Quote:
Originally Posted by Danijam
The weird thing about Nose Hill is that gatherings of any kind aren't encouraged or even allowed there (see Principle 7: http://fonhs.org/). This is a substantial area of the City dedicated to growing native grasses. I have nothing against native grasses, but I don't understand why such a large area that is central to a growing quadrant has been earmarked for grass preservation. We can preserve 1/2 of Nose Hill's grass and set up a protect-the-native-grass area that's even bigger anywhere else in Alberta. Why, when there are increasing demands for parks, picnic areas and general things to do in a burgeoning quadrent, is saving this amount of grass deemed more important than the needs of numerous communities' users? Maybe in the 1980s when Nose Hill was closer to the edge of the City and the Calgary population was less than half of what it is now, this was reasonable. But is it now? From a people-flow and even an environmental perspective, is it reasonable to expect people in the outermost northwest communities to drive to Riley or Edworthy parks to have a bit of family fun? |
FONHS is an advocacy group, not the park police. The City of Calgary determines what is allowed inside the park.
Also, people choose to live where they live. Nose Hill Park is not new. An argument against preservation because it inconviences people should bother anyone with some semblance of respect for the aims of preservation. Same with "but the land is valuable". The land that Central Park in new york is on is probably the most valuable land in North America. Doesn't make a good argument for building skyscrapers there though! Is there more value to Central Park in terms of amentities? Sure, but Central Park is also not a preservation park.