Potted trees no match for people who want to sit
June 7th, 2008
Â
In September I posted about the placement of potted trees the Salvation Army put by the front door to keep people from sitting on the little ledge under the window and possibly keep people from loitering so much.
There were some comments on that post about how the trees made the corner look nicer and I agree, it was a great way to keep that corner less congested and also make it look nice.
I’m sure this happened a lot sooner than yesterday, but that’s when I was walking by and noticed that people were actually sitting in the pots.
One tree looks pretty worn from being a backrest too:
There must be some happy medium but I’m guessing Salvation Army doesn’t want people hanging out at the corner because they would have put a bench or some sort of seating in that area instead of potted trees. But at the same time people are clearly going to sit at the corner no matter what - unless they screen/fence off that area but I think that would make the corner look aesthetically worse .
Anyway, people sitting in the pots kind of defeats the purpose of putting them there, so I wonder if the Salvation Army will think of something else.
Kudos to the Salvation Army for trying to solve a problem with an aesthetically pleasing and pretty human-friendly solution. Too bad the humans can’t give the plants the same consideration! Hopefully the Salvation Army won’t have to take another step that’s tougher on the eyes - we need all the inviting streetscape we can get downtown.
Comment by Brett — June 7, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
I think little nails all around the edges of the pots would work well. From a distance, the plants would still look quite attractive. From a sitting position, not so attractive.
Comment by Scott — June 7, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
God forbid there should be people visible in downtown Framingham.
Comment by foppy — June 8, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
I don’t think the point is that people shouldn’t be visible in downtown. Clearly the Salvation Army was trying to discourage loitering in that particular area in front of their building.
Comment by Chris — June 8, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
What about cacti?
Comment by Dave — June 8, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
Spinklers, that’s what the Salvation Army needs, sprinklers. Give those homeless bums a nice shower every hour on the hour. If anyone complains say they’re to help the potted plants grow. Let the bums hang out in Boston Common like all the others.
Comment by Ray — June 8, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
The trees could be dying from being used as ashtrays or, more likely, depositing whatever drink is being dumped out.
And all of the people loitering doesn’t look good. I’m sure that the businesses trying to survive in the area don’t want any potential customers deterred.
Comment by Leslie — June 9, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
For downtown to grow the Salvation army needs to go.
Comment by Rob — June 9, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
Sad as it seems, Rob is probably right. I’ll assume for the sake of my comments here that those loiterers are, for lack of a better term, customers of the Salvation Army.
On the one hand you have to cut these people (loiterers) some slack, as I’m sure that if they had the means they’d rather be doing something else, somewhere else.
And then on the other hand, there are the average Joes/Janes who would prefer an aesthetically pleasing downtown area to shop/dine/entertain. The loiterers are not aesthetically pleasing at all to my eyes; call me arrogant, but it is what it is.
It’s the SA’s primary mission to help the underprivileged and poor. It’s to be expected that it would attract people who look and act the part.
What I don’t understand is that I’d think that the SA would do better in a facility without a downtown price tag. Someplace off the beaten path would give the SA a larger, cheaper facility, while at the same time not making the downtown ‘ham look like rundown urbania.
Comment by nostalgio — June 20, 2008 @ 12:34 am