Thoughts on improving Nosehill?

[morgin]

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.

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.

[Danijam]

The weird thing about Nose Hill is that gatherings of any kind aren't encouraged or even allowed there (see Principle 7: http://fonhs.org/). This is a substantial area of the City dedicated to growing native grasses. I have nothing against native grasses, but I don't understand why such a large area that is central to a growing quadrant has been earmarked for grass preservation. We can preserve 1/2 of Nose Hill's grass and set up a protect-the-native-grass area that's even bigger anywhere else in Alberta. Why, when there are increasing demands for parks, picnic areas and general things to do in a burgeoning quadrent, is saving this amount of grass deemed more important than the needs of numerous communities' users? Maybe in the 1980s when Nose Hill was closer to the edge of the City and the Calgary population was less than half of what it is now, this was reasonable. But is it now? From a people-flow and even an environmental perspective, is it reasonable to expect people in the outermost northwest communities to drive to Riley or Edworthy parks to have a bit of family fun?

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Danijam

The weird thing about Nose Hill is that gatherings of any kind aren't encouraged or even allowed there (see Principle 7: http://fonhs.org/). This is a substantial area of the City dedicated to growing native grasses. I have nothing against native grasses, but I don't understand why such a large area that is central to a growing quadrant has been earmarked for grass preservation. We can preserve 1/2 of Nose Hill's grass and set up a protect-the-native-grass area that's even bigger anywhere else in Alberta. Why, when there are increasing demands for parks, picnic areas and general things to do in a burgeoning quadrent, is saving this amount of grass deemed more important than the needs of numerous communities' users? Maybe in the 1980s when Nose Hill was closer to the edge of the City and the Calgary population was less than half of what it is now, this was reasonable. But is it now? From a people-flow and even an environmental perspective, is it reasonable to expect people in the outermost northwest communities to drive to Riley or Edworthy parks to have a bit of family fun?

Wow, you two really are a match made in heaven aren't you?

It is a natural preserve, don't expect that to ever change. You may see no personal advantage to preserving plant species that are native to the region, but thankfully most Calgarians are a little less short-sighted/self-serving.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Danijam

The weird thing about Nose Hill is that gatherings of any kind aren't encouraged or even allowed there (see Principle 7: http://fonhs.org/). This is a substantial area of the City dedicated to growing native grasses. I have nothing against native grasses, but I don't understand why such a large area that is central to a growing quadrant has been earmarked for grass preservation. We can preserve 1/2 of Nose Hill's grass and set up a protect-the-native-grass area that's even bigger anywhere else in Alberta. Why, when there are increasing demands for parks, picnic areas and general things to do in a burgeoning quadrent, is saving this amount of grass deemed more important than the needs of numerous communities' users? Maybe in the 1980s when Nose Hill was closer to the edge of the City and the Calgary population was less than half of what it is now, this was reasonable. But is it now? From a people-flow and even an environmental perspective, is it reasonable to expect people in the outermost northwest communities to drive to Riley or Edworthy parks to have a bit of family fun?

FONHS is an advocacy group, not the park police. The City of Calgary determines what is allowed inside the park.

Also, people choose to live where they live. Nose Hill Park is not new. An argument against preservation because it inconviences people should bother anyone with some semblance of respect for the aims of preservation. Same with "but the land is valuable". The land that Central Park in new york is on is probably the most valuable land in North America. Doesn't make a good argument for building skyscrapers there though! Is there more value to Central Park in terms of amentities? Sure, but Central Park is also not a preservation park.

[Knalus]

There is a space where all the ideas for Nosehill could be done, Nosecreek.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Nose+C...ie=UTF-8&hl=en

Lots of space between Beddington Trail and the T&T supermarket.


Aside from that, the best two uses for "upgrading" would be a potential lookout on the top of the hill, and widening or improving John Laurie Blvd. With all that space, we should be able to get a good decent connector along that route with no lights.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Danijam

We can preserve 1/2 of Nose Hill's grass and set up a protect-the-native-grass area that's even bigger anywhere else in Alberta.

