I know you have been waiting, some with baited breath, for this post. Well - I hope your not too disappointed.
Let's begin with this item, from last Sunday - "Many wary of market changes"
Well, considering that none of Center in the Square's "leaked" changes have anything to do with reality - including the turning of the parking area for the market into a "European-style plaza." If the city council does not see the reason to close Market St. off to traffic on weekends who in their right mind would think that they would allow it to be closed permanently?
And did anyone consult with 202 Market - I mean, if you are going to put a giant stage next to them, I would think they should be asked - considering they too will have musical acts.
Not to mention the complete "bad-will" publicity that would be garnered by shoving multiple vendors off the market. My question is this - if it was a signature building 25 years ago when it opened as Center in the Square, whats wrong with it now?
And the idea of moving the vendors down the center of Market St. was a no-go two years ago, despite the "raves" from 2005.
Mayor McCheese, or Emperor Nelson of the Mayonnaise tribe spouted forth multiple times this week with bland platitudes of little meaning. "My desire would be that the farmers and florists on the market remain in the market area as they provide a certain ambience(sic) that makes the market area unique and attractive."
Well, yes - but what does it mean? It means the mayor does not want the farmers to leave the market area. Area does not equal Farmer's Market. This from the future George Hamilton (if you were at the St. Pat's parade - you'd get that).
Then we had another missive from Valley Forward, who actually had a good run of media attention this week. Pres. John Lugar was not exactly rational when questioned following a meeting of the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee on Thursday . "This wasn't unexpected, and it clearly shows the committee is dominated by one well-intentioned person with a very strong personality."
Oh, well bless his heart. At least he did not come right out and call the entire meeting a sham, the vote rigged by those who do not share his "Valley Forward" ideals, and the city of Roanoke a hell-hole. You know he wanted to. But no, he keeps touting that line about being "well-intentioned". If it will take a high-priced inn on Mill Mountain to attract (and retain) more folks like Mr. Lugar and Associated - oh well. Bless his heart, he's so well-intentioned.
Oh but wait - we were treated to a column in the Times by one Robert Fralin, vice-chairman of Valley Forward on Tuesday. Wait - I've read this before. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is simply an old press-release with a new paragraph added. Nice of the Times to give them this much press though, they need it - as the other projects the claim to champion have little or no information available. I'm guessing by the time the summer is over, they are going to wish they never even brought it up. Oh, but do not forget - they have the Gallop for the Greenways which would have been a great way to show they care about Roanoke, had it not been overshadowed by the Inn debacle.
Again, I'm not hating the idea of something on Mill Mountain. A restaurant, a cafe - but not another version of the Hotel Roanoke. Rockledge closed as an Inn, what makes Valley Forward think that the New Rockledge would be any more sustainable?
Roanoke City made part of Fishburn Park an "off-leash" heaven for dogs, and from what I understand - the response has been tremendous. Unfortunately, the ForgottenDogs are not bright enough to understand the concept of "come" and "stay" are not likely candidates for such a facility, but I do wholeheartedly support such an idea.
Oh, and one last thing - I do have my own opinions about what to do with Mill Mountain, how to make Roanoke cool, what to do with the Market area, and so forth. And a lot of them have a base in the Roanoke we will be celebrating with the 125th Anniversary - you'd be surprised what the past can show us, to lead us into the future.
You will be hearing more about them in the future. Much more.
Let's begin with this item, from last Sunday - "Many wary of market changes"
Well, considering that none of Center in the Square's "leaked" changes have anything to do with reality - including the turning of the parking area for the market into a "European-style plaza." If the city council does not see the reason to close Market St. off to traffic on weekends who in their right mind would think that they would allow it to be closed permanently?
And did anyone consult with 202 Market - I mean, if you are going to put a giant stage next to them, I would think they should be asked - considering they too will have musical acts.
Not to mention the complete "bad-will" publicity that would be garnered by shoving multiple vendors off the market. My question is this - if it was a signature building 25 years ago when it opened as Center in the Square, whats wrong with it now?
And the idea of moving the vendors down the center of Market St. was a no-go two years ago, despite the "raves" from 2005.
Mayor McCheese, or Emperor Nelson of the Mayonnaise tribe spouted forth multiple times this week with bland platitudes of little meaning. "My desire would be that the farmers and florists on the market remain in the market area as they provide a certain ambience(sic) that makes the market area unique and attractive."
