Thoughts on improving Nosehill?

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

you do realize there is vietnamese restaurants on every street corner in every quadrant of this city.

Yes. and there are ZERO good ones located in the SW! well outside of chinatown. hahaha suckers.

[Danijam]

Originally Posted by Addick

I recognize the role and importance of Urban Reserves (i.e Fish Creek and Nosehill Park). The very point of these parks are to reserve sections in urban areas for natural environments. The addition of man-made amenities runs counter to this point as it adds unnatural elements into what is suppose to be reserve for a natural environment.

I grew up in Brentwood, which is right beside Nosehill Park. In those 15+ years I visited the park three times, tops. I remember each visit being completely boring. Yes, the views are nice, but after that 30 seconds is over, then what? People love to walk their dogs there, but if you didn't have a dog would you go there? My guess is that you wouldn't. You're forced to go there because your dog needs walking and it's the only place most northwesters can access on foot.

Now I live beside Fish Creek Park - the City's other Urban Reserve. On top of hundreds of acres of natural environments there is a lake, a creek with fishing and quaint wooden bridges, picnic areas, amphitheatres, forests and open spaces, wildlife, a historic restaurant and bakery, etc... These two areas are not even comparable.

If Nosehill offered even a fraction of the appeal Fish Creek Park has I might have actually benefitted from living beside it instead of seeing it as a giant obstacle.

So I guess I agree with most of you; Nosehill Park is for the dogs.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well that's pretty much what you said. If you don't want people to come to that conclusion perhaps consider turning down the hyperbole in your posts.

There's absolutely nothing hyperbolic about calling Nosehill ugly. Everything about Nosehill counters our collective sensibility about what is beautiful and acceptable within the city. There's a reason we:

• water our grass
• mow our lawns
• eliminate our weeds
• beautify our natural surroundings
• control pests and bugs
• add creature comforts and leisure activities

Characterizing the people who are open to exploring the minute possibility that Nosehill isn't already perfect as anti-nature is itself a hyperbole. Now, it looks like this thread has likely run its course, but I do think there has been a lot of evidence of close-mindedness by the crowd that is against any form of improvement to the park.

If the grasslands are so important, I think it would also be important to attract people there to learn about them and some of these "extra" activities I've proposed would get more people to the park, and likely lead to more appreciation for it.

I went to junior high and high school less than a kilometer away from Nosehill and not once did we take a field trip there to learn anything about the park. Maybe even an interpretive centre of some sort would be prudent with some stuffed animals from around the park to show people what exactly is in there and why it is important.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Danijam

I grew up in Brentwood, which is right beside Nosehill Park. In those 15+ years I visited the park three times, tops. I remember each visit being completely boring. Yes, the views are nice, but after that 30 seconds is over, then what? People love to walk their dogs there, but if you didn't have a dog would you go there? My guess is that you wouldn't. You're forced to go there because your dog needs walking and it's the only place most northwesters can access on foot.

Now I live beside Fish Creek Park - the City's other Urban Reserve. On top of hundreds of acres of natural environments there is a lake, a creek with fishing and quaint wooden bridges, picnic areas, amphitheatres, forests and open spaces, wildlife, a historic restaurant and bakery, etc... These two areas are not even comparable.

If Nosehill offered even a fraction of the appeal Fish Creek Park has I might have actually benefitted from living beside it instead of seeing it as a giant obstacle.

So I guess I agree with most of you; Nosehill Park is for the dogs.

All of those features you listed at Fish Creek pretty much eliminate it from contention as a natural environment, which is the entire point of Nose Hill.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

All of those features you listed at Fish Creek pretty much eliminate it from contention as a natural environment, which is the entire point of Nose Hill.

