Sunday, January 15, 2012

When the prime legacy is that of a demolished building, you need to think very carefully.


The city of New Albany purchased the land from whichever entity inherited it after those nasty slumlords finally crashed, and it was made known that the plot would be transformed into a park for the approaching Bicentennial in 2013.


Naturally, we cannot afford to restore the corner to its appearance before the old post office was demolished to make room for a half-century of barrenness, although as a Bicentennial fundraising event, wouldn't it be clever to hold fictionalized show trials of New Albany's 1960's-era redevelopment cadres?


The obvious problem with the proposed name of Legacy Square is that it sounds far more like a senior assisted living complex than a commemorative Bicentennial park. I'd like to see the name changed to "Keep Rowing, Scribners Square" or "Nepotismal Square." For a more European touch, it might be "Free Needles and Condoms Square." But perhaps Councilman CeeSaw has other ideas:


18 comments:

Jeff Gillenwater said...

A square a day keeps the people at bay. But seriously, when is anyone at least going to acknowledge that it's not a square in shape or function? And, more importantly, is there room for the Emery's auxiliary building up on blocks?

w&la said...

leg·a·cy: anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor.

Perhaps the "park" is aptly named after all. There are so many empty lots in New Albany, where the city's "legacy" has been wiped clean.

The very notion of naming and celebrating an empty lot as a city's bicentennial "legacy"...

Iamhoosier said...

Sorry, I just don't see the awfulness in the name. I can think of a lot worse, even serious ones. Scribner Square or Place or Park or whatever to name just one. That would limit to just one part of the history of New Albany.

Ryan Rogers said...

Squares are great and all, though I'm not necessarily keen on the name, but what's the big picture? Is a square going to attract more people to downtown New Albany? No; is it more visually appealing than a parking lot? Sure, but is it the fastest way and most financially sound way to move downtown New Albany from point a to b?

It seems to me that downtown New Albany already has some nice and possibly under-used green spaces (riverfront); so how could that space be utilized in a way that would actually create a legacy of revitalization?

Possibly renting/gifting the space to a local university (IUS, UL, Bellarmine) for use as a satellite campus, labs, or dorms, which would bring more young people and ultimately more money downtown.


Maybe some low-rent commercial art galleries?
Or even better city sponsored commercial art galleries/performance spaces where the city and the artist benefit from the sale of the art. This could host a yearly street art show (a la St. James Art Fair).

It should be noted I am not anti parks and green spaces, I just think the space could be utilized in a more beneficial way.

RememberCharlemagne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RememberCharlemagne said...

Mr. Roger, you’re not the only one who thinks it could be better utilized.

To me, it appears that there was only one reason that the England Administration located the park on that corner and that reason had nothing to do with utilization of space, but more with personal connections.

The worst part of it is the parking spaces are needed.

It would be better if the city bought the lot for additional public parking. The city could re-landscape the lot and add additional parking spaces to the ones currently there.

I personally would like to see the empty lots near Market and the fire station used as a public park than the current location.
And if you like the idea of a college doing activities downtown New Albany still might have a chance of locating a college downtown. The England Administration had an opportunity, but didn’t pursue it. Another big missed step.

w&la said...

And I'm reminded once again of what often happens in New Albany. The name of the park aren't the real questions.

Who owned the lot, how much was paid for the lot - and wasn't it purchased mere days before the change in administrations?

Jeff Gillenwater said...

The England administration paid $162,857 for the lot. They bought it from BAM Investments, aka John Neace, a major real estate (cough) investor.

For tax purposes, the last record I could find showed an assessment of $97,200.

The sale date shows as 9/16/2011.

Turning it into parking is a horrible idea. The downtown area has far more parking than it knows what to do with.

RememberCharlemagne said...

It all ready is a parking lot. A parking lot that nearby businesses rely on for their customers. Businesses that only have on street parking if that lot changes. The city only needs to make it better and locate the new park on one of the many empty parcels of land downtown.

Keeping it a parking lot and adding a few more "quality" spots would be the best thing for nearby businesses and downtown revitalization.
Making decisions on the pretense that cars aren't an important consideration for revitalization is bad planning

It might be different if the surrounding neighborhoods alone could support the CBD but even then people prefer to use their cars over walking and any planning needs to keep that in mind, but it shouldn't be the only consideration.

The name of the park isn't important. Its location, cost, and utilization are important. And just because I would love to see additional parks in our city doesn't mean that I'm satisfied with New Albany's corrupted and dysfunctional government when they finally add a poorly planned park. New Albany needs to strive for the best, something that appears to be foreign for many. And New Albany will never reach its best until our local government is at its best.

