RE: [UC] Re: Parking Spaces @ 43rd & Baltimore

[Summer All Ready]

Mister,
All there is in the bellow response is a good amount of irrational fear [not 
that fear is ever rational, but this is panic] and a senseless second paragraph 
resulting from an ill attempt to ridicule my sensible use of points within 
words to clarify meanings. Why that much negativity?
How is one installation possibly compromising 'public good'? Whose 'current 
eco-consumerism' [speaking about labeling]? I have been working and living 
sustainability for more than thirty years. HOw about you? Living with better 
understanding of own surroundings and interdependency of living forms is a way 
of life, not consumerism. Nothing oriented towards ecological living could 
possibly 'compromise' your 'citizenship'. On the contrary. 
Let's just put an effort in being a little more positive. Best,Ana

> Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 13:16:44 -0400
> From: laserb...@speedymail.org
> To: univcity@list.purple.com
> Subject: Re: [UC] Re: Parking Spaces @ 43rd & Baltimore
> 
> Summer All Ready wrote:
> > Why such overreaction?Park-let is not a 'park'. it's an urban 
> > installation achieved by let.ing go of park.ing spaces, and turning them 
> > into temporary social.izing spaces [seats, benches...] Let's open our 
> > minds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, let's be open-minded about how to achieve public good 
> without compromising public good, how to enact our current 
> eco-consumerism without compromising our citizenship.
> 
> park.letting in its present form lets select businesses 
> capture public spaces. how is that just.ified beyond 
> name.branding and eco.turfing and voo.doo.polling?
> 
> 
> 
> http://dailyreporter.com/levelheaded/2011/07/15/parklets-are-for-the-bird-lets/
> 
> http://ebar.com/columns/column.php?sec=bb&article=103
> 
> http://street.sfstation.com/2010/12/22/parklets-controversy/
> 
> 
> ..
> UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
> .
  

RE: [UC] Re: Parking Spaces @ 43rd & Baltimore

[Summer All Ready]

??? 
Following the tread, people are obviously expressing 'concerns', or whatever is 
general negativity and resistance called, about the location of the 
installation. And installation in the city [thus urban] it is, like it or not, 
as are other, similar, smaller projects with limited durability.  People, on 
the other hand, are free to call it whatever, in the process of familiarizing 
with these ideas. Let us be reminded that yes, these things might be all abuzz 
in UCity of Philly but they are not news to other cities [globally] and 
certainly not to urban and landscape planers, architects and designers, who 
created the term for the ease of communication some years ago. 
Ana

Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2011 22:34:09 -0400
Subject: Re: [UC] Re: Parking Spaces @ 43rd & Baltimore
From: dill...@dillernet.com
To: UnivCity@list.purple.com

Nobody would want to use that parklet other than customers of GreenLine. Lets 
just call a spade a spade. Urban Installation?
-andy
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Summer All Ready  
wrote:






Why such overreaction?Park-let is not a 'park'. it's an urban installation 
achieved by let.ing go of park.ing spaces, and turning them into temporary 
social.izing spaces [seats, benches...] Let's open our minds. It is better for 
its 'limited] longevity that it is next, or even in extension, to a commercial 
place, like a coffee shop, than 'on its own' somewhere where it could be 
vandalized overnight. 


  

Re: [UC] Re: Parking Spaces @ 43rd & Baltimore

[Andrew Diller]

Nobody would want to use that parklet other than customers of GreenLine.
Lets just call a spade a spade. Urban Installation?


-andy

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Summer All Ready
wrote:

>  Why such overreaction?Park-let is not a 'park'. it's an urban
> installation achieved by let.ing go of park.ing spaces, and turning them
> into temporary social.izing spaces [seats, benches...] Let's open our
> minds. It is better for its 'limited] longevity that it is next, or even
> in extension, to a commercial place, like a coffee shop, than 'on its own'
> somewhere where it could be vandalized overnight.
>
>
>

Re: [UC] Re: Parking Spaces @ 43rd & Baltimore

[UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN]

Summer All Ready wrote:
Why such overreaction?Park-let is not a 'park'. it's an urban 
installation achieved by let.ing go of park.ing spaces, and turning them 
into temporary social.izing spaces [seats, benches...] Let's open our 
minds.