Hardly. Those things that add a lot of fun and appeal to the park, yet take up probably 0.00001% of the real estate there.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

There's absolutely nothing hyperbolic about calling Nosehill ugly. Everything about Nosehill counters our collective sensibility about what is beautiful and acceptable within the city. There's a reason we:

• water our grass
• mow our lawns
• eliminate our weeds
• beautify our natural surroundings
• control pests and bugs
• add creature comforts and leisure activities

Characterizing the people who are open to exploring the minute possibility that Nosehill isn't already perfect as anti-nature is itself a hyperbole. Now, it looks like this thread has likely run its course, but I do think there has been a lot of evidence of close-mindedness by the crowd that is against any form of improvement to the park.



If the grasslands are so important, I think it would also be important to attract people there to learn about them and some of these "extra" activities I've proposed would get more people to the park, and likely lead to more appreciation for it.



I went to junior high and high school less than a kilometer away from Nosehill and not once did we take a field trip there to learn anything about the park. Maybe even an interpretive centre of some sort would be prudent with some stuffed animals from around the park to show people what exactly is in there and why it is important.

No, it counters yours. This thread is a great indication that your opinion is far from the predominant one in the city.

And don't give me this education garbage, this is the first time you've even raised that point. Up until now it's been water parks and things that run completely counter to the purpose of the park. Something like an interpretive center would be great.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Hardly. Those things that add a lot of fun and appeal to the park, yet take up probably 0.00001% of the real estate there.

I don't really care what percentage they take up, a bakery by definition is not part of the natural environment.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

No, it counters yours. This thread is a great indication that your opinion is far from the predominant one in the city.

And don't give me this education garbage, this is the first time you've even raised that point. Up until now it's been water parks and things that run completely counter to the purpose of the park. Something like an interpretive center would be great.

Are you kidding around with me?

We have bylaws preventing people from doing everything that Nosehill stands for. I can't let my grass grow, vermin multiply, and weeds thrive in my yard or any of the city parks around me.

Education garbage? What do you think an amphitheater would be used for? I mentioned it in my original post!

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't really care what percentage they take up, a bakery by definition is not part of the natural environment.

Well there you have it, folks. Fish Creek Park isn't a natural environment per Valo. I guess Banff National Park isn't a natural environment either because there's a candy store on main street.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Are you kidding around with me?

We have bylaws preventing people from doing everything that Nosehill stands for. I can't let my grass grow, vermin multiply, and weeds thrive in my yard or any of the city parks around me.

Education garbage? What do you think an amphitheater would be used for? I mentioned it in my original post!

An amphitheater is now used primarily for education on the park in which it resides? That's new to me, I would expect it to be used for concerts and other performances.

The fact that you can't separate Nose Hill from your backyard is laughable, pretty much like the rest of your contributions here.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well there you have it, folks. Fish Creek Park isn't a natural environment per Valo. I guess Banff National Park isn't a natural environment either because there's a candy store on main street.

Yep, you got it.

For the record, I think Fish Creek is great (although I haven't been in years) and serves a valuable purpose of its own.

[Danijam]

Originally Posted by valo403

All of those features you listed at Fish Creek pretty much eliminate it from contention as a natural environment, which is the entire point of Nose Hill.

Have you been to Fish Creek Park? I think saying it isn't a natural environment means you haven't.

As a born-and-raised northy, but an adult who picked the south, the only reason I can account for the south's obvious superiority is that people in the south have expected more from the city over the decades and have therefore received more.

It's not wrong to expect more of Nosehill. Would a single playground go unused? If a picnic area appeared would no one eat their lunch there? Let's be realistic: has anyone ever had a single birthday party at Nosehill? Of course not.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Danijam

Have you been to Fish Creek Park? I think saying it isn't a natural environment means you haven't.

As a born-and-raised northy, but an adult who picked the south, the only reason I can account for the south's obvious superiority is that people in the south have expected more from the city over the decades and have therefore received more.

It's not wrong to expect more of Nosehill. Would a single playground go unused? If a picnic area appeared would no one eat their lunch there? Let's be realistic: has anyone ever had a single birthday party at Nosehill? Of course not.

Is this how value is assessed in Calgary now? By the predominance of birthday parties? Really?

