A meeting of the minds occurred on Tuesday between dog owners, park advocates and city officials, giving life to the long-discussed idea of a North End dog park.
The Parks and Open Spaces Committee of the North End / Waterfront Residents’ Association (NEWRA) hosted an open discussion on dogs in neighborhood parks on July 11, 2012 at the Nazzaro Community Center. Co-hosted by NEWRA’s Anne M. Pistorio and David Kubiak, the committee invited Boston Parks and Recreation Commissioner, Antonia Pollak along with Public Works’ Frank O’Brien and Nicole Leo from the Mayor’s Office.
Contributing to the meeting were several members of the new neighborhood dog owners group, RUFF – Responsible Urbanites for Fido. In existence for only one month, RUFF already has 36 members and established divisions in the neighborhood. Each division has an ambassador dedicated to communicating and advocating for dog owners in that area. RUFF wants to be known as a group of responsible dog owners.
Commissioner Pollak introduced the subject by recognizing the increased numbers of dogs in downtown Boston as a result of the shift from rental apartments to dog-friendly condominiums. NEWRA Parks Committee members expressed their concerns with the increasing toll that dogs are taking on area parks and open spaces.
“Dogs are having a huge impact on parks in the city. Urine kills turf and not everyone is conscientious about picking up,” said Pollak who is a dog owner herself. She continued, “The city is trying to find places for kids to play and dogs to get recreation.”
The discussion quickly focused on the creation of at least one dog park in the North End / Waterfront community. Commissioner Pollak said the city is looking to work with organized groups of residents and abutters.
“We are seeing them sprout up all over the city,” she noted. Some of the more notable dog parks include Peter’s Park in the South End, and others in Dorchester, South Boston and the Southwest Corridor. Dog parks can be located on public (State or City) or private land, including in existing parks.
Besides open space, dog parks need drainage, water access and some fencing. To date, funding has come from mitigation associated with new development projects or through a combination of public and private partnerships. Commissioner Pollak said she would help the group coordinate with other public officials or the Boston Redevelopment Authority.
Many neighborhoods have unofficial dog parks already, such as Charlestown where 2 unleashed areas exist. The North End also has an unofficial, gated dog area near the tunnel on Richmond Street. Attendees generally believed that area was not adequate and abutters have also not been pleased with the situation. Pollak also noted that the unleashed area in Boston Common has not succeeded as of yet. After several community groups avoided getting involved, the Friends of the Public Garden have now taken on the task of dealing with dogs there.
Dog parks take the strain off other neighborhood parks, noted Pollak. David Kubiak said he would favor “protections” for other parks if a new dog park is created. A repeated comment supporting a dog park from the RUFF group was “give us a place to go as an alternative.” The Commissioner has also observed that a dog park can be a community builder where people get together and incorporate a social component.
Various locations for dog parks were mentioned at the meeting with many attendees favoring multiple smaller areas, closer to more residents, rather than one large space. Please tell us where you would support a new dog park in the attached poll and feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Behind the Steriti skating rink – grassy area that is not really used. Certainly children do not play back there. People use the harbor walk but not the grass.other than an occasional sunbather. However, believe DEM controls this not the city?
That area is owned by the state DCR not the city of Boston
585 COMMERCIAL ST IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. WHY DOES ANYONE THINK THAT THE OWNERS OF A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR PROPERTY WILL LET THE PUBLIC USE THEIR PARKING LOT AS A PUBLIC DOG PARK? MATT SHOULD NEVER HAVE INCLUDED 585 COMMERCIAL ST IN THIS POLL. IT IS LUDICROUS.
We might be missing the point here. As we all know, for the most part, the North End is tight residential living quarters. If pet owners insist on keeping their dogs with them for any thing other than selfish reasons, there should be a place to take their dog other then the cement sidewalk.
Whatever the location, none of us like to step in dog mess, or accidentally discovering a mine field of crap left by some absentee dog owner who habitually lets their animal go outside to the bathroom unattended.
The South End has a designated (fenced in) an area attached to a playground and park. it is called the Joe Wex Dog Recreational Space (http://tinyurl.com/d8swwyf). It has become a major draw and a delight to visit even if one doesn’t own a dog. It is well kept, dogs can meet other dogs, and responsible owners alike can meet others in a setting where their animal can run free and act like a normal dog.
There are plastic bag kiosks made available for picking up after your dog, and even a store a bone’s throw away where you can take your canine friend for a treat
after the outing.
I am a resident of the North End. We need to embrace dog owners in our neighborhoods, not treat them like enemies.
Hi Joyce, there really is no need to shout to get your point across. All we need to know is that the property is not available for reuse.
There is no need for you to be so condescending about something not directed at you and about which you know nothing of the history behind my comment. The people who mentioned this location over and over and over at a meeting have for over a half dozen years whined that this property should be returned to parkland…which it never was except maybe when the Pilgrims landed. They need to get over it and you.need to get over yourself. I will shout whenever I am so inclined to make a point. Only Matt Conti (the owner of this blog) can tell me what I can or cannot say.
It’s nice to see some progress being made to address the issue at hand. This type of discussion will be much more effective than north end residents bickering back and forth with one another.
I’d like to commend the members of RUFF, park and rec, and pw as well as the other people working together to try and solve the problem amicably.
585 Commercial was mentioned at the meeting in the context of a future development project after the election where creating a dog park could be funded as part of mitigation.
I could guess who brought it up. Why would anyone think that would happen? If you owned that property and planned to develop high end condos would you give one sq inch away especially to a dog park? Especailly after the way this neighborhood people treated the previous developer? Same old group that thinks this should be returned to park land…something that this property NEVER WAS except maybe when the Pilgrims landed. Ludicrous!
