Hemming Plaza Death walk of ......Death

[buckethead]

I see what you guys are doing, and I'm not falling for it.

Sarcastic little ruse that it is.

Firstly Jeffrey, you clearly avoided all the ne'er do wells to fluff the park's image. I went there a couple years ago and someone asked me for money. I vehemently denied their request. (Not something the average suburbanite is capable of pulling off.)

Additionally, there is but one recourse to revitalize our urban core: Make it so unbearable that homeless people are unwilling to traverse the area. Then those of us who would rather not be burdened by the underclass will surely flock in and make it a paradise with our mere presence.

Homeless people HATE barren urban landscapes but affluent types simply rush in at the chance to enjoy a concrete desert, so long as it is devoid of street urchins.

The trees, the benches, the fountains.... MUST GO!

If we keep the park intact, THE TERRORISTS WIN!

[ChriswUfGator]

That is kind of the problem here, isn't it.

Homeless people are still PEOPLE. If you make something designed so that can't be comfortable for one type of person, that kind of includes the rest of us as well doesn't it? Regardless of where we lay our head at night, we all put our pants on the same way, have the same physical structure, etc. What they're doing by taking out anything that makes it comfortable for homeless people is also making it untenable for people generally, which is really idiotic. Whatever the problems were before, they'll be worse now.

[ronchamblin]

We have choices about the park.  Some have suggested leaving it alone, making small changes and improvements, replacing diseased trees, thereby not spending much money (my preference by far).  Some are suggesting more radical changes, removal of the trees and table/chair units, with increased spending.

And most people are talking about programming it with activities, adding some permanent vendors, encouraging locals to utilize the park, and enforcing rules to gradually ban any troublemakers in the park.  We might find that, at the end of the day, as Denise Lee likes to say, this positive approach will solve the problem no matter what is physically done to the park. ?

The question is whether or not the expensive moves suggested are going to solve the problem of the habitual occupiers.  In other words, we might find that after spending the money to remove some of the amenities of the park, including the trees, the same occupiers will be there still. 

This is the scenario we've all seen before.  An action is taken because of the pressure to “solve a problem” at any cost, an action of seeming desperation; the money is spent, and it comes to nothing of significance simply because the action was not related to the real problem.  In other words, the real issues or solutions were missed.

In my view, when the solution is not clear, when it is complex and sensitive, which the park problem is, it is best to do very little, instead of spending great sums of money to perform somewhat radical changes.  However, if the proposed changes were clearly the solutions, then by all means, make them, and spend the money.  But who among us can confidently say that the proposed changes will produce the desired results?  Who among us can confidently say that the end result will not be more damaging in the long run than simply leaving the park as it is?

Regarding the comments about the peripheral park areas, only the south edge of the park has buildings appropriate for convenient sidewalk entry retail.  The Dalton agency, on this south edge, at least as far as contributing to the "vibrancy” of the park, is somewhat of a loss, as it clearly does not contribute to any “excitement” in the environment, as would be the case with certain retail establishments.  As others have mentioned, the more street level retail we can locate surrounding the park, the better for all aspects of the problem we currently have; and this, simply because doing so will entice more people to the park, which will in turn, produce a more viable balance of individuals in the park.   

Homeless, transients, loafers, unemployed, bums, and panhandlers are in the park, some being troublemakers who cause visitors to be wary of the park.  But in the park too, are individuals relaxing, local workers, visitors from outside the city, local residents, retired people simply wanting to enjoy nature, the shade of the oaks, who want to play a game of chess, who want to enjoy the company of others, to converse with interesting people, some of these being the "element" with which we've been concerned, who are sometimes more interesting and refreshing in conversation, certainly more honest in many respects, than many in our working lives.   

Fundamentally, just as with many things in life, we are talking about a balance, a moderation, an ideal, and how to achieve it.  Conditions sometimes respond better to subtle pressures, to certain delicate actions, the right ones of course, whereas careless force or action occasionally results in further imbalance, or destruction. 

Don't forget.  City Council meeting this Tuesday at 6:00 p.m., and the Hemming Park meeting, to which all are invited, on the 18th at 10:00 a.m. at city hall, in the Davis Room.

