I believe all sides mean well but smell lots of red herrings regarding the Hope Street lot, distracting voters from the core issue: do we invest in parking or people? Rallying to save an unused and unusable parking lot when an underused garage is across the street is an uncomfortable position, so I can understand why advocates would rationalize with ancillary issues like government accountability and community character. But the practical result of a “Yes” vote is saving a closed parking lot.
As a historic preservation professional and member of the Historic Commission, I believe strongly in community character. Greenfield’s character is part of why my family chose to live here. Its parking lots are not. I previously ran a preservation advocacy nonprofit and would be the first one to rally if the neighboring armory or a block of our historic downtown were to be demolished, but I will not rally for a parking lot.
What makes a vibrant and walkable downtown is a mixture of people, styles, and uses. Homogeneity is not historic. Just as our beautiful downtown is a result of buildings from multiple decades, so too can newer buildings in vacant lots add to that character. If we want our historic buildings to survive, we need people to patronize them. Additional residents within walking distance of our historic buildings will create additional demand to fill the vacant storefronts and invest in the historic buildings.
I will be voting “No” on Nov. 4 to not rescind the council’s studied decision to sell the Hope Street lot for housing. At its core this is an issue of parking vs people. A “No” vote is a vote for people.
Jeremy Ebersole
Greenfield