DanL wrote:
as explained, the text/renderings are dificult to read.

I cannot easily see any differences between Concept A and B.

Notable changes from prior draft plan;

it looks like the children's playground while currently large, get larger under all concepts. In comparision, the prior plans split the existing one in two.

there is a small area, the width of a tennis court that is in the same location for Concept A and B, and is moved in C that I cannot deterime what it is.

concept C eliminates a tennis court, but then perhaps could not the dog run be moved to that location, away from residential buildings on Hamilton Pl W and 9th St. (edited)

lastly, a "PUTTING GREEN"????? where did this come from? Could not find any mention in the HPNA survey...

all three concepts appear to lead to more active and fenced in elements in the park.

Since, these concepts were not prepared by the city's consultants, T&M, why? and who is "Schoor and Depalma" the designer of these concepts working for - city or whom ....

I like the Friends of Liberty State Park slogan - FREE AND GREEN

when the bulldozers arrive in Hamilton Park to begin work and trees are chopped down in front of a row of brownstones to make room for a (fill-in-the-blank)

4bailey wrote:
[quote]Question... is this PDF on the Jersey City website the latest (most recent) plan??...

If not, does anyone know of a site/place where I can get the most up-to-date plan prior to the 3/22 meeting??...

TIA!

4bailey wrote:
Quote:

...And then compare it to the map of trees as proposed by T&M on page 61 of their plan:

http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/arch/MasterPlan.pdf

Question... is this PDF on the Jersey City website the latest (most recent) plan??...

If not, does anyone know of a site/place where I can get the most up-to-date plan prior to the 3/22 meeting??...

TIA!

...And then compare it to the map of trees as proposed by T&M on page 61 of their plan:

http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/arch/MasterPlan.pdf

jim399 wrote:
T&M's plan for Hamilton Park needs to be opposed. Check out the location of trees in Hamilton Park right now on this Google satellite photo:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en ... ie=UTF8&z=19&ll=40.727651,-74.044829&spn=0.001531,0.003382&t=k&om=0

And then compare it to the map of trees as proposed by T&M on page 61 of their plan:

http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/arch/MasterPlan.pdf

It looks like the existing trees will be chopped down and replaced with tiny ones along the paths.

25mcwilliams wrote:
The Parks Master Plan, including Hamilton Park has been posted to the JC web site. Note the price tag that T&M calculated:

http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/arch/MasterPlan.pdf

BrightMoment wrote:
[...]T&M/Public comments:
*Preliminary costs estimated at 2 to 5 million (T&M comment)

25mcwilliams wrote:
I was concerned that T&M did not have anyone taking notes at the meeting. I assume at the public meeting at city hall on 9/21 there will be minutes taken(stenographer?), and hopefully more structure such as a sign in to speak so nobody gets left out. The summary of the meeting - not minutes and far from complete, as appears on the 25mc site was e-mailed to Jeff of T &M.

Quote:

tern wrote:
I agree that these public mettings seems informal and ad-hoc. Are T&M actually noting down the points raised during these feedback sessions, and subsequently formally incorporating or rejecting them?

How is the feedback process supposed to work?

Robin.

ccitizen wrote:
I know people were suggesting that the dog run gets moved to the location where the de facto dog run is now. How many trees do you think they will have to cut down? Perhaps it would be possible to incorporate the trees into the dog run? From what I can tell, it looks like 3-5 might be at risk.

tern wrote:
I agree that these public mettings seems informal and ad-hoc. Are T&M actually noting down the points raised during these feedback sessions, and subsequently formally incorporating or rejecting them?

How is the feedback process supposed to work?

Robin.

StevenFulop wrote:
Hopefully you all have been doing well and enjoying the summer.

I have been working with T&M and other city officials to push forward with the Hamilton Park renovation project, and as a result have scheduled three meetings for public feedback on the drawings.

As a side note, the initial drawing will of course be based on the community surveys that were completed earlier as well as initial input/ideas from the different community groups based in Hamilton Park

Best Regards and looking forward to moving this forward with your help.

Steven Fulop


Dates
8/30 - Initial drawings
9/5 - Initial drawings
9/21 - Revised drawings

Location and Time ?
St. Francis at 7PM

BrightMoment wrote:
I would prefer the oldest arts organization in JC, under whose aegis the annual Jersey City Artists Studio Tour was begun by Charles Kessler in 1990:

DrEvil wrote:
Well I dont know if cell phones and people talking to neighbors through the meeting was the biggest problem with hearing what was going on. I have a hearing difficulty(probably casued by years in cryostasis) and I was able to follow most of it but for:

(i) some of the people asking questions were terrible mumblers. The questions had to be repeated. The answers were crystal clear. Boy are you ever so right! And how many times did the T&M guy say: "state your full name, where you live, before asking question" And some of these mumblers would keep stating their same point, over and over, ad nauseum. But then that's part of the "fun" of public meetings, people who don't listen and enjoy hearing themselves speak.

