Correspondent X and I were sitting around after some good-time family fun at Fluff Fest and the topic of the North St. Playground renovation came up. We're all about publicly funded recreation opportunities and recognize the importance of parks and playgrounds in a city in which the average backyard is (a) paved and (b) smaller than the average suburban driveway. That said, in difficult economic times we think it is important to make good choices and spend wisely etc. blah blah blah.
Let's start with the map. The map below includes most of Ward 7 (no offense to people living within the part that is not shown - hopefully, you have some playgrounds up there) and all of the parts that are relevant to a discussion of whether renovating the North St. Playground is worthwhile.
The green dots are the playgrounds/parks that I remembered off the top of my head (and that Correspondent X kindly verified during his bike ride today).
1) North St. Playground
2) Playground within the adjacent (to North St.) housing project.
3) Playground on Rt. 16 (DCR control but the city is trying to take over).
4) Woodstock St. Playground
5) Hodgkins-Curtin Park & Playground
6) Tufts Playground
7) Church at Curtis Ave and Powder House
Is this area (meaning the border between precincts 7-2 and 7-3) UNDER-served by playgrounds? You might dismiss numbers 2, 6, 7 above as they are likely meant to be restricted to their specific communities (residents or 'clients' of the church or Tufts day-care) and #6 is just over the border into Ward 6. Even if we eliminate those it is clear to me that anyone who might use North St. could easily be served by Woodstock, Hodgkins-Curtin, or the playground on Rt. 16. (and, before anyone argues that crossing Rt. 16 is too dangerous - the playground is right near a controlled crosswalk and we all know that in this 'Amber Alert' day and age no playground equipment using children are walking to a playground without an adult).
Furthermore, it seems to me from passing by the North St. playground that the most frequent users of that area are the young (mid-teen to mid-20s) men (primarily) and women who hang out at the picnic tables. If that is the case then perhaps the best use of this area would be to retain the basketball hoops and increase the number of picnic tables while removing the swing-sets etc. I had hoped to include a photo of the 'hanging-out' use but Correspondent X did not see anyone there around 12:30 this afternoon.
I hope that the idea of NOT renovating this playground will be a part of tomorrow night's discussion and, as she lives so close, I look forward to hearing what candidate (and mother of a young child) Ballantyne has to say about whether and how well this playground serves her own family's recreation needs.
-------------
Knowing that Correspondent X was going to try to get a photo of the North St. playground being used merely as a smoking lounge, I was glad to receive an e-mail from X along with a couple attachments (see photos below). The body of the e-mail included only a single question: What are the differences between these two photos?
I started listing the obvious differences: vertical vs. horizontal stripes on the shirt, long pants vs. shorts (with snowflake pattern - it must still be 'Fashion Week'), shoes vs. swim-slippers etc. Then, it dawned on me that Correspondent X's mile-wide "green stripe" was focusing on the bags - the Somerville man is carrying plastic bags and the Cambridge man is using re-usable environmentally sound bags (made from recycled milk bottles it seems).
But, I hadn't guessed the 'punch line' so Correspondent X sent me the original 'Somerville Man' picture (with face unobscured) which revealed him to be the husband of the candidate who is promising:
I'm seriously concerned with Correspondent X's obsession with the personal "green habits" of the candidate and suggest that she keep her recycling bin in the house until just before the Russell truck arrives lest Correspondent X go digging through it. ;)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment