Columbia Ave Connector Mtg w DWRC

St Benjamin Brew pointed this out to me, so I thought I should clarify --

This is *not* a meeting to discuss yes or no to soundwalls.

As part of the I-95 Girard Ave interchange improvements, PennDOT has to redo several underpasses. When they redo the underpasses, PennDOT will put in the infrastructure for potential improvements (electrical for lighting, decorative concrete, holes for greenery, etc).

Del River Waterfront Corp has contracted with an architect (Studio Bryan Haynes) to draw up several options for underpass improvements. The mockups should be based upon community feedback from preliminary design meeting held at 2424 studios last spring.

Soooo, at this meeting
1) Studio Bryan Haynes will present several different detailed mockups for the Columbia Ave connector specifically
2) We get to tell Studio Bryan Haynes & DRWC what we like and what we dont

Then, based upon what we like and what we dont, the Del River Waterfront Corp can let PennDOT know what infrastructure to put in the underpasses (and also, I presume, make sure it fits in with the Master Plan for the Central Delaware). The finer details of the plans (specific art, lighting, or whatever) will not be done by PennDOT.

Does this make sense? Clear as mud, right?

I'll be there with all my anti-soundwall friends.
Of course, we don't like traffic noise either.
We want I-95 routed out to the Expressway, up the Blue Route, and back east on the Turnpike.

Oh, I didn't mean to say I thought it was a soundwall meeting, I meant I wasn't sure if it would be LIKE the soundwall meetings, where I went to 3 of the same meeting then got mailed several times to vote on the same thing I voted on in a meeting. It was all so redundant. I figure if this is handled the same way I can safely skip the first few.

Also, I did try to RSVP and the email bounced FYI.

Yeah there's at least 2 million peeps in the Del Val who would scream bloody murder if that pipe-dream ever happened.

Hmm, at the last ORCA meeting I didn't see much opposition for sound walls. A number of folks who live in the Triangle turned out for the last meeting there was about it. There was a LOT of interest in those clear walls.

I'm wall-gnostic. I don't care.

I am way, way more interested in what is going to happen to Richmond Street and Bridge Street. Can't speak for the neighborhood, but there's a strong sentiment in wanting to see development on the other side of 95 so "the universe" doesn't end at 95.

I for one would love to see the day where I can walk 3 blocks from my house and be able to relax on the riverfront and see the bridge.

what? gnostic is the opposite of agnostic, and agnostic doesnt mean you dont care, but rather that you dont or can't know.

BUMP

Tuhnight folks

He has a secret special knowledge of the wall.

Was anybody able to make it last night?

The rumblings on twitter were that the meeting was anti-tree, which I am disappointed about from a personal perspective.

I was there...It was my first meeting of its kind, and ummm, interesting. I guess it was my first taste of the newcomer v. old timer dynamic, which I still find silly, but I am at last convinced it exists. Anyway, folks were very unwilling to lose 4 parking spots total in order to accomodate the trees. Now, the question will be if there can be a compromise, like only lose 2 spots and fit in two thirds of the possible trees...It sounds like there will be a follow on meeting, with a few scenarios for the Columbia Ave residents to possible vote on. Folks didn't sound quite as opposed to fitting in maybe 2 extra trees per block on the ends, but no bump-outs on the rest of the block. There was a lot of talk of making more entry points to I-95 N, to reduce traffic on Columbia Ave, and also a desire for more lighting on the block. That was about it...All in all, glad I went, and REALLY glad they're doing the project.

I heard that people were suggesting hanging plants and/or painted trees as a substitute for real trees?

"Anyway, folks were very unwilling to lose 4 parking spots total in order to accomodate the trees. "
I'm confused. Do they want trees in the street? Why can't you park where a tree is? (I'm seriously asking this, as most trees are on the pavement.)

The plan is to place 3/4 trees between parking spots -- maybe one per block? All attendeees were not opposed to the trees; a few very vocal new residents pointed out that they'd recently moved onto Columbia and while they loved the proximity of PTP, they'd love to see more trees planted on the street.

Yes, there were suggestions about "faux greening" but also really creative ideas about greening without sacrificing parking should opposition grow. I thought it was a very good, productive meeting and that Sarah Thorpe did an excellent job of addressing concerns and possible solutions.

I suggested artisinal tree cut-outs -- made of 100% recycled material -- placed directly on the sidewalk. It would save parking and create tree creation jobs. Win-win.

I'm not sure I can picture exactly what you're describing (if you have an example I'd love to see it), but it sounds infinitely more creative and interesting than simply painting trees on a wall in hopes that it will fool someone into thinking that they're in a park.

Because of the way wires are on the street, they cannot fit the trees on the sidewalks, and thus they would be in tree pits placed in the parking lane, in between parked cars.

And yes, hanging plants and painted trees came up.