Categories

State subdivision plan for Route 195 land

I’m sure we’ll look at this further soon, but you can head over to ProJo now and download the state plans for subdividing the Route 195 land. There’s some controversy about some of the parcels being oversized.

, , , , , ,

5 Responses to State subdivision plan for Route 195 land

  1. Jack May 13, 2010 at 3:17 pm #

    What’s with the new format of not having headlines for every post?

  2. Jef Nickerson May 13, 2010 at 3:29 pm #

    They are “asides,” but to be honest, I’m not totally happy with how I have them implemented so far. Haven’t had the time to tinker with the CSS and make them the way I want yet.

    “Asides” are for small posts, a couple sentences, just some information thrown out there. Something like a Tweet or a Facebook update, except those things are here, rather than there.

    Do you have any feedback on them? Good, bad, horrific!?

  3. Tangorre May 15, 2010 at 2:31 am #

    Tend to scroll right over them, thinking it’s part of another post.

  4. Peter Brassard May 15, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    I agree, I was confused by the lack of a header. Maybe short posts like this could be labeled “Item” or “Item #_” or something else.

    Response to the Projo article:
    I heard that the newly proposed large parcel that would be created by the elimination of the portion of Eddy Street that was to be reconstructed within the west portion of the 195 land was an effort to give flexibility for designing a project(s). It would offer an opportunity for an east west street, or easement, or open space that would create better shaped lots for development and better orient a street condition that would lead to the river/park than what has been shown in official plans so far.

    It might have been better if they actually proposed a street or put some kind of language or restrictive declaration insuring that the combined parcels would contain an open feature or street roughly in the center of the site.

    As for the eastern side of the highway land, an East Side neighborhood resident complained that the proposed lots were too large and were out of context with the neighborhood and would block views of the river. Funny how there’s even less views today because there are no breaks what so ever in the two-story high highway/ramp system to the north of Wickenden. The new proposed streets will offer both water views and pedestrian and vehicular access, which are absent today.

  5. Jack May 17, 2010 at 8:55 am #

    I like the concept of “asides.” While they may not require an entire post, they make for some interesting information. Leaving them as is, doesn’t convey what they are about.

    If you published all asides as a digest under one heading, it could be more interesting.

Leave a Reply