Originally Posted by Flacker

You may see no personal advantage to preserving plant species that are native to the region, but thankfully most Calgarians are a little less short-sighted/self-serving.

Did you even read her post? She proposed preserving half of Nosehill's grass and establishing a preserve even larger than Nosehill outside the city limits.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Did you even read her post? She proposed preserving half of Nosehill's grass and establishing a preserve even larger than Nosehill outside the city limits.

Nm. Long thread is long.

[Danijam]

Originally Posted by Flacker

Wow, you two really are a match made in heaven aren't you?

Yes, thank you.

Originally Posted by Flacker

It is a natural preserve, don't expect that to ever change.

I was just pointing out that perhaps the needs of the City have changed since this area was set up as protected grass land.

Originally Posted by Flacker

You may see no personal advantage to preserving plant species that are native to the region, but thankfully most Calgarians are a little less short-sighted/self-serving.

I don't actually have a personal stake in Nose Hill. I moved away from it. I was responding from an amenity-comparison perspective for users of Nose Hill vs. Fish Creek.

[Sliver]

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.

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.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Danijam

The weird thing about Nose Hill is that gatherings of any kind aren't encouraged or even allowed there (see Principle 7: http://fonhs.org/). This is a substantial area of the City dedicated to growing native grasses. I have nothing against native grasses, but I don't understand why such a large area that is central to a growing quadrant has been earmarked for grass preservation. We can preserve 1/2 of Nose Hill's grass and set up a protect-the-native-grass area that's even bigger anywhere else in Alberta. Why, when there are increasing demands for parks, picnic areas and general things to do in a burgeoning quadrent, is saving this amount of grass deemed more important than the needs of numerous communities' users? Maybe in the 1980s when Nose Hill was closer to the edge of the City and the Calgary population was less than half of what it is now, this was reasonable. But is it now? From a people-flow and even an environmental perspective, is it reasonable to expect people in the outermost northwest communities to drive to Riley or Edworthy parks to have a bit of family fun?

Ever hear of Bowness Park?

If you research Nosehill Park's history, you'd see the City consulted the public before preparing a development plan for It.

You can keep claiming that the same public is clamouring for changes to the park plan but those claims are demonstrably untrue.

Suck it up sweetheart. The people have spoken and they don't want what you want.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

LOL.

"CP didn't embrace my idea to redevelop Nosehill. I'm taking my ball and going home."

[kipperfan]

What a funny (read: stupid) thread. I love Nosehill, grew up in Sandstone and have used that park for the past 20+ years. As kids we would go up to the hill and stay there all day, all summer long. Contrary to the belief of some, there are tons of trees in the Park, every summer we would find a different valley to work on a new "tree fort" - I cannot tell you how many hours of fun my friends and I had up on that hill.

I no longer make tree forts on Nosehill, but have enjoyed it via mountain biking and walking my dogs for the past many years. And so do many, many others. As you'd know if you actually used the park, the pathways are always filled with people and dogs; summer and winter alike, northern Calgarians get a lot of use out of Nosehill.

At the end of the day, if you want a splash park, then go find some land, then find some investors and build yourself a splash park. We're not living in Tokyo here, this city has a plethora of open and available land for private investors to do with as they'd like. But to think we should start re-developing one of our city parks (which also happens to be a natural preserve) because you and your wife don't like it is nothing short of absurd.

No, we're not going keep half the same and build roller coasters on the other half, no we're not building a manmade lake at the top (my god what a silly idea that one was) - the park is enjoyed by many and preserves nature as it's intended to, it is not going to change, nor should it.

[morgin]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Hey guys, I decided to post another controversial thread to stir up debate being either purposely or wilfully ignorant of actual facts about why the park is as it is, and made a bunch of random suggestions to develop the park with additional ammentities that would fundamentaly alter the purpose of the park, and then feinted ignorance about the impact those would have even after people explained why most would be difficult to implement, and am now acting like everyone is being unreasonable when I just wanted to build a dog oasis so you could enjoy your dogs even more.

