Thoughts on improving Nosehill?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Sliver

But a grassland ecosystem isn't enjoyable. That's the problem.

Yes it is, immensely in fact. You just have to know how to appreciate the subtlety and beauty. If you don't want to spend time in a natural habitat, go to the mall.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by KeepCalmCarryOn

I've got to ask... All I have see from the OP (Sliver) are confrontational threads... Is that his/her thing? The dog killing/biting thread, the old people are worthless thread, now this thread... Every thread I read of his/hers I feel "baited".

Am I alone in this feeling and just need to hang around more? Because these threads feel like carefully thought out trolling to me.

Sorry for the de-rail everyone (I for the record like having the park as it's better than extending Panorama Hills anymore... yikes!)

Wanting to enhance a chunk of land to make it more appealing to a broader range of people is confrontational? I mean how is that even contentious? Some agree and some don't, but it's hardly an emotional issue. You'll probably get some "thanks" on your post (there's a few that will thank any criticism of me) and maybe that's what you were going for, but your point is ridiculous.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by zamler

Yes it is, immensely in fact. You just have to know how to appreciate the subtlety and beauty. If you don't want to spend time in a natural habitat, go to the mall.

Of course I like natural habitats. There are pretty ones and ugly ones, though, and weeds and thistle are not generally considered to be nice.

If Nosehill park was your neighbour's yard you'd call bylaw. That has to say something.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Of course I like natural habitats. There are pretty ones and ugly ones, though, and weeds and thistle are not generally considered to be nice.

If Nosehill park was your neighbour's yard you'd call bylaw. That has to say something.

I think that speaks to your own personal aesthetic sensibilities rather than being a universal thing.

I love Nose Hill. That said, I think it could use a little work without taking away from the 'naturalness' of the place. Whenever I went there I was reminded that Nose Hill is a good indication of what the prairies used to look like before pale face kill tatanka. And that's precisely why it's there and in it's natural state. It may not be your cup of tea and that's okay. If I were to choose between Fish Creek and Nose Hill I'd likely choose Fish Creek. However, I can also appreciate NH for what it is.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by KeepCalmCarryOn

I've got to ask... All I have see from the OP (Sliver) are confrontational threads... Is that his/her thing? The dog killing/biting thread, the old people are worthless thread, now this thread... Every thread I read of his/hers I feel "baited".

Am I alone in this feeling and just need to hang around more? Because these threads feel like carefully thought out trolling to me.

Sorry for the de-rail everyone (I for the record like having the park as it's better than extending Panorama Hills anymore... yikes!)

I believe it's been established that Sliver used to be DESS, who gave us these gems:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=59833
http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=70412


If I don't like it, it should either be destroyed or turned into something I like.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Wanting to enhance a chunk of land to make it more appealing to a broader range of people is confrontational? I mean how is that even contentious? Some agree and some don't, but it's hardly an emotional issue. You'll probably get some "thanks" on your post (there's a few that will thank any criticism of me) and maybe that's what you were going for, but your point is ridiculous.

"Enhance" why though? Nobody moved to the NW or visits with the expectation that Nosehill Park was going to be anything other than the grassy hill that it is.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Wormius

"Enhance" why though? Nobody moved to the NW or visits with the expectation that Nosehill Park was going to be anything other than the grassy hill that it is.

This is such a terrible argument: people don't expect improvement, therefore we shouldn't seek it.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is such a terrible argument: people don't expect improvement, therefore we shouldn't seek it.

The entire purpose of the park is to maintain the natural habitat. "Improvement" pretty much goes against that.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Of course I like natural habitats. There are pretty ones and ugly ones, though, and weeds and thistle are not generally considered to be nice.

If Nosehill park was your neighbour's yard you'd call bylaw. That has to say something.

But it's not my neighbour's yard, that's the point. It's exactly what it should be, untouched. Again if you don't like that, don't go. Go to Disney Land, they do a great job of trying to recreate a natural setting, but have all the amenities you could possibly want. That sounds like more your cup of tea.

Although the park is not exactly untouched, one section has some kind of growth study. They wiped out a cluster of trees and shrubs and then fenced the area in.

[TorqueDog]

All I'm saying is we should try cutting the grass once.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

All I'm saying is we should try cutting the grass once.

No thanks. For example, when they went up and chopped down that area of brush and trees, they left behind several poisonous fluids. I don't know if it's still there, but I saw signs of 2-cycle engine oil in standing water, and what looked like ethylene glycol.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is such a terrible argument: people don't expect improvement, therefore we shouldn't seek it.

My point was just that Nosehill is what it is. The people who visit it or purchase property near it know what the park is and are happy with it as it is. There are some small hills in Kananaskis, I think this is as silly as proposing splash parks there, or other endeavours to make the place more appealing to the masses.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Of course I like natural habitats. There are pretty ones and ugly ones, though, and weeds and thistle are not generally considered to be nice.

If Nosehill park was your neighbour's yard you'd call bylaw. That has to say something.

It doesn't say much, since nearly every park in Calgary has a lot of aspects that would induce wanting to call bylaw if it was in a neighboring yard.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Of course I like natural habitats. There are pretty ones and ugly ones, though, and weeds and thistle are not generally considered to be nice.

If Nosehill park was your neighbour's yard you'd call bylaw. That has to say something.

Well, in my case, it literally was my neighbour's yard. And the only phone call my dad made to the City was against the Shaganappi extension way back when.

stock photo but a good example of a typical glen in that park.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by seattleflamer

Well, in my case, it literally was my neighbour's yard. And the only phone call my dad made to the City was against the Shaganappi extension way back when.

stock photo but a good example of a typical glen in that park.

That's a typical view of the park two weeks a year in June after some heavy rains. Every other day of the year it's brown.

[Jimmy Stang]

I grew up in Beddington and spent a lot of my youth mountain biking on Nose Hill. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing horses up there again, and perhaps a few more paved paths to improve accessibility for some.

Portraying Nose Hill as a weed-infested, waste of space, barren prairie couldn't be farther from the truth. There are so many amazing valleys along the edges, and a beautiful plateau at the top. Not to mention a lot of plant and animal life. Being able to experience a natural landscape and habitat within a city is precisely why this park exists. If you'd rather use more developed amenities and walk among the McMansions and fake lakes of suburban Calgary, go for it - there's no shortage.

[HerbalMagic]

Horrible idea! Do not develop nosehill, leave it as is.

Wait this is silver...he just doesn't like that dogs can have another place to run around.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is such a terrible argument: people don't expect improvement, therefore we shouldn't seek it.

Nosehiller is Killing Us!

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by HerbalMagic

Horrible idea! Do not develop nosehill, leave it as is.

Wait this is silver...he just doesn't like that dogs can have another place to run around.

Or maybe he is a molester and hates Nose Hill because there are no hiding spaces compared to Fish Creek.

[JD]

Anyone who thinks Nose Hill is just a grassy hill has probably never seen more any of it beyond their passenger window while zipping along John Laurie.

And if you have and still don't enjoy it, try to quiet your mind and enjoy the subtleties nature has to offer. You don't necessarily need a splash park to keep your mind occupied.

Trust me, there are places in the world that would love to have a park like that in their cities.