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Danijam

I grew up in Brentwood, which is right beside Nosehill Park. In those 15+ years I visited the park three times, tops. I remember each visit being completely boring. Yes, the views are nice, but after that 30 seconds is over, then what? People love to walk their dogs there, but if you didn't have a dog would you go there? My guess is that you wouldn't. You're forced to go there because your dog needs walking and it's the only place most northwesters can access on foot.

There are numerous types of art and styles of painting that are not popular among the masses, however, galleries and museums still keep them as part of their collection. Why?

The preservation of our history.

Originally Posted by Sliver

There's absolutely nothing hyperbolic about calling Nosehill ugly. Everything about Nosehill counters our collective sensibility about what is beautiful and acceptable within the city. There's a reason we:

• water our grass
• mow our lawns
• eliminate our weeds
• beautify our natural surroundings
• control pests and bugs
• add creature comforts and leisure activities

I see these as reason why we need to keep Nosehill as is. These are the reasons why we changed the majority of our landscape and got rid of the natural and indigenous grasslands. It created the need to preserve an area for the indigenous environment. Nosehill Park is the City's designated area for natural grasslands. Can you understand this?

Originally Posted by Sliver

Characterizing the people who are open to exploring the minute possibility that Nosehill isn't already perfect as anti-nature is itself a hyperbole.

It is not perfect, it as an urban reserve for the preservation of natural grasslands.

The reason why people do not want grass and plants imported from Europe is that the area is reserved for natural grass and plants that are indigenous to this part of the prairies.

[Danijam]

Originally Posted by valo403

Is this how value is assessed in Calgary now? By the predominance of birthday parties? Really?

Nope, it's just a good gauge of whether people enjoy being somewhere or not.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Addick

The reason why people do not want grass and plants imported from Europe is that the area is reserved for natural grass and plants that are indigenous to this part of the prairies.

Who the hell would want grass and plants imported from Europe? lol I have no idea at all where you got that from.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Are you kidding around with me?

We have bylaws preventing people from doing everything that Nosehill stands for. I can't let my grass grow, vermin multiply, and weeds thrive in my yard or any of the city parks around me.

Education garbage? What do you think an amphitheater would be used for? I mentioned it in my original post!

1) Natural prairie grass is not the same as the grass on your lawn. Prairie grass is a mixture of many different species, and as I said before, is endangered. The rules of your lawn don't apply here.
2) You call it vermin, I call it a unique ecosystem within a major city.
3) The weed argument doesn't apply because this isn't your damn lawn.

I feel like Danijam and Sliver are either married or related. This entire thread boils down to "I don't like it, therefore everyone must not like it".

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well there you have it, folks. Fish Creek Park isn't a natural environment per Valo. I guess Banff National Park isn't a natural environment either because there's a candy store on main street.

Banff townsite in all its natural beauty.

Come see the naturally occurring parking meters during mating season, something to behold!

[The Yen Man]

I dunno, I can see where Sliver's coming from. It is an ugly piece of land (my opinion of course). I honestly don't really care either way whether or not they improve it. I know a vocal minority love the space, but I honestly think I'm part of the silent majority in thinking it's just another piece of land I'd never visit. Would I go if they actually put some effort into improving it? Probably, and I really think more people would go visit it. But then, I'm guessing the existing users would probably start getting upset that there's too many people visiting the park.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by valo403

An amphitheater is now used primarily for education on the park in which it resides? That's new to me, I would expect it to be used for concerts and other performances.

Yeah, they can be. I would have thought the man who knows everything would know that. I remember camping at Mount Kidd growing up and always watching the educational shows at the amphitheater there. Guess I thought everybody knew what amphitheaters in natural parks were used for, but apparently not.

Originally Posted by valo403

The fact that you can't separate Nose Hill from your backyard is laughable, pretty much like the rest of your contributions here.

Oh really? I'm not a contributive poster, eh? I suppose I haven't started three whole threads like you including this gem: How to turn your arms into spaghetti, or the ever-so-popular Women ski jumping in the Olympics with 16 whole replies (40% of which were yours), but I'll keep trying anyway.