(ii) I know you should never complain about these things but, the large number of very little people in attendance. I have never attended a residents meeting with so many children in tow. Perhaps because this was a meeting about a park that some people thought it was pertinent for their children to be there. I never inflicted this kind of torture on my child, Scott, even being the evil person I am. I think I will have to send Fat Bastard to the next meeting.

LMAHO! Yeah, lots of tykes, kids, and guess none could find babysitters or felt that draggin' their babies along would give some kind of visual demo of where they stood on the park, ie, need for kid playgrounds/gardens.

Despite all that is was a very positive meeting, if a little uncomfortable for all the disturbances.

yes, perhaps the most effective mtg. I've been to in a long time, co-operative, informative, and most everyone got a chance to make their query, make their comments with feedback, and follow-up. Excellent mtg.!

brewster wrote:
Quote:

BrightMoment wrote:
I agree with both you and Brewster on temporary art. NO permanent pieces (see LSP topic thread to see why!), but rotated pieces open to ALL galleries and museums to submit, NOT just curated by JC Museum, will give great locale for diversity of art here in JC.

I would think it SHOULD showcase local art, but someone's got to be in charge of quality control and space design. If not the museum, then some other responsible arts organization under some sort of deal with the city.

Thanks for supporting the plaza idea.

BrightMoment wrote:
I agree with both you and Brewster on temporary art. NO permanent pieces (see LSP topic thread to see why!), but rotated pieces open to ALL galleries and museums to submit, NOT just curated by JC Museum, will give great locale for diversity of art here in JC.

Minnie wrote:
I think the planners should entertain temporary art installations to be showcased, and it should have some soft landscaping boundary protection.

I agree with both you and Brewster on temporary art. NO permanent pieces (see LSP topic thread to see why!), but rotated pieces open to ALL galleries and museums to submit, NOT just curated by JC Museum, will give great locale for diversity of art here in JC.

I also think that some portion of this park plan should be allocated to passive open space, and not just open space.

Looking at T&M's plans (thumbnail below)there are several area quandrants(from 5 o'clock on the spokes to 10 o'clock)bordered by West Hamilton Place that are "open space" and just like most parks, whether that area is "passive" or not is usually based on the social contract of who got there first, civility, neighborliness and common sense.


Green open space looks good on paper, but when it's dominated by balls and bats, it's no longer safe. If you've never been hit in the face by a fly ball you probably don't understand where I'm coming from. But it's pretty tough to sit in a lawn chair or lay on a blanket and read a book to catch some rays with folks batting balls your way.

If I saw you there "...laying on a blanket reading a book to catch some rays...", I would think it uncivil, unneighborly and total lack of common sense to start throwing a frisbee, batting a ball near where you were laying. I would say you'd have every right to complain, tell them to FU, or kick dirt in their face. I just don't think that you're going to to get T&M declaring "open space" as "passive space" or that this is gonna fly, but then good luck on getting it as if the majority support you, good on you.

One person at the meeting the other night said he wanted to see 'something' in the center of the open lawn to prevent the ball playing from continuing. The police do not respond to these kinds of matters and it will not change. Creative ways to prevent it should be considered. His solution to add landscaping, a tree (or art) in the center would help to prevent it.

Looking at the current plans there are 3 ball courts, 2 playgrounds, 1 dog run, and central social area. That is a lot of activity. One or two (of the 4) open lawns could surely be allocated for passive open space and include art works that could be rotated every few months, to appease those of us that like to look at things that don't move.

Although I agree that the gazebo is looking kind of shabby.... it is a nice place to hold events and concerts. It has come in handy on occasions when it rains and the people run for shelter. It would be a shame to take it out of the plans altogether.

No one at the mtg., including T&M, suggested to take the gazebo "...out of the plans altogether." and as Brewster's excellent idea here is to incorporate moving the fountain to the central plaza for all-seasonal multiple-utility, while keeping the Gazebo, but refurbished. Brewster's suggestion is instead a "WIN, WIN" solution!.

I agree that the gazebo is both shelter, bandstand and it's historical significance for Hamilton Park is full of rich history, so NO on getting rid of the gazebo!!


The fountain is a nice idea. But if we keep packing things in, something has to go. Just not the gazebo. Choose wisely.

Once again you're setting up a straw man argument: there is NO "Choose wisely" and an "either/or" on the gazebo/fountain!

T&M's original drawings AND Brewster's excellent revision, show BOTH gazebo and fountain and doing BOTH does not "...keep packing things in...". That's why we have professional landscape designers, of which T&M has over 40 years of excellent landscape design of parks, IMHO.

REDUX!