Quote:
Originally Posted by Table 5
I guess we'll agree to disagree. I don't see any benefit of the thing.
To me, for a city park, Golden Gate Park is impressive. Stanley Park is impressive. Hyde park is impressive. Fish Creek and Glenmore are impressive too, and they are in the city too. Nose Hill park to me is about as exciting as the stucco'd suburban neighborhoods that surround it.
What's wrong with waterparks? Kids love that stuff.
Btw, I'm not saying it has to be in Nosehill....that was just a general comment.
|
I'm not sure why a park has to be exciting to be beneficial. If that's the grounds than I'm not sure how Hyde Park makes the list, it's a bunch of gardens and boring grass fields. Where's the excitement there? Stanley Park, just some trees and an average at best aquarium, nothing exciting about it. Now that I think about it the only 'exciting' park I can think of is Jurassic Park, and that didn't work out so well.
It seems that you've decided certain forms of nature are just to boring to keep around, and that quite frankly is quite a sad statement.