Brian and Chris,
First Creek Greenway is supposed to be the city's exemplar urban greenway project.
I didn't see anything "exemplary" in the plan we reviewed yesterday.
It demonstrated the same unimaginative, uninspired thinking that will not make the city a leader in urban recreational trails, and will not make Knoxville a "cool" city in which to live, work, and play.
Here's a map of an alternative I have in mind that seems more likely to meet greenway users' expectations for an actual "greenway," rather than a "sidewalk pretending to be a greenway."
My suggested path is nowhere near the City's and/or Ross/Fowler's concept.
And, as I expressed interest in at yesterday's Greenways Commission meeting, my path goes by the Howard House / Walmart property.
If the developer wants a Walmart at the parcel as depicted in the schematic shown above, the developer should be required to put in a greenway, as was done at Love's Creek Walmart in East Knoxville (see image below).
The Wal-mart developer's plans call for a "retaining wall" on the property, further "boxing in" First Creek and making it forever unaccessible to Knoxvillians to enjoy our natural heritage.
In the center of the conceptual image I created directly below is Centerpoint Church, where the Walmart and retaining wall on First Creek is planned.
Instead of losing this creek access to yet another concrete canyon, we should seize on it to install a greenway as part of the development.
Note the curving area along the Northwest side of First Creek at the top of the image: collaboration with two property owners is all that is needed to accomplish this.
Collaboration with one property owner is all that is needed to connect Atlantic to the Howard House property.
In all of these feasibility studies, the idea of collaboration with private property owners seems to be anathema, "too difficult to consider." I'd like to suggest that a thoughtful proposal for "what might be" could be the first step in convincing property owners to grant easements or other accommodations for greenway infrastructure.
Further up is in the image is the section, "Office Depot to Atlantic."
Although this shows a path along Broadway for a bit, gaining a truly "creekside" path seems to be the trade-off. And if a flood control project is done on the South side of Emoirland, perhaps even more "creekside" pathway could be installed.
Finally, the greenway should go on the West side of First Creek at Broadway Shopping Center.
I believe there is plenty of room, even with the gas station taken into account.
I also believe that the businesses at Broadway Shopping Center would welcome a greenway.
I also think we should try to go under the bridge, it is similar to the concrete arch bridge at Cumberland Avenue and Third Creek Greenway.
This brings me to a key complaint:
It infuriates me when sidewalks are proposed as greenways.
We should have greenways AND sidewalks, not sidewalks that are also greenways.
I don't want to be beside a road when I'm running, biking or walking.
Sidewalks are historically nicknamed "deathwalks."
It is only a matter of time before a car hops a curb and kills someone using a "greenway" on a sidewalk.
Besides risking death, I do not want to breath car exhaust or be splashed with oily road water during rain storms.
We do not need to be spending "greenway" funds on "neighborhood connectors" that should already have exemplary pedestrian infrastructure.
We do not need to be designing greenways along roadways.
I've put together some alternatives to the City's proposal, which I find unacceptable.
I do not understand the city's fixation with connecting Parks; this is the wrong way to go about things.
I don't understand the city's aversion to approaching private landowners as part of the feasibility study; this is also wrong.
The plans being proposed should present the "best" route, not the "easiest" route.
Furthermore, "best" for users is likely highly divergent from "best" for city planners.
We still don't have the criteria the city is using to advise Ross Fowler on the "best route."
"Connecting Parks" Should not be one of them.
As a spur? Certainly, I'm all for that.
But centering the design on Park connectivity, and "easiest" park connectivity at that, is incorrect.
For all of this money we're spending on "feasibility" concepts, we need to be inspiring people for what might be possible, not inspiring people to take the path of least resistance.
Sidewalk "greenways" and "neighborhood connectors" are not, by any stretch of the imagination, inspiring.
Thanks,
Tanner
No comments:
Post a Comment