Kerry,
Thank you for taking the time to share with us on Wednesday about the Roosevelt Street Project. There are a few things that I observed at the meeting that I would like to share with you as an informed citizen observer. Some of these issues are ones that you can address, while others are beyond your pay grade, but you can still assist in directing us to where we can focus our energies to make the adjustments we see needed.
Much of what was shared seemed to be frustrations with hitting against policies, precedence, limited resources mindset, and absentee/disrepectful land/building owners that all make establishing our neighborhoods and public spaces as the best they can be more difficult than the active citizenry believes it should be. While these issues will always be present, to get the most out of the public support, I think there needs to be better communication between those who are interested and active in making improvements, and the city forces. Conveying that this is just how it is because of what the rules and policies are does not address the desire of interested people to work with the city resources to make the result the best possible.
These are also great opportunities to share how the city is utilizing the resources available to the max. With limited funds, certain priorities are obviously going to arise, and it would be helpful to share how those funds are used and contribute to the design. For instance, remind us of the budget available and how it breaks down to the major components: engineering/design, site work, public art, etc. Although there will always be people who disagree with one choice or another, I think a little of this information can go a long way toward helping everyone understand how this works. Many times, the limitations that are established at the very beginning with how the grant proposal is written, isn't understood by the public, therefore inviting unnecessary discontent. For instance, I am sure that the public art component was written into the proposal to garner a better outcome, but some might argue that there are better uses for those funds. By sharing the requirements of the grant, some of this energy can be directed into creating the best solution rather than arguing for or against, although that may certainly still happen.
Secondly along the funds idea, it wasn't until after the meeting that I learned that the road wasn't actually going to be reconstructed down to the soil as was thought by the interested citizens. Because of this lack of information, there were questions about why the road was resurfaced last year while this design procenn was going on, and why the replacement and upgrading of the aging and potentially insufficient (for future development) sub terrain utilities weren't coordinated with the other city departments which could have contributed more funds to the overall project. Since we only get this opportunity every few decades if that, we as citizens expect for central Phoenix to have our infrastructure replaced and upgraded as part of the improvement of surface ammenities. Please consider this expectation for future projects as they cross your desk.
Since the Complete Streets proposal is still under consideration and creation, it doesn't surprise me that there wasn't much knowledge about which components of the project would follow such a concept. Since this is the case, sharing that the Phoenix Complete Streets proposal wasn't used as part of the guidelines because it isn't policy yet would have been appropriate. As would also sharing some specifics about what the national Complete Streets programs have that are included in the redesign.
Lastly, there was plenty of concern and suggestions that parking on street needed to be incoroporated into the design. Please keep in mind that the request wasn't for parking at the expense of trees for pedestrian zones. We want to have flexible parking options that are appropriate for each portion of the project, but not at the expense of shade trees. We believe this isn't an either or proposition, but rather an 'and' need. The need for natural and mechanical shade over pedestrian zones doesn't go away with parking, and we expect that the proper combination of trees, sidewalk pavement, and parking surfaces can all co-exist as a unified element and will create a great pedestrian experience while allowing those with vehicles to find spaces for short term parking near their destination.
Thank you for your continued work on behalf of the citizens of downtown Phoenix. We realize this is a thankless job at times and you are held to guidelines beyond your control. Your efforts into making Phoenix the best place it can be is very appreciated.
Thomas Topero
Downtown Resident
Thank you for taking the time to share with us on Wednesday about the Roosevelt Street Project. There are a few things that I observed at the meeting that I would like to share with you as an informed citizen observer. Some of these issues are ones that you can address, while others are beyond your pay grade, but you can still assist in directing us to where we can focus our energies to make the adjustments we see needed.
Much of what was shared seemed to be frustrations with hitting against policies, precedence, limited resources mindset, and absentee/disrepectful land/building owners that all make establishing our neighborhoods and public spaces as the best they can be more difficult than the active citizenry believes it should be. While these issues will always be present, to get the most out of the public support, I think there needs to be better communication between those who are interested and active in making improvements, and the city forces. Conveying that this is just how it is because of what the rules and policies are does not address the desire of interested people to work with the city resources to make the result the best possible.
These are also great opportunities to share how the city is utilizing the resources available to the max. With limited funds, certain priorities are obviously going to arise, and it would be helpful to share how those funds are used and contribute to the design. For instance, remind us of the budget available and how it breaks down to the major components: engineering/design, site work, public art, etc. Although there will always be people who disagree with one choice or another, I think a little of this information can go a long way toward helping everyone understand how this works. Many times, the limitations that are established at the very beginning with how the grant proposal is written, isn't understood by the public, therefore inviting unnecessary discontent. For instance, I am sure that the public art component was written into the proposal to garner a better outcome, but some might argue that there are better uses for those funds. By sharing the requirements of the grant, some of this energy can be directed into creating the best solution rather than arguing for or against, although that may certainly still happen.
Secondly along the funds idea, it wasn't until after the meeting that I learned that the road wasn't actually going to be reconstructed down to the soil as was thought by the interested citizens. Because of this lack of information, there were questions about why the road was resurfaced last year while this design procenn was going on, and why the replacement and upgrading of the aging and potentially insufficient (for future development) sub terrain utilities weren't coordinated with the other city departments which could have contributed more funds to the overall project. Since we only get this opportunity every few decades if that, we as citizens expect for central Phoenix to have our infrastructure replaced and upgraded as part of the improvement of surface ammenities. Please consider this expectation for future projects as they cross your desk.
Since the Complete Streets proposal is still under consideration and creation, it doesn't surprise me that there wasn't much knowledge about which components of the project would follow such a concept. Since this is the case, sharing that the Phoenix Complete Streets proposal wasn't used as part of the guidelines because it isn't policy yet would have been appropriate. As would also sharing some specifics about what the national Complete Streets programs have that are included in the redesign.
Lastly, there was plenty of concern and suggestions that parking on street needed to be incoroporated into the design. Please keep in mind that the request wasn't for parking at the expense of trees for pedestrian zones. We want to have flexible parking options that are appropriate for each portion of the project, but not at the expense of shade trees. We believe this isn't an either or proposition, but rather an 'and' need. The need for natural and mechanical shade over pedestrian zones doesn't go away with parking, and we expect that the proper combination of trees, sidewalk pavement, and parking surfaces can all co-exist as a unified element and will create a great pedestrian experience while allowing those with vehicles to find spaces for short term parking near their destination.
Thank you for your continued work on behalf of the citizens of downtown Phoenix. We realize this is a thankless job at times and you are held to guidelines beyond your control. Your efforts into making Phoenix the best place it can be is very appreciated.
Thomas Topero
Downtown Resident
No comments:
Post a Comment