when there trees are placed symmetrically across the street from one another, along the edge of the sidewalk in treeboxes, and at an equal distance apart on the same side of the street, it looks awesome. And when they are mature trees, even better. When they're like that, because of the shade, they help plant life blossom in both the tree boxes and along buidings. The shade also promotes streetlife, as no one wants to walk around in the sun during the summer. Similarly, they provide at least some protection for the sidewalks during snowstorms.

As for the park, it needs trees. A lot of them. Frankly, I think the parts of the park that have trees should be absolutely covered - like a tree every six feet. As long as the lawns are well-maintained, the tree-laden areas will be safe and likely very popular for park goers. How cool would that look: mini-well-maintained forests surrounding or surrounded by wide-open green space...?

[JJK5]

Trees also make poor people homeless.

Haha, glad I'm not the only one who chuckled at that. He even opened with a a pun: "Going out on a limb here.."

[runawayjim]

I understand your point. If trees were done right around here then I might be more in clined to agree with you. But I dont. Here is why.

North main street. The lanes of traffic would be better served if large trees spread their canvas over the lanes of travel. Making the side walks a cooler oasis to walk on. But it dosnt happen. It does happen on the Blackstone Blvd. But making streets like that are just not going to happen. Not in the middle of a city were the sidewalks are already slim. So thats why I insist on creative solutions.

Tree's are fine and all, but just not a solution some people would like them to be.

you mention 2 streets that are quite different from the average street in providence. they just don't compare with streets downtown (other than memorial blvd) or streets in any of the neighborhoods. what is your solution if you think something more creative needs to be done? how can you get shade without putting up umbrellas or lining streets with tall buildings, etc? there really isn't much else that can be done, especially in mostly residential neighborhoods.

i live in elmhurst, so i am most familiar with it. while some streets do have some trees, there just aren't enough of them. the trees are placed haphazzardly because people don't take care of them and they die. it's not cheap to line a whole neighborhood with trees, so people need to make sure they're cared for, especially when they're still young.

so what's your solution to the problem on the average neighborhood street? i'm not talking north main or blackstone blvd or even downtown. i'm talking the neighborhoods where people live and children walk around sweating in the summer because there's no shade...

[Cotuit]

We're not talking about street trees here, regardless of how anyone may feel about them, and obviously there isn't the physical space for them on every Downcity street. Which is exactly why we need trees in a large park like this. Downcity residents, workers, and visitors can retire to this forested oasis when they want to walk amongst the trees. With our dense urban core, we'd be follish not to make trees a large component of this central open space.

[Garris]

The fact that we are debating the value of having whether or not to have trees in a park illustrates how hard it is to please all of the people all of the time...

From a completely non-intellectual, non-environmental, non-planning perspective, the reason I like trees, and lots of them, in an urban park is because it creates an environment that takes me somewhere else. Isn't that the magic of great parks like Central Park or Stanley Park is that by walking 60 feet you can go from feeling like you're in "the city" to feeling like you've been transported to an altogether different place?

That's the magic for me...

- Garris

[r c nelson]

The fact that we are debating the value of having whether or not to have trees in a park illustrates how hard it is to please all of the people all of the time...

From a completely non-intellectual, non-environmental, non-planning perspective, the reason I like trees, and lots of them, in an urban park is because it creates an environment that takes me somewhere else. Isn't that the magic of great parks like Central Park or Stanley Park is that by walking 60 feet you can go from feeling like you're in "the city" to feeling like you've been transported to an altogether different place?

That's the magic for me...

- Garris

Seattle has trees everywhere. The city looks park like. Put trees next to the train station at the former polo grounds. Remember when the RW Park on Canal and S Main st was just a field? Now it's charming

[DaveRPI]

wow, struck a nerve with the tree people?

haha, well fear not, the "trees are a cliche" was meant as a challenge to how architects and planners design parks and public areas

all sorts of vegetation and shapes of earth and shorelines should be considered

idk how many architects are in here, but i went to college for it and you would be surprised how many kids who go to school for it think, "oh a park! lets just put trees symmetrically around the perimeter! and lets plant them in geometric designs for no apparent reason!!!" thats why some of these designs that are posted make me laugh. they would have gotten torn apart in a truly respected architectural school and i wonder how some of these people were hired

trees are great for an urban park, but when i heard, i think garris, say that we should strive for something unique and a gateway to providence, then i was reminded of the topic i posted back a few months ago...

i think balance is key, variety is key, and if we are to be unique, then lets truly be unique...

for some reason, the idea for the park designed to be competent in all seasons really struck a cord with me and i went searching all over the internet for cities with cold winters and urban parks. there is so much more to consider for our own park than what was given to us... for private developmet i dont believe this much public say should be invloved because democracy is not always the best way to plan artistic design [its strips the artist of their personal touch and creativity], but for public land and for such poor executions of planning ideas, i say there needs to be more discussion for this potential "gateway" to providence, ri and new england

idk why, but for some reason i was looking at a bunch of vancouver, bc, canada websites and reykjavik, iceland, oh, finland and japan too

[runawayjim]

i agree that it should be unique, i just hope that doesn't mean planting a bunch of invasive species that "look cool" because that would be terrible. i think the park should be all native species to RI.

but yes, the design should be unique enough that it stands out. but it should not be unique to the point that it doesn't serve it's purpose of a public park for people to enjoy themselves year round. having sledding hills would accomplish that.

[jencoleslaw]

Providence needs more trees in order to recognize the environmental value of trees. i don't care where you put them, sidewalks, buildings, on people's cars, but we need so many that we honestly cannot afford to be snotty about the banality of street trees. They serve many purposes, from cooling and heating cost reductions, to increasing property values, to natural traffic calming, with beautification in there too. In order to just reach a minimum benefit of trees, we'd need to plant 40,000 of them.

natural areas along the water are a REQUIREMENT by CRMC and DEM.

Chicago believes that an environmental agenda drives economic development, not the other way around. I think i'll side with them on the "trees are cliche and we don't need them all over the place" argument.

your mileage may vary.

[mental757]

according to the story in today's PROJO about the big Brown U. property purchase in the JD - the announcement regarding the winner of the design contest for this park will be announced Monday (10/30/06).

[MikeR]

Providence needs more trees in order to recognize the environmental value of trees. i don't care where you put them, sidewalks, buildings, on people's cars, but we need so many that we honestly cannot afford to be snotty about the banality of street trees. They serve many purposes, from cooling and heating cost reductions, to increasing property values, to natural traffic calming, with beautification in there too.

[mental757]

I like those 'upside-down' looking blooming cherry trees...

[mental757]

[announcement has been postponed:

http://www.providenceri.com/press/article.php?id=156