One focuses on access (detail below), another on floodplain restoration, and a third on agriculture.
|Minto proposal - Alternate 1 "Enhanced Access"|
From the standpoint of "how do you get there?" and "how do you move around once you're there?" at least from here, none of the alternatives were clearly better than the others.
Instead, the alternatives seemed oriented around the question of, "once you're here, what do you want to see and do?"
And to that question you might have clear preferences over, for example, more natural conditions or more agricultural cultivation.
The meeting is today, Tuesday the 21st, at 7pm in Pringle Community Hall, 606 Church Street SE.
There is also a survey, which requires viewing the concept maps for the three alternatives first.
The prospect of investment at Minto contrasts with the state of investment in a lot of our other parks.
I enjoyed the sunny afternoon by walking and discovering some parks on the other side of town. Have you visited a new park lately?
— Diana Dickey (@DianaDickey88) April 20, 2015
While out on an urban ramble over the weekend, we found a new park. Maybe you know all about it, but I suspect it's essentially neighborhood secret lore. The City has very little published on it, and the even the new Parks Master Plan doesn't say much.
|The entry off Chapman Hill Road|
|The entry off Ptarmigan with a formal sign|
|Entries off Ptarmigan Street and Chapman Hill Road|
|Ptarmigan here is utterly car-dependent|
Additionally, sidewalks are not consistent. Glen Creek and Orchard Heights don't always have sidewalks on both sides of the street, and sidewalks on the local streets are a patchwork. Parkway in particular lacks sidewalks and is an important connector. We saw people working in their yards and on their cars, but not other people out walking in the neighborhood.
But they will also need investment at some point. In chapter 7 of the the new Master Plan, none of these appear to rank as "tier 1" priorities. So for the moment I guess they will remain fallow and are "banked" for some future need. (It is interesting how we are more willing to bank land than bank buildings for future needs.)
|Proposed park at 23rd and D|
Parks and proposed parks are also not distributed evenly across the city, and it may be that there are important considerations of equity. The area in West Salem around Chandler Park appears relatively well-served geographically by parks. (Though again, because of the disconnected street system and hills, effectively they are harder to reach!) The area near the State Hospital is less well served geographically by parks - though the street grid is better connected and parks are easier to reach here.
Parks is a whole 'nother topic, but the allure of "shiny and new" is strong here also, and we don't think enough about maintenance and about how the street system serves or fails to serve park connectivity.