It’s parkland, not a parking lot
What’s the priority here?
It’s only for 10 days, yet it’s still reflective of community priorities that we turn a key piece of our most valable parkland into a parking lot during Cherry Festival.
This is particularly a sensitive place as it is the former location of the Smith-Barney building that the area citizens voted to purchase precisely to ‘open up’ the bayfront and allow the planning of a comprehensive park running the entire waterfront.
As the city is about to kick down some serious cash on improving the bayfront, let’s not continue to use it as one large parking lot. This portion of the bay is managed by the City of Traverse City and Charter Township of Garfield Recreational Authority.
Complete agreement from here, Gary!
And when you walk onto the Open Space for the Movies later this month, please note, there WAS a lawn there in late June for you to sit on.
Movies on Open Space? I think I recall something like that happening…where did I see that?
Also, I hear that the planning for bike parking is going well for TCFF.
That’s one of the most out of context photos I have ever seen. Congratulations, you are now the Frank Luntz of photography. Evidently the tens and tens of thousands of people that ventured into our park over the weekend are not photo worthy. Or, maybe they aren’t the right people.
The Smith Barney building was partially financed by the public. The Cherry Festival also contributed (50K, I think. Maybe a 100K). It was also mandated that it always be open. At the time of purchase there was no talk of great park improvements later. You made that up.
As to JRW’s lawn problem; I’m sorry the Cherry Festival dropped their event right on top of yours. Perhaps “Keep off the grass” signs could be put up in the spring and taken down for your event.
Cherry Fest hating has always been an acceptable sporting activity. I’m often a practitioner myself. Facts are still facts. I hope the rest of your posts are more honest and accurate. I follow them and would like to believe you know what you are talking about.
Thanks for the call out, Shimel. Frank Lutz of photography? nice touch.
I’ll walk it back a little and cede to you that the hordes of people enjoying the bayfront all weekend is indeed what we want to see. The Cherry Festival certainly does that well. And, the power of what a photographer chooses to leave in and out of a frame is part of the journalistic integrity that I take serious. At the same time, I’m mainly a columnist on this BLOG and was illustrating a larger point of priorities. I might not have pointed this parking lot out if the use of space was used more efficiently and allowed for the passage of people between the fence line and the bay.
There might be mixed sentiment on the purpose of the purchasing of the property. The park improvements for the property are actually part of the description of the recreation authority on the township website, which states,“In 2004, Garfield Township and Traverse City voters approved a ballot measure to create a joint recreational authority for the express purpose of acquiring and improving three properties.”
That was my source for that comment, although I could find nothing to support the often expressed mission that it was to be kept “natural”, as if we can agree on what that means.
“I might not have pointed this parking lot out if the use of space was used more efficiently and allowed for the passage of people between the fence line and the bay.”
So, you looked at all of the festival/park access points and determined it would be more efficient if they opened an area that they deemed advantageous to close? The festival planners, homeland security, city police, and others that created the strategy for moving people as safely as possible were wrong? How did all of those people find their way to the beach? That comment is precisely as myopic as the photo. Dude, I don’t know diddly-squat about transportation issues but I do know how to move thousands of people in and out of events. The shotgun approach is deadly. You need to keep walking… (Disclosure; the festival set up is not my doing)
Well, short answer to your first question is, yes.
Without the inside knowledge of whomever designed the layout, I was responding to what’s communicated by the placement of this parking lot. I can only make a judgment based on what I saw: a space carved out of parkland for the priority of accessibility for automobiles to park. I didn’t attempt to explain why it might be so, because I was viewing it as someone who was just passing by and my first response was: “WTF, I have to go around so they can park here!”
You might not agree with me, good sir, but I don’t believe that ‘moving people’ was the priority of the “festival planners, homeland security, city police, and others” in this particular location. I believe they had a perceived parking issue and so they solved it with the most convenient way possible and didn’t look back. Got fence, block it off. And so they did.
It just needed a little 10 foot corridor along the bluff. That’s it.
I’m not fighting it. I’m not calling for anyone to change it tomorrow. To me, it’s reflective.
Hmmm…. Guess I fall right in the middle on this one.
I agree with you Rick that this photo might seem a bit of tunnel vision. I think it’s pretty clear however that Gary and the MyWHAT blog do not pretend to be a news service. So there’s no predisposition for telling the wider-angle story. I see how this might frustrate you. Please realize that one of the issues in constant focus here is the prevalence for prioritizing automobile use over pedestrian/bicycle use. The photo depicts this ethic clearly.
On the other hand, I can tell you that the NCF has made great strides over the past five years to reflect more of community opinion in their festival practices. They’ve been watching and listening.
What the photo shows me is that our zeal to protect public land has prevented us from designing a park that supports the community’s needs. “Keep it open at all costs.” If the grass we spend so much money on planting, maintaining, then repairing is actually of little use most of the season we might consider an alternative. And I think that’s where the City is headed with its bayfront planning. So some patience is in order along with a more balanced examination of the issues. Certainly sniping and cynicism won’t cure these ills.
Thanks,
Full disclosure: Rick and a I share something in that we both count the National Cherry Festival as valued clients of our respective businesses.
Bill—Apologies for not fully disclosing my relationship with the festival, but on this post I was wearing my Parks and Rec board member hat (I should have disclosed that also). That is my connection to Gary. I joined the P&R board for the expressed purpose of putting more people in our parks. My vehicle for that is festivals (I prefer boutique). I made that very clear in my interview for the position.
I understand the nature of Gary’s blog. I follow it because I don’t know anything about transportation, pedestrian, or bicycle issues. I disagree with you that the photo in question is a fair representation of anything. It’s a picture of 17 cars parked on parkland completely ignoring the 100K people up and down the length of the park. Yesterday’s photo juxtaposed with today’s photos is a much more realistic representation. Thank you, Gary, for putting them up today. My sniping, if it was, was more intended for “Gary, the parks and rec guy,” than, “Gary, the blogger.”
As to sniping and cynicism; while I prefer counter-punching and sarcasm, your point is taken and accepted. That is who I am. I recognize the intellectual laziness of sarcasm, but find comfort in its expediency and efficiency. I am not a community leader, and don’t fancy myself as a fixer of ills. I have no love for consensus or compromise. I also have no love for math, but I have learned to live with it.
Seems like there is a Joni Mitchell song…..”Tear down the trees……
Gary and All:
As a Rec Authority Board member, appointed by the City Commission, I wanted to share with your readers that the Rec Authority Board discussed this use of the property at our meeting last week and we fully intend for the Cherry Festival to provide us with a specific site plan and remediation plan for the former “Smith-Barney” property in future years.
That said, The NCF have been great partners in the past in terms of providing remediation of the site and the Open Space as a whole for that matter. Prior to the fine use of the Open Space for the TCFF which is obviously time sensitive, most years I marveled at how quickly the grass was green again after the NCF. There are no allusions from my perspective that we’re dealing with an urban park that sees heavy use and sometimes intensive use like the NCF. The Rec. Authority, from my perspective, is committed to keeping the property’s uses consistent with the neighboring uses of the Open Space as a whole. I, for one, am hoping for a thoughtful plan and implementation process and timeline out of the Bayfront planning exercise which should help to better incorporate the increased uses, and diversity of uses and potential uses in the area and plan accordingly.