Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
I'm not either. A splash park was one suggestion of many. And to boot, Nosehill is 100 kms squared. A splash park would probably take up 20 metres by 20 metres if it was huge. You're intentionally misrepresenting at worst (misreading at best) every point I've made in this thread in an effort to make it look like...actually, I have no idea what you're trying to do. Good thing you weren't around when they put the bathrooms in a few years ago, or a fence around the park 50 years ago, or the pedestrian overpass five years ago, etc. It sounds like you are - quite illogically - opposed to anything happening to the park. I'm surprised you're even in favour of people walking there.
|
20m x 20m? Including new utilities to it, the pumping stations, upgraded parking, fencing (you don't want coyotes or deer jumping in the pool with your kid or messing it up at night), lighting, cut zone around it to keep debris out, changing stations, washrooms, etc etc. This is going to be bigger and more of a footprint than 20x20 (and if you fit all that into 20x20 it is going to be so small as to be a complete waste anyway). For what purpose? To have "something" in the park? Even when better suited parks already exist nearby with similar facilities?
Also, stop misrepresenting and exaggerating to make your points sound better. Nose Hill is 11.27 square km, not 100.
It's laughable that you are acting as though all of your arguments are for developments that can sustain the unique preservation objectives of the park. You can't seriously believe that a waterpark or concert amplitheatre are the same thing as a fence around the park or some bathrooms, or a pedestrian overpass across a boundary road to provide access into the park.
Yes, it was an executive decision to make the park 11.27 square km. Yes, they could easily have made the preservation part 6km and turned the rest into calaway park 2. They didn't, and it isn't, so we have what we have. I don't think anyone here is arguing against bathrooms and signage and even interpretive type facilities to enhance the park's preservation mission, but introducing recreational infrastructure just for the sake of "there's lots of space so why not" is just short sighted planning, plain and simple.