yes, let's be open-minded about how to achieve public good 
without compromising public good, how to enact our current 
eco-consumerism without compromising our citizenship.


park.letting in its present form lets select businesses 
capture public spaces. how is that just.ified beyond 
name.branding and eco.turfing and voo.doo.polling?




http://dailyreporter.com/levelheaded/2011/07/15/parklets-are-for-the-bird-lets/

http://ebar.com/columns/column.php?sec=bb&article=103

http://street.sfstation.com/2010/12/22/parklets-controversy/


..
UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN
























































You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] Parklet

[Glenn moyer]

I think it is vital to understand the word "parklet" as a marker of fraud and propaganda.  Who can possibly object to the concept of a cleaner safer baby park?  This image is not  simple minded semantics, and I think that point is very important for people to recognize!
All the suggestions for alternative locations that you and others have offered make much more sense for investment in small cozy spaces, when the government is running a surplus.  But that is not the goal of this marketing "pilot" project.   
And if the people behind this wanted "green project investment" with Parks and street department money, I would add that all outdoor transit stops would first include shelter, seats, and plantings.  Sheltered bus and trolley stops would greatly encourage "walkability" and use of public transit.  But those city planners secretly pushing this, don't give a damn about thoughtful suggestions from caring citizens like us! 
 
A few years ago, an audit including half of Phila. recreation facilities revealed that 100% were in need of basic maintenance.  If the taxpayers of Philadelphia found out that more Recreation money was being planned for the benefit of connected businesses in gentrified areas, they would be outraged at parklets! 
Looting the public treasury by plutocracy mobs is all around us.  These people are dishonest and ruthless. The parklet cloak is a smoke screen intended for the powerful marketing machine to fool all of Philadelphia.  Additionaly, terrified business owners and the tiny group of local gentrifiers can portray parklets as "green investments" and shout down everyone who dares to expose the con.  That is why the city announced this "experiment" in our local paper while keeping their "brilliance" from city wide exposure!  Depending on your point of view, you may see "parklet" as a brilliant choice of word rather than the simple idiocy it appears to be! 
Why do you hate baby parks?  Why do you hate improvement?  Why do you hate successful neighborhoods?  We've seen this tactic here before, when we were told that BIDS make us cleaner and safer for a few pennies.
The excellent suggestions for parklets on the list are a testiment to citizen involvement!  If the new cafe seating had anything to do with creating parklets, our suggestions are immensly better than these Penn/city experts.  But this evolving plot at theft is a cruel and outrageous lie  and noneo the gentrifiers are interested in suggestions for real baby parks!
Glenn
 
 
 
 
-Original Message- From: Karen Allen Sent: Aug 17, 2011 11:49 AM To: UnivCity Listserv Subject: RE: [UC] Parklet 


I think the idea is a miss on a number of fronts. First, the name "parklet" (I use quotes because I don't like the conjured-up name) creates an expectation of sylvan greenery that is not met in the final product.  Call it what it is--outdoor seating.  As generic outdoor seating, it's functional, and looks OK. But giving it that particular name defeats its own purpose by inviting comparisons to a park, which it certainly is not.   Second, the seating could work in locations that need recreation or relaxation space, but it should not be directly tied to any commercial enterprise. The miss here is instead of finding neutral locations, it's  been placed next to a business with an outdoor cafe; thus drawing accusations of favoritism in its placement.  Here's a positive suggestion: the 45th/ Baltimore/Springfield  and 47th and Baltimore traffic triangles. They've both already been landscaped, and have enough space for small seating areas. 45th Street could be reconfigured mindful of pedestrian and auto traffic, and 47th is already fenced on the 47th Street side. They could help the overall 45th and 47th and Baltimore business strips without appearing to give favored treatment to any particular one.  And they could become  REAL parklets (without quotes!).  


Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:14:11 -0500From: herons...@verizon.netTo: UnivCity@list.purple.comSubject: [UC] ParkletFor the record, I don't like the looks of the parklet at 43rd and Baltimore either.  It does indeed look "industrial" and not very inviting.  I'm all in favor of new ways to develop public spaces (and I really like coffee-shops) but I have to say this project doesn't succeed. Al Airone You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see .

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.