[thelakelander]

Regarding the comments about the peripheral park areas, only the south edge of the park has buildings appropriate for convenient sidewalk entry retail.  The Dalton agency, on this south edge, at least as far as contributing to the "vibrancy” of the park, is somewhat of a loss, as it clearly does not contribute to any “excitement” in the environment, as would be the case with certain retail establishments.  As others have mentioned, the more street level retail we can locate surrounding the park, the better for all aspects of the problem we currently have; and this, simply because doing so will entice more people to the park, which will in turn, produce a more viable balance of individuals in the park.

I believe all four edges are salvagable.  The east edge has the library and the museum.  The library has two poorly  regulated retail spots.  A simple policy change and RFP for those spaces can be a solution to activate that edge.  The same goes for the vacant city-owned church on the south edge. 

The west edge can easily accommodate a built in vendor or two by taking advantage of the skyway's over engineered foot print.  The north edge would be an ideal location for a couple of designated food truck vendor locations.  Having rotating vendors on that edge could be a plus that doesn't cost anything as well.  In the long run, it would be good for the city to repurpose some of its street level space facing the park, back into retail space.  Outside of the last suggestion, everything I just mentioned most likely makes the city money instead of costing taxpayers.

[ronchamblin]

Yes, some areas are salvageable.  I like the idea of doing something on the west edge, around the Skyway structure.  Currently this area is totally neutral.  One of the easiest changes would be the old Shelby's in the library.  Perhaps we can talk Dalton's into moving into an upper level of the Jacobs Jewelry building so that Boomtown can reopen there. 

[tufsu1]

keep in mind that Subway is in the Dalton Building on the south edge....and they have outdoor seating.

also, Quizno's is across from the southwest corner of the park

[thelakelander]

Unfortunately, they are too isolated to make a significant impact.  Hemming needs more of that activity on all for sides to truly activate its outer square. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

What happened to the chili bar that was in front of city hall?

[I-10east]

Sure we can have a couple of hot dog carts, and some hidden cafes/stores (that many most likely won't even know about anyway, and don't expect any dramatic outdoor signage) in the peripheral Hemming areas like the Library, and City Hall, but is that gonna significantly revitalize Hemming? Where's the significant retail? The south edge has the best chance for a store, but even with that, don't except nothing large in size. I hate talking about the glory yesteryear days, but maybe Jax was on to something concerning DT vibrancy in the past; With key retail places like Woolworth, and May Cohens that are now gone (nothing unique with many DTs all over the US at the time). We have to face it, those days are long gone, I don't see any notable retail ever being in that area, that 'was' supposed to shift to the Landing. We have to come up with new ideas concerning Hemming with special events, small vendors, etc. I'm just trying to be realistic, not pessimistic.

[Timkin]

Sure we can have a couple of hot dog carts, and some hidden cafes/stores (that many most likely won't even know about anyway, and don't expect any dramatic outdoor signage) in the peripheral Hemming areas like the Library, and City Hall, but is that gonna significantly revitalize Hemming? Where's the significant retail? The south edge has the best chance for a store, but even with that, don't except nothing large in size. I hate talking about the glory yesteryear days, but maybe Jax was on to something concerning DT vibrancy in the past; With key retail places like Woolworth, and May Cohens that are now gone (nothing unique with many DTs all over the US at the time). We have to face it, those days are long gone, I don't see any notable retail ever being in that area, that 'was' supposed to shift to the Landing. We have to come up with new ideas concerning Hemming with special events, small vendors, etc. I'm just trying to be realistic, not pessimistic.

Unless we return the area to what worked and made it thriving... that is , various destinations , not just a couple of hot dog stands and a night club or two,  IT WILL NEVER COME BACK!   When retail died there, it was never to be the same again.

I too am not being pessimistic.  I remember it when the plaza had retail and a Hotel , and eateries, and destinations.  When Retail , The Robert Meyer, etc were wiped out, so was the area.

To me , other than fixing what truly needs to be fixed in Hemming Plaza, and taking care of , not cutting down trees,  I do not see the need for a tab like what is proposed for the area.

Want to get the homeless out of there? Good idea , but they have to go somewhere.

The Video , as it was presented as the topic of this thread portrays a beautiful park that to me at least, does not need much to still be beautiful.  When they dig it up and destroy it, it is just more taxpayer money down the drain and will result in an even less-populated park.  I think personally its a colossal waste of money.   As Chris pointed out, removal of damaged furniture there?  PRETTY PRICEY Tab on that alone.

The break down of that proposal just stinks, and a lot of it is just not necessary.