Iamhoosier said...

Jameson,
Have you seen an aerial view of downtown parking in NA? I was amazed when shown one. Sometimes what we think we know, isn't really so after all.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

That block alone has as much surface parking as building footprint, not including on-street parking. That's common downtown. It's just not well used, as a lot of it sits empty on a regular basis.

Those who believe even more parking is necessary are in essence saying that denser, urban-style grids can't work, even though they clearly do all over the world every day and/or that we're just too dumb to figure out how to make use of the resources we already have. But even downtown NA's urban grid, at its modern, economic zenith, had more buildings, more successful businesses, and fewer parking spaces. I guess our forbears were just a lot smarter than us.

It really boils down to whether or not one is ready to accept abject ignorance as a centerpiece in planning. I won't call it development, as accepting that ignorance as an immovable obstacle is the opposite of it.

w&la said...

There is a multi-million dollar parking garage two blocks from this location.

The garage is never full. According to a recent news story in Business First, the city recently spent a half million dollars to "renovate" the garage.

We are told New Albany is becoming a "walkable city."

We should encourage folks to park in the city garage and walk a few blocks. Point to point drive/shop/drive doesn't allow folks to discover anything new.

Jeff Gillenwater said...

Agreed, w&la.

Even in my lifetime, I remember there being little expectation of direct, on-street parking downtown. You drove to the then Main Street garage, parked, and walked the few blocks necessary to do business at multiple stores or eateries (just like people do at a mall). It's baffling that we would declare that a planning impossibility such a short time later.

To engage and reinforce such an unsustainable parking expectation now is self-defeating and devalues rather than enriches the downtown experience, sending a message that it's a place people don't want to be.

The New Albanian said...

Lest it be forgotten -- mentioned by Broken Sidewalk today, and right here two weeks ago:

Paved, but Still Alive

RememberCharlemagne said...

Mark, I'm honest enough to make the distinction between quality public parking and what New Albany has. I'm also honest enough to acknowledge current consumers’ expectations in regards to convenient parking.

And Jeff brings up a reasonable comparison with mall parking, but fails to note the differences.

Mall parking has convenient parking surrounding the whole campus. Most drivers will park in a location convenient to their initial destination. Once inside and after reaching their initial destination will customers begin to walk around and patron other businesses. This should be the same strategy for New Albany’s parking plan. Convenient strategic parking lots that allow customer to reach their initial destination and then hope they stay around to patron more businesses.
Under Jeff's logic, he would abolish the convenient parking that customers prefer and then naively believe that customers will continue to come even at increased inconveniences. One reason that drove people away from downtowns in the first place.

This is the same reason why not to change Spring St. into two-way. Eliminating convenient parking and decreasing the efficiency of motorist’s ability to reach the downtown area is creating hurdles for the very customers businesses are trying to attract and relying on.

If New Albany doesn't want to rely on outside motorist to support their businesses then a complete policy change needs to occur one that starts redeveloping surrounding neighborhoods so their demographics can support downtown.

And for the State Street Parking Garage, I have never used it. But I have used the parking lot on the corner of Pearl and Spring. Forcing customers to park in an inconvenient location is a disservice to those very costumers you’re trying to attract.

The New Albanian said...

(This is a test ... don't adjust your receiver)

"The sun rises in the east, and sets in the wet ... or at least that's what they said on Baylor's blog."

The New Albanian said...

This is the same reason why not to change Spring St. into two-way. Eliminating convenient parking and decreasing the efficiency of motorist’s ability to reach the downtown area is creating hurdles for the very customers businesses are trying to attract and relying on.

But two-way traffic does neither. Why do you keep saying it does?

Take efficiency. For a car exiting the Sherman Minton's westbound NA off ramp, the most efficient way to access Bank Street Brewhouse is to take a right on Bank.

But this cannot be done. It requires three right hand turns to come around the block.

How is that more efficient?

Jeff Gillenwater said...

There's also a myth about comparative distance and convenience being perpetuated.

Let's say I want to buy a six pack and drive to downtown NA to buy it at the Keg. It's crowded on Pearl and Market, so I park on Bank Street halfway down the block between Market and Spring, which is usually easy to do. The distance I have to walk is a little over 500 ft.

If I drive to Meijer to do the same thing and it's crowded, I park in about the middle of their lot and walk to the liquor department. The distance is a little over 500 ft.

It's not a question of distance but of the environment in which the walk occurs. Jameson's Spring Street highway/parking lot concept generally lends itself to the Meijer walk being safer and more pleasant and that's without even broaching the idea of over reliance on auto infrastructure for future development which in itself isn't realistic, let alone efficient.