Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Actually if you read my posts I've been in agreement with a few things, like an interpretive center. What I'm against are things that run directly counter to the purpose of the park and the idea of preserving an area in as close to a natural state as possible.
This isn't just a Nose Hill thing either, it's about appreciating the small areas of relatively untouched things we have left everywhere. There's no need to treat everything like an amusement park, some areas should just be left alone to be enjoyed for what they are.
|
All of us in Calgary are 30 minutes from vast expanses of untouched nature. This argument that we are running out of nature is completely flawed.
Maybe you don't need things beyond grass to keep you entertained, but lots of people at different stages in their lives do. It's not a personality failing to want to enhance a park.
Quote:
Originally Posted by morgin
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.
|
OMG. Look, maybe I misrepresented myself in my OP. I haven't actually drawn up the blueprints and submitted renderings to the City at this point for the giant waterpark you guys think I want. The way you describe things, I'm surprised I haven't seen the South Glenmore Park splashpark on Frontiers of Construction.
I merely was wondering if anybody thought adding some recreational activities to the park would be a good idea to draw more people to the park and to give more people options for fun, outdoorsy things to do in the northwest. I came up with the list in the OP as I typed it...next time I'll be sure to get some environmental impact studies done before I submit a conversational post on this board.
I'm now at the point where I hope they never develop it and just leave you guys with your hill. It sounds like it's what you want, and you have done a very good job of convincing me it's all you should have.