I too am so pleased about the progress being made on this important issue. I would also like to comment that in my opinion using sarcasm and telling people what they should and should not say in their comments will only serve to send this discussion back to what it has been in the past, a Junior High bickering fest. This accomplishes nothing! We have a potentially friendship making, socializing and networking opportunity that we can create here! Lets keep it positive folks! thank you
It is not progress for certain individuals to bring up the same old story that was resolved (or should have been) a half dozen years ago concerning 585 Commercial St. you obviously do not know anything about this subject so you should get the facts before you comment.
Since you do not own this blog, you do not get to tell me or anyone else what can or cannot be said in a comment. The only one who gets to do that is Matt Conti.
Contrary to what the yuppie dog owners like yourself who are now living in the north end think…. not everything in this neighborhood is about you and your animals and your socializing and what you want or don’t want.
BTW Emily I am old enough to be your mother and almost old enough to be your grandmother so your remark about junior high school bickering would be hysterical if it wasn’t so condescendingly bitchy.
For the most part, the North End is tight residential living quarters. If pet owners insist on keeping their dogs with them for any thing other than selfish reasons, there should be a place to take their dog other then the cement sidewalk. What ever the location, none of us like to continually step in dog mess, or accidentally discover a mine field of crap left by an absentee dog owner who habitually lets their animal go outside to the bathroom unattended. The South End has designated an area attached to a playground and park that has become a major draw and a delight to visit even if one doesn’t own a dog. It is well kept, dogs can meet other dogs, and responsible dog owners alike can meet others in a setting where their animal can run free and act like a normal dog. There are plastic bag kiosks made available for picking up after your dog, and even a store a bone’s throw away where you can take your canine friend for a treat after the outing. The dog population is rising because of the younger demographic. I am a resident of the north end and I think we should be embracing dog owners and not treating them like enemies.
Staying out of this debate, but I wanted to point out to Matt that there is some sort of bug in the posting time stamps. Matt has been responding from the future!
Good catch Mark! Comments can be entered in either of 2 ways, through the Facebook box or the regular comments box. It appears that anyone that posted through the Facebook box, had comments appear in the wrong timezone, 4 hours ahead. I went into the code and hopefully that is now fixed! Thanks for the heads up.
Long before the parcel at N. Wash and Causeway was slated for development, a dog park designation should have been discussed. And I agree with Kubiak. If there is a Dog Park, then there needs to be protections for other parks. I think it is woefully unfair to people that the sitting and playing areas of many parks are being defecated upon at the same time that they are being used by people. I love dogs and have many dog friends, but no dog owner deserves the benefit of a pet if she has not learned how to curb a dog. You let your dog run in the park after it does its business at curbside, which is the place that provides the benefit of lesser foot traffic and highest drainage. Dogs are the best, but right now all they are doing is pooping up the parks. Which, at least for me, renders the grassy areas of any park absolutely unusable. It is absolutely the most selfish and entitled young people eve–this generation–that has the audacity to let their dogs poop in the park and leave behind a nice swish mark in the grass for others to sit on. "I can do whatever I want, as long as I recycle" is the moral code of this lost generation.
That sounds exciting. Keep us posted. Great to learn about RUFF! Woof!
I am re-posting this comment because it may have gotten buried with the earlier threads concerning a dog park on or near the property at 585 Commercial.
Whatever location we choose for a new dog park, none of us like to stepping in fresh crap, or accidentally discovering a mine field of it left by some absentee dog owner who habitually lets their animal outside unattended.
The point is, the North End is tight residential living quarters for the most part. Our demographic is rapidly changing to include more single young professionals. If those who are pet owners insist on keeping their dogs with them for any thing other than selfish reasons, there must be a place to take their animals other then the cement sidewalk. We need to embrace dog owners in our neighborhoods, not treat them like enemies.
The South End has a designated (fenced in) an area attached to a playground and park. It is called the Joe Wex Dog Recreational Space (http://tinyurl.com/d8swwyf). It has become a major draw and a delight to visit even if one doesn’t own a dog. It is well kept, dogs can meet other dogs, and responsible owners alike can meet others in a setting where their animal can run free and act like a normal dog. There are plastic bag kiosks made available for picking up after your dog. There's even a store a bone’s throw away where you can take your canine friend for a treat after the outing.
If the underutilized space along the waterfront between the ice rink and the baseball field was made available for a dog park, it would not only be a great spot to bring your dog, but a perfect replacement for the vandalism and underage drinking that takes place there on a frequent basis.
Thanks for the clarification Matt! =)
as a former north end resident who grew up there.. having a dog was very rare because there were so many people. people who did own dogs were very responsible and cleaned up their dogs mess. just take your dog for a walk and clean up after it.. if the north end needs anything its not a dog park..
as a former north end resident who grew up there.. having a dog was very rare because there were so many people. people who did own dogs were very responsible and cleaned up their dogs mess. just take your dog for a walk and clean up after it.. if the north end needs anything its not a dog park..
Boy, you're "ruff"!
Boy, you're "ruff"!
I wanted a dog so bad when I was a kid but the landlady said no animals. I think that's why there were few dogs in the North End
i hear there's lots of bitches in today's north end.
Remember the guy on Prince St who had the great dane? It would be up on the roof at night looking like a gargoyle from the street.
THAT WAS SAVINOS DOG HUNDIS.. HE WAS HUGE HE EVEN HAD HIS OWN BEDROOM..