The park was along a waterway. In living memory people were able to paddle along it as a recreational past time.
However, with time and development the waterway has disappeared. The park itself is at the low point in a valley and
was where the old river/creek ran. Further to the south and north the river banks are more dramatically evident. I suppose
that through development the sides of the creek were leveled. As it is now the waterway has been transferred underground
into an engineered drainage system.
This is a very constructive comment concerning those involved in burning down the playground. What sprung to mind when I gave
this some thought was that the playground actually had no other age appropriate activity for the 14-17 years who torched it than
to burn down the playground. I suppose that we might just fit the definition of the suburbs: there is no self-evident activity for
our 14-17 year olds to do within a 30 minute walk of our park.
The idea of reconciliation also strongly resonates. All the criminal justice system would have contributed to this event was punishing
those involved: it is an operant conditioning system which never uses joy to sculpt behavior. Involving the entire community in designing the park is such a great idea. As it is, the likely reason that the park is being redeveloped 3-5 years ahead of schedule is that those responsible for burning down the original playground have now been relocated for their further educational development.
Yes, there is mention of including extra benches for parents to observe their children and others in the park.
I am not completely sure about the bulldozer (I only suggested bulldozer as a possible piece of machinery). There will likely need to be
some sort of heavy machinery to move the playground into place. It would be a great community project if this could be done as a make it from a box type playground, though given current liability concerns park planners and others almost certainly need to be involved.
There is a certain amount of Nimbyism involved. The path as it is now ends near a driveway. Some would be interested in moving the path from where it is to someone else's driveway (NIMDWism?) The problem with doing this is that the path is now in the safest place
for pedestrians leaving the park. If it were to be moved to either side of the park, then the traffic on the street would no longer have a clear line of sight as many cars park towards the sides of the park. Cars pick up a fair amount of speed and try to pick up speed when
going down and up the grade on one of the streets with the path. The concern is that the wrong choice will be made about the pathway based upon a democratic process that does not actually involve the people. The blueprints for the park have still not been disclosed! This
must have been worked through to the millimeter years ago.
They are thinking of signage, though speed bumps are no longer used because of the needs of emergency vehicles. The park is in a residential area so the traffic is not typically overwhelming.
Thank you very much for your thoughts sthira.
You were able to guide the conversation away from the pathological perspective to constructive ways of bringing harmony and reconciliation back into our community. I had thought that our park redevelopment might only relate to specific local features of our community, though your comments have shown that there are universal factors that are also involved.
Edited by Parkdeveloper, 16 January 2017 - 05:47 PM.