Downtown outdoor spaces

[panamaniac]

One can only hope that the boulders are temporary - it looks dreadful. One assumes bollards will follow in due course.

[dtkvictim]

LOL. Somehow they've made the roll curbs even worse by adding protective boulders. Pedestrians on the sidewalk are now more separated from a pedestrian area than they are from the road...

Our local politicians seem to say all the right things, but seeing basic projects with decent potential executed like this give me a much more negative outlook on the future potential of the city.

[tomh009]

I certainly don't, I already know the actual situation. It is a pedestrian square. Issuing construction parking permits, valid or not, does not make it not a pedestrian square, permits are issued for construction on sidewalks, we don't say that sidewalks aren't sidewalks.

It is marked as pedestrian square in the plans, it is marked that on the signs, there is no controversy here. The only only controversy is why the city would issue construction parking permits to construction workers not working on the square where they are parked.  I don't even know why we are having this conversation.

FWIW, I noticed a few weeks ago, more vehicles parked, but this time they were workers actually working *IN* the square...what were they doing? Installing armour stones, so now it is physically impossible to park in the square (at least from Charles). Leaving aside the point that they wouldn't have needed armour stones if they had used a barrier curb, this is great news, and is the right way to discourage illegal parking. And also leaves no question about the purpose of the square.

@taylortbb Heh, wishful thinking, I think we'd be lucky to decide not to make that mistake in the future. But making it physically impossible or at least difficult to park there is a reasonable alternative.

Is that "no parking to the right of here" sign still there?

[Rainrider22]

I think nice black bollards would look nicer. But, at least they addressed the situation.

[dtkvictim]

Does anyone know why the city insists on cutting/trimming what seems like perfectly reasonable plants? In this case, by the Schneider House and Mike Wagner Green.



Street view from last fall: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.442605,-...384!8i8192

I'd like to know if they have good reasons, or if it's to keep things "beautiful". Let the plants live their lives in peace!

[ac3r]

I don't know plants very well, but perhaps they grow really quickly so they trim them in the spring?

[danbrotherston]

I don't know plants very well, but perhaps they grow really quickly so they trim them in the spring?

That is my thinking, I'm no botanist, but I know when I did not properly prune the plants around my home, they quite quickly took over everything.

[tomh009]

I don't know plants very well, but perhaps they grow really quickly so they trim them in the spring?

That is my thinking, I'm no botanist, but I know when I did not properly prune the plants around my home, they quite quickly took over everything.

Right. A lot of shrubs will grow back aggressively so they are cut back severely each spring.

[dtkvictim]

I figured that is the case, that they grow too "wild looking". But, assuming they are native species (and I hope they are), shouldn't we be letting them go through their life-cycles? There should be local insects and animals that depend or thrive on each stage of life and death of the plants. But maybe they aren't native and just for show.

Either way, I personally find the natural overgrown appearance much nicer than the neatly pruned plants of most of our parks.

[danbrotherston]

I figured that is the case, that they grow too "wild looking". But, assuming they are native species (and I hope they are), shouldn't we be letting them go through their life-cycles? There should be local insects and animals that depend or thrive on each stage of life and death of the plants. But maybe they aren't native and just for show.

Either way, I personally find the natural overgrown appearance much nicer than the neatly pruned plants of most of our parks.

I think there is a place for both...but what would be a problem is overgrowing the bench and trail...

[dtkvictim]

I figured that is the case, that they grow too "wild looking". But, assuming they are native species (and I hope they are), shouldn't we be letting them go through their life-cycles? There should be local insects and animals that depend or thrive on each stage of life and death of the plants. But maybe they aren't native and just for show.

Either way, I personally find the natural overgrown appearance much nicer than the neatly pruned plants of most of our parks.

I think there is a place for both...but what would be a problem is overgrowing the bench and trail...

I would strongly disagree that plants encroaching on our trails is more of a problem than the absence of habitats, leading to insect population collapse. Obviously this few meters of plants is minuscule in the bigger picture, but 1) our city should lead by example and 2) every bit truly counts.

I'm obviously not an ecologist, so maybe I'm just way off base here, but that's why I came here to ask a question. I just feel a bit fired up by this, sustainability issues aside, because our current urban built environment genuinely disgusts me, and I have to step outside into it every day.

[tomh009]

I'm obviously not an ecologist, so maybe I'm just way off base here, but that's why I came here to ask a question. I just feel a bit fired up by this, sustainability issues aside, because our current urban built environment genuinely disgusts me, and I have to step outside into it every day.

On the other hand, pruning back the bushes doesn't necessarily damage the bushes -- in many cases pruning makes the plants grow back more dense and vigorous. Just like bushes in nature would recover from being munched on by a deer or a moose. Admittedly I am not a gardener, nor do I know what species the bushes in question are.

The reality is that humans have planted and shaped plants for their own enjoyment for thousands of years, and many will continue to do so -- not everyone wants a naturalized yard. Alas, if you want large, undisturbed, naturalized areas, you'll need to look rather far in most cities.

[danbrotherston]

I think there is a place for both...but what would be a problem is overgrowing the bench and trail...

I would strongly disagree that plants encroaching on our trails is more of a problem than the absence of habitats, leading to insect population collapse. Obviously this few meters of plants is minuscule in the bigger picture, but 1) our city should lead by example and 2) every bit truly counts.

I'm obviously not an ecologist, so maybe I'm just way off base here, but that's why I came here to ask a question. I just feel a bit fired up by this, sustainability issues aside, because our current urban built environment genuinely disgusts me, and I have to step outside into it every day.

Well you and I absolutely agree on that. I'd becurious to know the policies in The Netherlands.  They seem to have highly manicured spaces that are also wild. I don't know how they achieve that.

[ijmorlan]

I think there is a place for both...but what would be a problem is overgrowing the bench and trail...

I would strongly disagree that plants encroaching on our trails is more of a problem than the absence of habitats, leading to insect population collapse. Obviously this few meters of plants is minuscule in the bigger picture, but 1) our city should lead by example and 2) every bit truly counts.

It’s not just trails, it’s roads and everything else we do.

At a certain point, plants encroaching on a trail reduce and eventually eliminate the usefulness of the trail.

In this case we’re nowhere near that but to single out trails alone as not being more important than habitat is still counterproductive. You would see a much bigger increase in habitat from cutting back unnecessarily wide roads than from anything involving trails.

That being said, I wish we would have a lot more wild or semi wild areas and a lot less random grass. Of course in parks a certain amount of grass space is useful for many park uses such as walking, having a picnic, or playing games, but a lot of the grass in the city really isn’t used. I’m thinking especially of boulevards and medians among other areas.

[plam]

Well you and I absolutely agree on that. I'd becurious to know the policies in The Netherlands.  They seem to have highly manicured spaces that are also wild. I don't know how they achieve that.

I think the relationship with the outdoors is quite different in Europe and in North America. In Europe there haven't really been spaces that we perceive as wild for a very long time. On the other hand, in North America, a lot of the land was actually under management by First Nations, but settler society didn't perceive it as so. And then settlers came and tried to import Europe. So it's some sort of mix.

Having said that, in general, I think there is too much grass in North America, especially in places where there shouldn't be grass.