Thoughts on improving Nosehill?

[JD]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Um, yeah, but that's true. Go play around in the Sahara desert for a while, then take a stroll along the beach in Hawaii and tell me which one you prefer.

This is exactly where you're "wrong" in this Nose Hill debate... open your mind to the fact that some people out there actually do like Saharan landscapes! It doesn't necessarily mean they prefer them to Hawaiian beaches, it only means they are able to appreciate it and find value where you can't or won't.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Um, yeah, but that's true. Go play around in the Sahara desert for a while, then take a stroll along the beach in Hawaii and tell me which one you prefer.

There is no such thing as natural settingsism. It's okay to say dead grass and thistle is ugly. I don't think Nosehill's feelings will be hurt.

You're presenting an argument of half truth though. It's not always dead grass and thistle. There are quite a few weeks of the year it is in bloom and green and quite pretty. For beginner/intermediate mountain bikers the rolling trails are absolute fantastic to learn on. It's a very pretty walk too (yes, with the dog!). You are arguing on the basis of what it looks like some of the year, but there are other states. I mean, for 5-6 months of the year it's covered in snow (and I love walking around the paths in winter - being surrounded by nothingness and having an amazing view of the sky when it's dark is quite a nice experience!)

Opening it to development isn't going to automatically result in world class outdoor facilities being put in place. We have lots of undeveloped but unnatural land (whether used for farming or otherwise) to build things on. NH is just the last little piece of something that won't exist if we don't preserve it.

I'd be on the fence about something like an outdoor amplitheatre or something to enhance the "park" atmosphere only because it would open the door to arguing the preservation aspect is gone and then eventually it will just become more houses. You can't go back once you #### it up (well you can, but it takes forever - the damage from the 1980's and earlier is still being repaired -allowing cars up there, etc).

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by morgin

You're presenting an argument of half truth though. It's not always dead grass and thistle. There are quite a few weeks of the year it is in bloom and green and quite pretty. For beginner/intermediate mountain bikers the rolling trails are absolute fantastic to learn on. It's a very pretty walk too (yes, with the dog!). You are arguing on the basis of what it looks like some of the year, but there are other states. I mean, for 5-6 months of the year it's covered in snow (and I love walking around the paths in winter - being surrounded by nothingness and having an amazing view of the sky when it's dark is quite a nice experience!)

Opening it to development isn't going to automatically result in world class outdoor facilities being put in place. We have lots of undeveloped but unnatural land (whether used for farming or otherwise) to build things on. NH is just the last little piece of something that won't exist if we don't preserve it.

I'd be on the fence about something like an outdoor amplitheatre or something to enhance the "park" atmosphere only because it would open the door to arguing the preservation aspect is gone and then eventually it will just become more houses. You can't go back once you #### it up (well you can, but it takes forever - the damage from the 1980's and earlier is still being repaired -allowing cars up there, etc).

Okay, Nosehill looks really pretty for a week or two in very early summer/late spring. That's it.

Also, I'm not saying we should pave it...I merely want to take what is there and add some enhancements to make it a more enjoyable place to spend time (for more people). I think there are ways to do it that don't take away from what it is today. If you like nothingness, you will still have it in spades.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Okay, Nosehill looks really pretty for a week or two in very early summer/late spring. That's it.

Also, I'm not saying we should pave it...I merely want to take what is there and add some enhancements to make it a more enjoyable place to spend time (for more people). I think there are ways to do it that don't take away from what it is today. If you like nothingness, you will still have it in spades.

You did suggest paving it though. Of your initial suggestions (which I will relist for ease):

Originally Posted by Sliver

Some ideas:
- a lake (a Sicome for the north...boat rentals, playground, etc.)
- more forested areas
- activities (horseback tours again like in the 80s, maybe a paintball field, skatepark, festival venue (seating, amphitheater, etc.)
- rentable wedding facility
- some manicured grass sections for people to picnic
- a splash park
- mountain bike terrain park
- groomed tobaggan hill with rope tow or something

Lake is cost prohibitive and would absolute decimate the preservation aspect (you can't introduce an entirely different ecosystem into what you are trying to preserve - totally changes the animals, flaura, etc).

