Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Which sections of the guidebook do you feel are anti-park. And by park do you mean neighbourhood green space or Fish creek / Nose hill or River pathway with occasional picnic / access area
|
What I have to back up my claims with evidence now? /s
I don't know, I just did a find for the word "park" in the guidebook and gave up. I recall discussion that the guidebook wants to develop inner city park space? Is this not correct?
I mean large green space, like the missed opportunity to extend Fish Creek south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk
The City (and policies of the guidebook) are decidedly pro preserving, improving and establishing parks. There is a strong emphasis in planning policy on public space.
We have a legislated requirement for 10% of all development plans for Municipal Reserve, of course. Many large new parks are the result of Environmental Reserve Policy, which renders lands undevelopable based on their environmental characteristics. We add a lot of hectares of new Environmental Reserves for parks every year.
There is a decided lack of large regional parks in the east side of the city - part of that has to do with the very flat land not naturally lending itself to Environmental Reserve. But there is a lot of discussion about how to rectify this imbalance.
If parks are near and dear - I would recommend Parks Foundation as a cause. The City regularly partners with them on the establishment and improvement of parks.
I am a Director in the planning department, so happy to answer various related questions.
|
Where is the discussion of flat land turning into parks taking place? Does environmental reserve also include spaces not suited for human use? A storm drainage pond?