[Summit] Please don't get in or on the fountain

Emlyn Addison noisyblocks at gmail.com
Thu May 18 12:15:05 CDT 2017


I tend to agree that we might miss the fountain once it was gone, but it
had been left unattended for years, which leaves me wondering if this is a
real consideration. But, like others here, I'm puzzled by a) the reasons
given for its regular failures and b) the apparent high cost of repairs. Or
do I have incorrect info?

Consider: a functional installation would see much greater use/attention
than the fountain currently does. There are children playing at this park
and playground nearly all day, every day. But how often do we notice the
fountain? Once or twice a week when we walk our dog or visit the farmers'
market? Restoration costs aside, I don't sense that this would be an
irreplaceable loss.

Of course, there do exist beautiful, functional water features that would
serve both purposes, but I shudder to think of the cost.



On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 11:39 AM, James Kelley <jameskelley4444 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> This seems surreal so I've been assuming this is parody. I cant imagine
> that the other fountains suffer this *sturm und drang. *It seems
> reasonable to me that a few spray and splash pads in the playground area
> would provide sufficient social equity (as was referenced previously) to
> satisfy the children and other hot feet and perhaps dogs as well.
> This would help preserve this historical public art. I'm not using the
> phrase, "this is why we can't have nice things" but the thought occurred.
>
> Best, Jim Kelley
>
> On May 18, 2017 11:29 AM, "Elizabeth Grossman" <eggbdk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It makes me soooo sad,  after all the work that went into getting thist
>>  art deco fountain going again,  to hear people talk of  removing  and
>> preplacing  it…  i would rather have it go silent again than have it
>> destroyed…that way there is the potential it could be revived again in
>> better times  Elizabeth
>>
>> On May 18, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Sheila Judkins <shejudkins at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> okay so are the chemicals in the water dangerous to kids or are they
>> regular pool chemicals?
>>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Annie Voss-Altman <ahava27 at telus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree, and not just in Charleston: In Iowa City, IA, Palo Alto, CA,
>>> Columbia, MO, and Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, there are fountains where kids
>>> strip down to their swimsuits and jump in to escape the summer heat.  If
>>> this fountain currently can’t handle children, then I agree that the
>>> solution should be either to fix it or to replace it with one that can.  As
>>> a city, we want to attract families with young children, and making spaces
>>> to welcome those children is part of that mission.
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 17, 2017, at 20:54, Martha Fraenkel <mfraenkel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> In Charleston, SC, every city fountain I saw was posted " please do not
>>> use soap in the fountain".  That is, they literally invite and expect you
>>> to enjoy the water.
>>>
>>> Can we not do better than the endless needless controversy over this
>>> fountain, which is nice but not THAT nice?   I  support replacing it with
>>> one we can reliably and safely play in, which would have far more amenity
>>> than what we have now: a vaguely handsome relic that is reliably broken.
>>>
>>> And now the kids are going to be threatened with arrest for doing what
>>> kids do?
>>>
>>> I agree with Aaron.    Something is wrong here, and not just with the
>>> fountain.
>>>
>>> And,  when we can't afford to fix or replace this fountain, how about a
>>> pulldown shower or two, like you have at the beach?  Can we think  fun
>>> instead of NO fun?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/17/2017 8:32 PM, Aaron Smuts wrote:
>>>
>>> If it is so dangerous and poses a nearly irresistible lure to children,
>>> just get rid of it.  And if it's so fragile that it needs to be protected
>>> by an array of ugly signs and an ugly fence like the one around the bird
>>> feeder obstruction, then it should go.  Get the dangerous eyesore out of
>>> the park. . . . Then again, perhaps we could just use some milder
>>> chemicals, let children play, and see what happens. If it can't stand up to
>>> the weight of a few kids, it's garbage. Old, but still garbage with some
>>> sort of maintenance plan that wreaks of corruption. How much was that
>>> caulking again?
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Ethan Gyles <ethangy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As we get a taste of summer, the Parks Department has asked SNA to
>>>> relay their plea that folks *do not stand on or get in the water at
>>>> the Lippitt Park fountain*. Reportedly dozens of people were in it
>>>> yesterday, and ignored Parks staff who happened to be nearby and alerted
>>>> them that it was unsafe. It is unsafe because the water is heavily
>>>> chemically treated and the fountain is historic and may not be able to bear
>>>> the weight of people without damage.
>>>>
>>>> The Parks Department plans to increase their signage in the area with
>>>> some stern warnings for now, and will be calling the police if folks refuse
>>>> to get out of the fountain going forward. They also mentioned the idea of
>>>> setting up a temporary fence all the way around the fountain, which I think
>>>> would be a shame because it most certainly would be a chain-link eyesore.
>>>>
>>>> Please, let's not misuse this public resource or tolerate others doing
>>>> so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Summit mailing list
>>>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>>>> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.prov
>>>> idence.ri.us
>>>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Summit mailing listSummit at sna.providence.ri.ushttp://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Summit mailing list
>>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>>> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Summit mailing list
>>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>>> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Summit mailing list
>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Summit mailing list
>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20170518/91d7f904/attachment.html>


More information about the Summit mailing list