More forested areas is an idea, but again is not compatible with preservation of a natural state for that type of ecosystem.

Activites are possible, but only those which would not have an adverse impact on the ecosystem. Horseback riding is an idea, although generally incompatible with off-leash dog walking and biking. Probably the least harmful, although the argument there is that if nose hill is so ugly, why would you horseback ride there when there are so many other places to do it? Paintball field is a meh suggestion (There are plenty in the city, there is no compelling reason to put one on Nose Hill and again you end up destroying part of the area you are trying to preserve). Skatepark involves paving an area and there are so many negative factors with skateparks you'll run into additional conflicting use issues. Festival venue - would require massive infastructure improvementas for parking, etc. Also, Fort Calgary and COP grounds are already set up to handle festivals with proper facilities in place.

Wedding Facility is a plausible option (if you mean ceremony site and not reception site - reception site requires infrasturcture in terms of facilities, parking, etc etc).

some manicured grass sections for people to picnic - introducing non-native plants into preserve is generally a bad idea. Plenty of sites in Calgary if this is what you are looking for.

a splash park - parking, infrastructure is incompatible with purpose of park and wildlife protection.

mountain bike terrain park - COP has the facilities, under-utilized at COP.

groomed tobaggan hill with rope tow or something - plausible.

The reality is that there are very few things you could do short of improvements to the trails and signage, and building in some low-impact public use areas, that would allow you to maintain the purpose of the park.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

In your original post, you suggested:

festival venue (seating, amphitheater, etc.)

A festival venue doesn't sound like just an educational area where kids can learn about the plants and animals in the park.

[4X4]

This thread has gone full CP now. Someone suggests a couple of modifications to an enormous park, and then people start accusing the guy of wanting to build the new saddledome there.

Seriously, what is so wrong with the idea of using some of the land for community oriented projects? I mean, it's bordered (on all four sides) by major roads. It has great access, yet little use. Why can't some of the perimeter be used for a few things? Does the park have to be humongous and barren forever? Who set this arbitrary park size at ten square kilometers? Why can't it be nine, with a couple of things on the edges? There's plenty of space there. And why does the very suggestion of doing _anything_ automatically mean that people want to bring in the earth movers and destroy the park entirely?

[Kavvy]

I think Silver's responses are sarcastic and frustrating to read i.e. " 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"

However, count me in the party of wanting tax dollars to spruce this place up a bit.......

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think the problem some of these people are having is they don't bother exploring it, and just look at it from the parking lot and give up. Fish Creek doesn't look at all dissimilar from the parking lot either, only flatter.

I didn't notice last time i visited but did the city build overpasses on Country Hills and Shaganappi side? I know John Laurie and 14th have had them for awhile but you'd assume the other 2 roads would (and should) have them to help with accessiblity to locals so those who need parking find it.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Kavy

I think Silver's responses are sarcastic and frustrating to read i.e. " 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."

Yeah but my snarky response was in reply to this barb:

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.

It's not like I'm throwing out insults willy-nilly.

[JD]

Originally Posted by 4X4

This thread has gone full CP now. Someone suggests a couple of modifications to an enormous park, and then people start accusing the guy of wanting to build the new saddledome there.

Seriously, what is so wrong with the idea of using some of the land for community oriented projects? I mean, it's bordered (on all four sides) by major roads. It has great access, yet little use. Why can't some of the perimeter be used for a few things? Does the park have to be humongous and barren forever? Who set this arbitrary park size at ten square kilometers? Why can't it be nine, with a couple of things on the edges? There's plenty of space there. And why does the very suggestion of doing _anything_ automatically mean that people want to bring in the earth movers and destroy the park entirely?

FINE!!!

If that was what Sliver proposed. Actually, I think that is what his actual post was about.

But then he went ahead and bashed and trashed the park as it exists. People came to its defense and suddenly it's "full CP" with mucho thanks! Sliver and Table5 don't like Nose Hill, some people claim that they do. It's really that simple!

