1. Traffic schedule amendments (More bus pickups)
2. Waterfront access (Pier parks)
3. Traffic schedule amendments (More public parking/vertical garages)
4. Public  drinking water/restrooms
5. Utilization of piers

While I believe public restrooms and drinking water would be beneficial to Old Port (I don’t believe they are necessary in less-touristy neighborhoods), I think retooling traffic assignments and increasing pleasurable waterfront access are more important to the City of Portland. Looking at these changes in terms of excitement factor (because, let’s be honest, who doesn’t get giddy about traffic schedule amendments) I would argue that utilization of the piers by the development of public recreation areas (similar to a park, but with outdoor exercise equipment, physical challenges, etc), private housing (similar to the condos already present on the piers), and  restaurants/entertainment venues (similar to DiMillos) would have the most direct impact on the city, specifically the Old Port. I am imagining transforming one, or preferably several, of the run-down, seemingly abandoned piers into a greenspace intended to allow access to the waterfront, provide pleasurable public space for visitors and citizens, and enhance the value of surrounding buildings. This project has already been tested in small scale in Portland at Moontide Park, beside the new Ocean Gateway Pier near Hancock and Thames Streets. I experienced this park this summer at the Shipyard Half-Marathon after-party, where there was a concert, beer garden, and other great activities in the pleasant greenspace. A second, larger scale example is Race Street Pier in Philadephia, PA. (http://www.visitphilly.com/museums-attractions/philadelphia/race-street-pier/)

Doesn’t that look like an inviting greenspace?! Now, imagine adding outdoor exercise equipment, in an effort similar to one from Ben Butterworth Parkway in my hometown of Moline, Illinois. Check out: http://www.genesishealth.com/healthinfo/healthbeat/ , the hospital system sponsoring the exercise program in my town.

Upon investigating the City Council’s minutes, I have found nothing discussing the development of the seemingly abandoned piers we walked through on our field trip. I did find an interesting change to the Traffic Schedule that amended a “Bus Zone” and “No Parking” zone to a “Two Hour Metered Parking” and “Bus Zone”.¹ I suppose that translates into additional parking spots for the city, but there was probably a reason the no parking zone was necessary (reasons aren’t mentioned in the document). Not surprisingly, the motion was passed unanimously, as most of the topics in the City Council meeting are.² (It seems the only divisive topics are protection of existing parks and the school system. Perhaps the development of new parks may also be highly contested?)

In the beginning of Against the Smart City, Greenfield directly states that the way “city dwellers collectively understand, approach and use the environment around us” is rapidly changing.³ Why don’t we embrace this sentiment and advocate for the redevelopment of the piers? Even though there have been issues in the past with new condos on the water, we now know the allure and value of those properties. Following the examples of Race Street Pier, Moon Tide park, and Ben Butterworth Parkway, we know the project is feasible. Next, we should investigate the legal, financial, and governmental blockades. Ultimately, I believe it is worthwhile to investigate the development of the piers as public greenspaces, as well as food, entertainment, and housing options.

¹http://me-portland.civicplus.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/647?fileID=2766

²http://portlandmaine.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/06162014-438

³Greenfield, Adam. 2013. Selections from Against the Smart City. 1.3 edition. Do projects.