Quote:
Originally Posted by mja
It would be an epic battle. Many in Fairmount consider those ballfields the beating heart of the neighborhood. Many of those same people also don't want dense towers there, nor want the area to feel more lively. Many of those same people have plentiful access to financial and legal resources. To say nothing of the terrible optics of plopping luxury towers on land that was literally used as a major protest against housing inequity.
Living there, I've long thought about this and I'm torn on it. Agreed that in the grand scheme of things, it makes sense for it to be residential, but part of the reason people choose Fairmount is that it does have some disconnect with Center City. Life agreeably slows down just a tad. I wonder if there's a way to cut the apple in half, to reconfigure the space (there's a large playground there, too, remember, as well as some unused grassy areas on the western most part of the lot) to go to one ball field while carving in space for a tower on the NE corner. Maybe sell the idea to the neighborhood by upgrading the rec space that's left over to make it really special and more worthy of it's prominent location.
|
A level of compromise is needed. I don't advocate for developing every green space along the Parkway, but there are certainly plots that can be developed and in return upgrade other playing fields, add a dog park, or a large playground for kids, etc.
Another compromise would be limiting height. For example, I would be fine with 10-12 story buildings, if they resembled higher quality buildings in DC City Center.
But in the end I think we can all agree more residential is needed to truly enliven the Parkway. (along with restaurants, cafes, more cultural options, etc.).