[Mr.Coffee]

Grew up in the south, lived in the north for 1 year in Hidden Valley, so sometimes had to meander along Nosehill wondering why we kept a patch of grass the size of Texas in the middle of the city. It's not even good short grass you can run around in either, it's crappy knee high grass infested with a billion mosquitos.

Coming from the south it looked borderline irresponsible. Edmonton-esque, if you will.

Agree with Sliver 100%. It sucks.

also: people claiming they want prairie grass- you are honestly telling us that prairie grasslands are more beautiful than what Fish Creek has going on in trees, streams, natural diversity? I'm speaking just visually let alone I bet the number of visitors probably isn't even in the same realm.

Tomorrow I'm going to try and convince our geo to drill a well there.

[1stLand]

I think the city should build / develop a system of greenhouses and grow a bunch of diverse food bearing plants.

Think "Mutart Conservatory"

The intent of Nosehill park was preservation of a natural state. I think the only development compromise is to allocate a small area to build and develop greenhouses that will be open to the public to educate them on growing food.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Grew up in the south, lived in the north for 1 year in Hidden Valley, so sometimes had to meander along Nosehill wondering why we kept a patch of grass the size of Texas in the middle of the city. It's not even good short grass you can run around in either, it's crappy knee high grass infested with a billion mosquitos.

Coming from the south it looked borderline irresponsible. Edmonton-esque, if you will.

Agree with Sliver 100%. It sucks.

also: people claiming they want prairie grass- you are honestly telling us that prairie grasslands are more beautiful than what Fish Creek has going on in trees, streams, natural diversity? I'm speaking just visually let alone I bet the number of visitors probably isn't even in the same realm.

Tomorrow I'm going to try and convince our geo to drill a well there.

I would say the natural parts of fish creek are nicer than the natural parts of nose hill. But I avoid the developed part of fish creek. The West side and South parts of fish creek are essentially left natural and are very nice areas. There is even a barren grassland portion of fish creek just east of Mcleod.

There is value in natural space whether one appreciates the beauty of it or not. adding some picnic areas around the perimeter wouldn't hurt and would encourage use but all development should focus on working in the natural enviroment and not trying to replace it with something nice (ie a lake, splash park, festival site, etc).

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Grew up in the south, lived in the north for 1 year in Hidden Valley, so sometimes had to meander along Nosehill wondering why we kept a patch of grass the size of Texas in the middle of the city. It's not even good short grass you can run around in either, it's crappy knee high grass infested with a billion mosquitos.

Coming from the south it looked borderline irresponsible. Edmonton-esque, if you will.

Agree with Sliver 100%. It sucks.

So? I grew up in Kelowna. Does that mean I should think that every natural area of Calgary sucks in comparison and not be worthy of keeping in its present state? Or that everybody coming from a prettier looking natural area should want to go SimCity on Calgary's parks?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would say the natural parts of fish creek are nicer than the natural parts of nose hill. But I avoid the developed part of fish creek. The West side and South parts of fish creek are essentially left natural and are very nice areas. There is even a barren grassland portion of fish creek just east of Mcleod.

There is value in natural space whether one appreciates the beauty of it or not. adding some picnic areas around the perimeter wouldn't hurt and would encourage use but all development should focus on working in the natural enviroment and not trying to replace it with something nice (ie a lake, splash park, festival site, etc).

I don't know if picnic areas would work well. They are just magnets for litter.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Um, yeah, but that's true. Go play around in the Sahara desert for a while, then take a stroll along the beach in Hawaii and tell me which one you prefer.

There is no such thing as natural settingsism. It's okay to say dead grass and thistle is ugly. I don't think Nosehill's feelings will be hurt.

I'm sure the Sahara is incredibly boring, and I'd much rather spend time on the beach in Hawaii, but the part you conveniently skip, which is great since it's the crux of the argument, is that despite that I'm not advocating that we turn the Sahara into a giant slip n slide.

[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.

[undercoverbrother]

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.

[valo403]

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.

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.

[Bertuzzied]

So you are logged into your friend's CP account......