BRATTLEBORO — The need to protect the trees and playground in Crowell Park, inadequate parking, lack of public toilets, lack of access to drinking water, concerns for pedestrian safety, graffiti, trash, and noise (vs. sound): these issues all speak to a much larger one: the quality of life in a residential neighborhood.
This might not be such a pressing issue if the park space in question was larger than 2.1 acres. (The park land is actually over 4 acres, but most of those are steep, wooded embankments.)
We fully understand and support the integration of multi-use public spaces and we value what they can produce in terms of improved quality of life for the larger community.
However, what's underlying much of the conflict in the Crowell Park as a proposed skatepark location is the proximity of people's homes (vs. houses or private property) to such an attraction and what it will very likely mean for us, our families, and our neighborhood, not to mention for a main entrance into downtown.
Homes, whether rented, privately owned, or temporary, and the neighborhoods in which they are located, are closely associated with the well-being of individuals and families, including their mental and physical health.
Therefore, homes are also critical to the relationship between that individual well-being and that of the larger community.
We have been very surprised that the discussion regarding the skatepark has not recognized this critical dimension of planning and development of Crowell Park, particularly given the language in Chapter 10 of the Brattleboro Town Plan referring to “quality of life” in Brattleboro.
Additionally, the town just experienced an extended public discussion (also involving zoning issues) that underscored the importance that we, as a community, attach to the very essence and meaning of home: the ability of people to return safely to their homes in Melrose Place after the flooding from Tropical Storm Irene, and in our community efforts to locate homes for those displaced as a result of the Brooks House fire.
* * *
The fact that the Save Our Park Coalition's concerns for our homes and neighborhood were charged as being simply rooted in NIMBYism, and anti-youth and anti-community selfishness, is astounding.
Consider the following quotes from Iain Butterworth's The Relationship Between the Built Environment and Well-Being: A Literature Review, on the relationship between human well-being and the spaces we occupy:
• “Sense of place refers to the feeling of attachment or belonging to a physical environment, such as a place or neighbourhood, and the sense of personal and collective identity that comes from this sense of belonging. When cherished places, spaces, and settings are destroyed or irrevocably changed beyond our control, we feel a sense of loss and grief.”
• “Crowding, lack of privacy and control over one's living space may damage social relationships, incite aggression, abusive behaviour, and substance abuse. Environments need to be designed which are responsive to people's needs for both privacy and social interaction.”
• “People who lose treasured places [...] may also lose some fundamental trust, such as the sense of security that the family home was their 'sanctuary.'”
• “People forcibly separated from these physical spaces through political planning decisions often have no recourse to expressing their grief or having it acknowledged by authorities. Developers are usually emotionally unattached to the places they seek to redevelop.”
• “Losing one's home or neighbourhood to an urban planning decree can be even worse than losing it to a natural disaster.”
The paradox revealed in Butterworth's piece is that it supports both the argument for a well-planned integrated skatepark, as well as the argument that it not be placed in a very small, multi-use park and playground in a residential neighborhood, such as Crowell Park.
There exists a dialectical tension between the value of publicly shared, multi-use community spaces versus the more fundamental need for privacy, peace, and a sense of personal and family well-being associated with one's home and neighborhood.
* * *
In no way is our opposition to the Development Review Board–approved plan rooted in our inability to see the value of a skatepark integrated into a multi-use setting. Our concerns for the quality of life that we derive from our homes and neighborhood are based on the unintended adverse impact of the plan.
For example: vehicular and pedestrian traffic in this area usually slows in the evening and on weekends, when most people want to be home with their families, to interact and relax.
The peak hours of utilization for a skatepark are after school, in the evening, and on weekends. Special events typically held in a skatepark multiply “noise” (versus sound) and the needs for parking, public toilets, and pedestrian safety. What does that mean for the residents who make up a neighborhood?
Additionally, can any neighborhood in Brattleboro be asked to embrace development plans that might very well kill old-growth shade trees in an existing playground or that is intended to bring an influx of unknown numbers of people to a multi-use public space with no toilets; one designed to be shared with preschool and young children?
It's established fact that most skateboarders - approximately 76 percent - are adolescent boys. However, when noting the gender disparity that a basketball court and skateboard park presents in a public space owned by the Brattleboro School Board, we have been assured that many girls also enjoy skateboarding, and the number of girls skating is increasing.
So, beyond the many questions we have raised regarding this particular plan: What does the lack of planning for public toilets mean for the dignity, modesty, and safety of young girls?
Can we actually move ahead with a plan that has not even examined how spectators and adolescent girls and boys “from around the region” will pee or poop in a 2.1-acre park in a residential neighborhood?
And then, what about issues of handicap accessibility, including public parking?
These are among the unanswered questions that people who oppose this plan (and who do not oppose youth, skateboarding, or skateparks) have been trying to ask.
And why are our concerns for our neighbors and neighborhood, our homes and quality of life, and the disruption of our well-being, less important than those that result from fire or flood?
Reason, not only the narrow parameters of law, should guide how we do, or do not, support the quality of life in Brattleboro when considering development proposals.
And we should begin by recognizing the fundamental relationship that exists between individual and community well-being and our homes and neighborhoods.