To the editor:
As the former chair of a previous rendition of a Downtown PIC, going back more than 15 years, I can assure you that there’s nothing new under the sun.
The conversations we’ve been having about downtown are mostly the same ones we’ve been having for decades. The players may change, but the issues haven’t. There are no perfect plans, only tradeoffs. There will be opposition to whatever plan the town pursues. That’s very Westport.
I’ve always been a proponent of embracing the river, one of our town’s great assets. We have historically zoned for parking on the river and we’ve slowly tried to reverse that poor decision. The concept of an “Emerald Necklace,” with a semi-continuous greensward connecting green spaces around downtown has always appealed to me.
I believe the proposed changes to Jesup and Parker Harding are consistent with that vision. The fact that such changes have not yet happened, despite many years of debate, indicates how complex and challenging this worthy goal really is.
And then we have the parking discussion. From my perspective, today’s Westport is a bit different than when we were contemplating parking changes years ago. I submit that the situation is more urgent than in the past and the dilemma of how to handle Parker Harding upgrades reflects concerns about diminished parking. Shifting spaces to Jesup indicates that we’re worried about losing any spaces overall.
I’m encouraged that the administration has admitted the need to consider structured parking options. It effectively acknowledges that a mere shift of spaces from one lot to another is not resolving a growing parking issue. But there will always those in our community who categorically oppose a parking deck no matter how dire the parking situation. That intransigence is not constructive.
What’s missing is a truly comprehensive analysis and plan for downtown parking, something my ancient DPIC recommended. Dealing with parking on a lot-by-lot, piecemeal basis is more reactive than strategic, in my opinion. I thought the retailer’s comment today that we might need as many as 300 additional spaces, even if somewhat exaggerated, as a wake-up call for the town. We haven’t had that conversation as a community, and we need to.
Let me be clear, there’s never a perfect time to do a comprehensive plan. Projects can’t stand still indefinitely, awaiting the big solution. But I think it’s always a good time to plan because the plan will inevitably come in handy. There would be stronger justification for the plan the DPIC has brought forward if it was in the context of an agreed-upon downtown parking plan intended to address current and future needs.
So I applaud the DPIC’s efforts to finally move forward with the best information we have at hand. One can critique the DPIC’s process; e.g., maybe it could have engaged retail representatives earlier and differently. One can criticize the administration for poor process and communication, something that has plagued it on a number of town projects recently. And certainly the phased approach to evolving Jesup leaves us all nervous about whether there will be follow through and the full vision for Jesup achieved anytime soon. Destroying precious green space with the promise of regaining it later seems suboptimal.
But it’s time to move forward to the benefit of the community. I can support good process and not rushing to judgment, although I think there will be ample opportunity for town bodies and the public to weigh in. I’m sure I will quibble with specific choices in these plans. It will be our failure to the citizens of Westport if we allow sloppy process and some differences of opinion to sabotage needed change.
Jonathan Steinberg
State representative
Westport
Executive summary: anyone who opposes parking garages is a bad person; we should have done better planning bu
…but the heck with it, break out the chain saws
Thank you, Jonathan, for your very thoughtful and public-spirited take on the mired process of addressing the future of Westport’s downtown parking. A key you make is that the current plan does not work from a long term vision for downtown parking and related issues. And this lack might be at the heart of the hesitancy of many to sign off on the current plan. I strongly believe that if we are to consider parking from a long term perspective, then decked parking must receive a full discussion and consideration from all parties, bearing in mind that downtown merchants are not the only stake holders, although a very important one.
I also agree that creating a parking lot directly on our riverfront was a mistake, and the present proposal would not restore a connection to what could be the scenic magnet for our downtown. I’m confident that at some point in the future this mistake will be rectified, but that will be difficult to envision until we feel we will have abundant parking going forward.
Ha ha, they didnt create a parking lot on the riverfront, on the contrary, they built the buildings along the riverfront during colonial times. Then, in the 50s, the building owners paid to fill in the river behinf their buildings to create a parking lot. This lot is what made downtown shopping great. This lot is the anchor for all of downtown.
So it wasn’t empty space along the river, it was the rliver.
So you see, you have it backwords.
Todd,
I didn’t at any point suggest that the Parker Harding lot pre-dated the downtown buildings. The objective fact is that we have a parking lot directly adjacent to our riverfront, which I think is not the best use for that area for all concerned. You don’t; we disagree.
Well, gentlemen can disagree over a use case analysis.
However, it is important to understand that the Parker Harding parking lot is the undisputed anchor for the success of downtown in modern times.
This objective fact should not be twisted, to be looked at as a mistake or bad zoning decision from the past. It was one of Westports greatest transformational projects.
The intended use is for cars.
When one drives down into the lot, down by the water, along the river, one is introduced to Westports beautiful aspects. One parks and goes shopping, which is the intended use for downtown since olden times.
All objective studies have shown a use case analysis for the Green Necklace reveals a kind of strangulation effect that conflicts with shopping as the best use for that spot, where all the stores are, for which it was built and intended.