News-Record.com

Easy for Allen and Davis to tell downtown folks what o do. Build on every square inch of real estate. Pack people into buildings without adequate parking and without green space for flowers, trees and children playing.
What are you people thinking? Why ruin the Small Town Southern atmosphere that Greensboro once had and still manages to maintain a bit of?
Greensboro should be a wonderful place to raise children. The money spent to maintain a well-manacured, cold, formal park should be used for places to play and relax.
We need parks and yards and shady fun places to go where you don't have to buy alcohol to be welcome.
Nurture the daytime. After all, we are suppose to have more of it this summer.
And on that, moving stuff around, like daylight, doesn't really change it.

OK. So I can't even spell my name when I get on a rant.
But my main point is Greensboro is not Charlotte, thank goodness and it's not Raleigh, thank goodness, and it's not NY City, thank goodness.
Let's keep Greensboro green. Good jobs mean more green in our pockets and green trees mean better air in our lungs.

I would rather see the park. I think there is room enough to have two downtown parks and enough events to go around. Southside residents need a place they can walk to in just minutes. They shouldnt ave to walk 5 or 6 blocks to center-city park. The idea of more residential isnt bad at all but themore I think about it the more id rather see a park. Southside residents need to have a "commons area" where they can take their children and pets. buildings on that property would just obscure the BEST view of Greensboro's skyline. If we want to increase residential mass, we need to be focused on building VERTICALLY in other areas of downtown. land is becoming more and m ore limited and the way any city solves that problem is by building upward. These lowrise residential developments that we have are nice because they help promote more street level activity but its to Greensboro takes it to the next level. Instead of 3 to 4 story condo buildings, developers should be focusing on 9 to 15 story residential buildings that combine office and retail components. Center Pointe is a begining.

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? "They shouldnt have to walk 5 or 6 blocks..." Geeze Louise! I want a city funded park across the street from my house too. Where does the line start for the millions. Cmon. Im not against the park and if that land has no other viable options due to the location all the better. The market may have already decided that nothing can go there and of course there is a major player in the RR Co with something yet
to say.

Perhaps the Southside homeowners should buy the property and turn it into yet another private park. That way no ones view would be ruined. I have no intention of supporting public funds to protect Southsides view of the skyline.

I have a good friend who lives in Southside and she supports the park idea. She is not so sure about the funky new $240,000, one-bedroom Southside high-rises that loom over East Lee Street. "Who's going to buy them?" she asks.
And she worries that they'll wind up becoming rental property.

Of course she supports the park idea. I support the idea of a park across the street from my house too. That isnt the issue. Best use is the issue. If that happens to be a park then so be it. The proximity to RR may make all the differance here and again the RR will have a final say. As to the 1 bedrooms. Many real estate professionals, lenders, etc scoffed at the idea of Southside early on. Those $240,000 condos may fail. Such is the nature of the biz. Risk - reward.

The city obviously has too much of our money if they are considering yet another downtown park. The new car smell hasn't even worn off Center City Park yet - do we really need to pay for another one before we've even had one summer with the existing park?

Or here's an idea: if people in Southside really want a second park, why don't they collect an assessment or raise the money privately?

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see that property wind up as green space for the reasons Diane lists. I just don't see why the taxpayers should be expected to foot the bill for everything.

We dont even know if the city will own the land because the railroad company is talking about possibally leasing the land. Private ownership for residential development would be off the table then. Go to any major city downtown and you'll see a number of parks and public plazas. There is a reason for that.

Good point, Tim. I'm still OK with the park. As I mentioned earlier, there are plenty of places for people to live downtown right now. Let's fill them up, then get rid of some of those parking lots.

A park on the Southside would be a great addition to downtown. If there is only one suggestion I could make to the planning--include a dog run. Having lived in New York City, a dog run is invaluable to local residents with pets and a great way to foster community for dog owners.

Deanna, are you a Southside resident? Any Southside residents out there who'd care to weigh in?

It appears that Southside residents want a park. If we want the park to be utilized to the fullest extent, we need to listen to what Southside residents want and hopefully not what an urban planning firm from Atlanta or somewhere wants there. What Southside residents want may be totally different from whats offered at Center-City park. Residents may decide they would rather it become a "recreational" park unlke Center-City Park. So you just cant say just because we have Center-City Park it makes no sense to build another downtown park.

Am I the only one who knows that Southside already has a park replete with a great fountain and, last time I was there, has some Jim Gallucci gates among other amentities.

The Southside developer created the park and then donated it to the city back in 2003 (if memory serves).

How many city parks does one neighborhood need anyway?

I wouldnt really call it a park. Its a small green space with a fountain and a gate sculpture. Nothing much there other than the fountain and a few benches.

Not trying to get off the subject but Id also like to comment on the need for more residential downtown. Allen I think you are right. There can only be but so much demand for downtown condos being built at one time. However I think there is a pretty high demand for downtown apartments. There are plenty of opportunities for medium to large scale apartment developments. Right now City View is the only complex that is proposed but I think downtown needs upscale apartments as well as more affordable apartments that caters to college students and young professionals. I'd love to see a midrise to highrise student aparment building built on Commerce Street near Elon School of Law. Another apartment tower can be built on the gravel lot behind the Guilford Building.

Actually, what the city needs is a new Frederick Law Olmstead, and less splashy fountains and silly "gates" go nowhere. Nature is awful nice by herself, with a littke coaxing. One of the little towns I grew up in, Collinsville, CT, was lucky to get the Olmstead treatment, and it is written about as one of the best examples of its kind.
http://www.ctolmsted.org/
and
http://www.upress.virginia.edu/books/leff.html

If Greensboro wants to retain the kind of quaint look its downtown delivers with its preserved architecture, it needs public spaces that match.