Well, yes - but what does it mean? It means the mayor does not want the farmers to leave the market area. Area does not equal Farmer's Market. This from the future George Hamilton (if you were at the St. Pat's parade - you'd get that).
Then we had another missive from Valley Forward, who actually had a good run of media attention this week. Pres. John Lugar was not exactly rational when questioned following a meeting of the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee on Thursday . "This wasn't unexpected, and it clearly shows the committee is dominated by one well-intentioned person with a very strong personality."
Oh, well bless his heart. At least he did not come right out and call the entire meeting a sham, the vote rigged by those who do not share his "Valley Forward" ideals, and the city of Roanoke a hell-hole. You know he wanted to. But no, he keeps touting that line about being "well-intentioned". If it will take a high-priced inn on Mill Mountain to attract (and retain) more folks like Mr. Lugar and Associated - oh well. Bless his heart, he's so well-intentioned.
Oh but wait - we were treated to a column in the Times by one Robert Fralin, vice-chairman of Valley Forward on Tuesday. Wait - I've read this before. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is simply an old press-release with a new paragraph added. Nice of the Times to give them this much press though, they need it - as the other projects the claim to champion have little or no information available. I'm guessing by the time the summer is over, they are going to wish they never even brought it up. Oh, but do not forget - they have the Gallop for the Greenways which would have been a great way to show they care about Roanoke, had it not been overshadowed by the Inn debacle.
Again, I'm not hating the idea of something on Mill Mountain. A restaurant, a cafe - but not another version of the Hotel Roanoke. Rockledge closed as an Inn, what makes Valley Forward think that the New Rockledge would be any more sustainable?
Roanoke City made part of Fishburn Park an "off-leash" heaven for dogs, and from what I understand - the response has been tremendous. Unfortunately, the ForgottenDogs are not bright enough to understand the concept of "come" and "stay" are not likely candidates for such a facility, but I do wholeheartedly support such an idea.
Oh, and one last thing - I do have my own opinions about what to do with Mill Mountain, how to make Roanoke cool, what to do with the Market area, and so forth. And a lot of them have a base in the Roanoke we will be celebrating with the 125th Anniversary - you'd be surprised what the past can show us, to lead us into the future.
You will be hearing more about them in the future. Much more.
4 comments:
Here's what i said on Ms. Elaneous' blog comment regarding the sorry excuse for a dog park. I'd love to have a real one here in Roanoke but i'll keep dreaming.
The dog park idea is just set up for failure because Roanoke wants it that way. Dog parks have fenced in areas specifically for dogs and so it's safe. The area they set up is not a dog park. Nor do they want it that way so people won't take their dogs there because it has no fence. Only then they'll say, "no one used it, there is no use for a dog park here". Anyone can take a dog to a park and walk it around. But that is not considered a dog park, Roanoke, it's not. Who wants to take their dog to a park where it can run into the street because it has no fence? And since myself and a lot of dog owners have no children and pay taxes, isn't worth our tax money to at least install a fence?
I don't have any opposition to renovating Center. I oppose this particular plan (or at least the details I've heard so far), but not the premise.
That said, I feel I should point out that every museum in town has had some kind of major renovation in the past twenty years except one... that one a few blocks away with all the trains.
I'm trying not to be biased, but I work in an 89-year old freight station, some of whose rooms still house the ORIGINAL ELECTRICAL WIRING from when the damned thing was built in 1918. I'm thinking maybe, just maybe, Roanoke might be wiser to spend a little money down on Norfolk Avenue. If only I knew someone on City Council...
I'm growing increasingly disappointed with the intensity at which you disparage the efforts of others. Perhaps your rants and continual character attacks would be easier to digest if you actually proposed your own solutions to the vast number of problems you identify on your blog. I know I'm just one voice and most folks reading your blog might disagree with me, but I'd thought I'd just throw these thoughts out at you for what it's worth. No I'm not asking you to look at the valley with rose colored glasses, but it would be nice if you balanced the destructive editorials with a little more constructive proposals.
Personally I think the Center in the Square needs to fix what's on the inside before they even think about spending a ton of money to improve the exterior. A pretty face isn't going to attract more visitors if it's the same old story inside.
Post a Comment