Bigger parks for the outer east side
The City of Portland has announced that it's picked up three new parcels of land adjacent to existing parks, for park expansions. They're all on the Idaho side of I-205. The long-suffering folks out that way deserve a little love now and then, and so these appear to be good moves.
| Posted at 2:24 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (8)
Ramen to that.
Now...if we could just get these clowns to realize that if one is going to increase the intensity of residents living in any given area that recreational space will need to be provided to accomodate the increase in numbers of residents.
In other words, don't build more towers without providing more park space. That includes out here in inner SE, where we are, have been, and will continue to be...PARK DEFICIENT.
Posted by godfry | November 11, 2009 3:48 PM
Yet...the clowns at the core have decided that we will get greater density. Whether we want it, or not.
No new park space to accommodate those new residents, either.
This should be a requirement of any developer increasing the density in select areas of Portland: Provide additional recreational space within easy walking distance of the new units which do not require crossing a busy street.
Posted by godfry | November 11, 2009 4:19 PM
So these parks are now potential locations for minor league baseball!
Posted by Snards | November 11, 2009 4:46 PM
Sigh, the one thing many developers in California seemed to have gotten "right" was to include park space whenever they built a new subdivision. I've only recently been to Modesto area so I don't know about the rest of the severely damaged state. Granted the parks are a typical big square park with too few trees and too much grass, essentially mini-golf courses but at least effort was applied.
Posted by Stefan | November 11, 2009 5:26 PM
Yeah...It's still better than building and paving over everything in sight and then waiting for meteorite to hit create an opportunity for a swim center.
Posted by godfry | November 11, 2009 7:29 PM
Granted the parks are a typical big square park with too few trees and too much grass
But the land is still in public ownership. If instead it's just allowed to be developed privately, it's near-impossible to ever get it back.
Posted by john rettig | November 11, 2009 9:29 PM
Godfry-- Why should a developer have to build you a park on their land?
Posted by Brian | November 12, 2009 8:36 AM
Here's the propaganda release, constructed upon the 19th consecutive specious survey, regarding how this Auditor's Office imagines residents feel about their parks, with a passing mention of the latest acquisitions:
http://www.portlandonline.com/oni/?c=29385&a=271817
BTW, the modest-sized park on my street makes by far the largest contribution of leaves to the street and yards near it. For years, the Parks Bureau has resisted any responsibility for the deciduous burden. Now that the alleged mayor of our city has proposed a leaf assessment, it would appear we are to be doubly taxed by our Parks Bureau.
Posted by Gardiner Menefree | November 13, 2009 6:56 PM