FYP.

In all seriousness, I agree the pressure will increase on the city to develop the land as we continue this outward expansion, and it is probably more "prime" land now than it was in the 80s. That said, it's a unique preserve that many Calgarians are extremely fond of, and once you start down the path of development, the reality is that it becomes easier and easier to add a little thing here and a little thing there.

Yes, nature is close by and we are fortunate that we have the access we do. This is it for inside Calgary city limits though, and once it's gone, we don't get it back.

[jayswin]

Hey guys, I decided to post another controversial thread to stir up debate being either purposely or wilfully ignorant of actual facts about why the park is as it is, and made a bunch of random suggestions to develop the park with additional ammentities that would fundamentaly alter the purpose of the park, and then feinted ignorance about the impact those would have even after people explained why most would be difficult to implement, and am now acting like everyone is being unreasonable when I just wanted to build a dog oasis so you could enjoy your dogs even more.

Originally Posted by morgin

FYP.

In all seriousness, I agree the pressure will increase on the city to develop the land as we continue this outward expansion, and it is probably more "prime" land now than it was in the 80s. That said, it's a unique preserve that many Calgarians are extremely fond of, and once you start down the path of development, the reality is that it becomes easier and easier to add a little thing here and a little thing there.

Yes, nature is close by and we are fortunate that we have the access we do. This is it for inside Calgary city limits though, and once it's gone, we don't get it back.

Yes, Sliver does do this, but I kind of like it, as it tends to lead to some good/entertaining threads.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

LOL.

"CP didn't embrace my idea to redevelop Nosehill. I'm taking my ball and going home."

What are you talking about? There were a lot of people trying to convince me to leave the park as is and I'm convinced.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Danijam

The weird thing about Nose Hill is that gatherings of any kind aren't encouraged or even allowed there (see Principle 7: http://fonhs.org/). This is a substantial area of the City dedicated to growing native grasses. I have nothing against native grasses, but I don't understand why such a large area that is central to a growing quadrant has been earmarked for grass preservation. We can preserve 1/2 of Nose Hill's grass and set up a protect-the-native-grass area that's even bigger anywhere else in Alberta. Why, when there are increasing demands for parks, picnic areas and general things to do in a burgeoning quadrent, is saving this amount of grass deemed more important than the needs of numerous communities' users? Maybe in the 1980s when Nose Hill was closer to the edge of the City and the Calgary population was less than half of what it is now, this was reasonable. But is it now? From a people-flow and even an environmental perspective, is it reasonable to expect people in the outermost northwest communities to drive to Riley or Edworthy parks to have a bit of family fun?

As Nosehill Park was zoned as an Urban Reserve dedicated to preserving a natural grassland setting, the much needed facilities your mentioned should go in the rather large area set aside for everything other than indigenous grasslands. If there is no space left in these areas this was due to an incorrect allocation of the lands around the Urban Reserve. The way to correct this mistake would be the reallocation of these lands.

The mistake was not made in Nosehill and, as such, it should not have to make any sacrifices as part of the solution.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Sliver

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.

The idea that all nature is the same is moronic

[The Yen Man]

Some people sure get their noses bent out of shape over just some suggestions by the OP. Not sure why people are taking it so personal. I keep picturing the Simpson's mob when I read the responses to his posts. "He's talking trash about Nosehill?! GET HIM!"

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by fotze

Oh I just read the last part of the post I quoted. You want to pave it so that commuters from Airdrie can get to the core faster?

This is ridiculous. It already only takes 3.5 minutes for Airdrie residents to get to downtown Calgary and sliver wants to make a road that runs across Nosehill so they can get there even faster?

He truly hates Nosehill.

[Flacker]

By this logic we should convert half of our national park space into something much more useful for ME!! There is lots of untouched wilderness, what a waste of space! Maybe a big Texas style hunting ranch, that'd be sweet, and of course a splash pool for the kids!