[combusean]

Agreed ... if there was a forum for affordability, homelessness, whatever, the Patriot's Square meeting was not it. Any discussion about what CityScape is or what it will bring should only be discussed as part of "activating the edges."

Anyways, I was very happy to see a full house, and the 94 page comment book (one of which I snagged, i'll see about getting a PDF up of it tomorrow) means that my earlier fears of a disjointed process can be put to rest. Given the turnout and what I read, anything they come up with has to pass muster.

To that end, I am pleased to hear the development team getting it with regards to shade, openness, etc (what PSP is not), and Jay Thorne's promise to "meet or exceed" the guiding principles of the park's board. However, it is clear from this and previous meetings that Thorne doesn't hold the public design process in high regard.

The retail question is important--they could have all the critical features, but placement of the retail component could make or break the design. Certainly, some amount should be on there, and they will etch out whatever they can, but questions about what they intend to build shouldn't be shoo'd under the rug. As I pointed out in the meeting, it's a basic math problem--the cost of the new park has to be below the equivalent land value of whatever they want to build, otherwise they would have dropped the idea of doing anything on the block.

RED has alluded to this, but I have to believe that building some sort of iconic park/plaza will be worth it in the end, especially when they get their $100 million check.