In my last post, I wrote about how the High Line project in New York City is affecting the
conversation about parks in North Bay cities. Some citizens suggest that North
Bay cities should be capable of High Line-type projects. However, the suggestion ignores the
uniqueness of both the High Line setting and the deep pockets that were available
in Manhattan. The suggestion also
overlooks that North Bay cities are facilitating park improvements that, when
measured on a cost per resident basis, aren’t dissimilar from the High Line.
But it’s not
only in the small to medium-sized cities where the High Line has undermined
rational conversation about park priorities.
Metropolises, which might actually have the resources to chase after the
High Line chimera, have also been influenced.
Below, I’ll offer three examples of big city projects that are trying to
follow in the footprints of the High Line but which, although I’m sure I’d
enjoy visiting the resulting parks, could well become poor uses of resources.
The Garden Bridge in London would be a
pedestrian/bicycle crossing of the Thames, with much of the bridge deck
dedicated to various forms of greenery, including theme gardens. After an initial flush of enthusiasm, public
ardor for the bridge soon began to fade as costs climbed, security rules were established,
and periodic closures for corporate events were suggested as a way to balance
the books.
In New York
City, a proposed $130 million garden park on piers over the Hudson River has
been dubbed “Treasure Island” by citizens. (If the link doesn’t work, this Google search should have the article as its
first result.) The public response seems
uncertain and the funding source isn’t obvious.
Lastly, with
an idea that has dual parentage in the High Line and the closing of Times
Square to cars, a New York City architecture firm is proposing the conversion
of forty blocks of Broadway into a garden belt
for pedestrians and bicyclists only.
I think all
three of the ideas would create enjoyable places, but I’m not convinced that
any would be a good use of funds. As a comparison,
consider South Cove Park on the Hudson River side of Manhattan, near the tip of
the island and adjoining Battery Park. (All
the photos are from South Cove Park.)
South Cove
Park is a more conventional park, although still expensive because it’s occupying
valuable real estate and because construction is always expensive in
Manhattan. Although not cutting edge
like the High Line, it’s comfortable, well-used, and seemingly well-loved. Also, it’s now part of the Big U of parks intended to help protect
Manhattan from the surge of climate change-enhanced storms like Sandy.
Overall,
South Cove Park may seem unexciting and conventional, but seems a better and
less risky model for cities to follow, whether New York City or Santa Rosa,
London or Petaluma. The High Line is fun
and creative, but many fun and creative projects are better left as one-offs.
I spent the earlier
years of my career in the field of hydroelectric development, at a time that
the rules for the permitting of hydroelectric projects were changing
greatly. One afternoon, I chatted about
the evolving rules over a beer with an attorney for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission. His words about those
eager to take advantage of the changing regulatory environment were “Those on
the cutting edge often bleed.”
The High
Line was a remarkable accomplishment, but attempts of others to seek similarly remarkable
outcomes may result in blood at a time we can’t afford to bleed.
For my next
post, I’ll return to induced traffic.
It’s a subject on which I’ve touched many times, but remains worthy of
revisiting, especially as new information comes forth.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment