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.
