Hey Guest,
Welcome, Join our awesome community where you can discuss on various topics
or Create an Account


Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Sports and Recreation News
(06-09-2018, 11:43 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: Schlegel Urban Developments Corp is requesting a zoning change in their subdivision planned for the Fischer-Hallman/Plains/Huron area (page 163).

One of the proposals is for Privately Owned and Maintained Publicly Accessible (POMPA) Parks where the "park ownership and maintenance model for this subdivision where by parks may be retained in private ownership, maintained jointly by property owners through condominium corporations, and which would remain fully publicly accessible..."





I'm not sure what I think about this concept yet, but I can't put my finger on why just yet.

I guess statements like this make it feel as though we are going to start creating different classes of parks based on who can afford to live near them:
"They wish to create a series of enhanced parks and landscape features throughout the Becker Estates neighbourhood which will contain features that are beyond the capacity of City Operations to maintain in perpetuity."

I'm wondering why sort of development you could have that allows for the public to use it that has private ownership and private maintenance, paid for by a condo corp.

Open to the public as in 'paid' entrance?

My other thought though, it could be entirely public, but with the neighbours of park benefiting the most (hence private ownership/maintenance) and inability for the city to properly maintain the grounds in a TIMELY fashion. Not that the city couldn't maintain it, they can. However, the city can't provide services for 1 park, like more regular lawn maintenance, vs other parks. That is what I think of when I hear "perpetuity". Very few area's of the city are taken care of in such fashion, perhaps city hall, and the DTK core, but that's about it.
Reply
(06-16-2018, 01:22 PM)jeffster Wrote:
(06-09-2018, 11:43 AM)Pheidippides Wrote: Schlegel Urban Developments Corp is requesting a zoning change in their subdivision planned for the Fischer-Hallman/Plains/Huron area (page 163).

One of the proposals is for Privately Owned and Maintained Publicly Accessible (POMPA) Parks where the "park ownership and maintenance model for this subdivision where by parks may be retained in private ownership, maintained jointly by property owners through condominium corporations, and which would remain fully publicly accessible..."





I'm not sure what I think about this concept yet, but I can't put my finger on why just yet.

I guess statements like this make it feel as though we are going to start creating different classes of parks based on who can afford to live near them:
"They wish to create a series of enhanced parks and landscape features throughout the Becker Estates neighbourhood which will contain features that are beyond the capacity of City Operations to maintain in perpetuity."

I'm wondering why sort of development you could have that allows for the public to use it that has private ownership and private maintenance, paid for by a condo corp.

Open to the public as in 'paid' entrance?


My other thought though, it could be entirely public, but with the neighbours of park benefiting the most (hence private ownership/maintenance) and inability for the city to properly maintain the grounds in a TIMELY fashion. Not that the city couldn't maintain it, they can. However, the city can't provide services for 1 park, like more regular lawn maintenance, vs other parks. That is what I think of when I hear "perpetuity". Very few area's of the city are taken care of in such fashion, perhaps city hall, and the DTK core, but that's about it.

No.
Reply
Many of the Waterloo neighbourhoods inside the Columbia, Erbsville, Erb, Westmount block (plus another one near Fisher-Hallman and Glasgow) were built on this model. The private facilities usually included pools and tennis courts. The privately-maintained park space was the green space between the houses that typically included trails. In time, the City took over the maintenance of the park space (mowing, trees, and plowing) while the neighbourhood associations continue to maintain and operate the recreational facilities. In some cases, the City has also taken over the collection of association fees as part of the property tax collection.

In general, it was a very good model that provided a focus point for the neighbourhoods to congregate.
Reply
(05-05-2018, 10:36 PM)KevinL Wrote: I can't seem to find a source on what happened, but K-W United FC are not playing this season. Their twitter account remains active, so I doubt the organization has completely folded; I'm not sure what their future holds.

Well, I've discovered some info. It's very complicated politics around the league system and where the federation was expecting teams to go; London's team moved from the PDL to League 1 Ontario, a relatively new initiative, and KW was 'expected' to do the same. But the KW organization is very different from London in their goals and intentions, and that league would not suit them well. The federation's timeline on that ran out at the start of this year.

More here: http://www.northernstartingeleven.com/wh...united-fc/
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
Thanks, it all makes sense now, kind of. Hopefully Barry MacLean will succeed in securing a Canadian Premier League team for K-W yet, either in 2019 (the league's inaugural season) or later. There is no stadium in place though (Seagram Stadium might work as an interim solution) and I don't know whether there is enough room to build a new one where Centennial Stadium used to be.
Reply
(06-16-2018, 12:07 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: I hadn't been to the Central/Albert corner of Waterloo Park in a while. It is looking quite nice. I think that is part of the old steel trellis from the Clay and Glass gallery that has been repurposed:

:O

My husband and I were talking about Clay & Glass as we biked by last night - that the trellis is now gone, presumably a casualty of the LRT and Trail right-of-ways encroaching on that corner. We wondered if it might come back in a modified form.

It’s interesting to see it reused... but the Clay & Glass is (as far as we know?) a private institution, is it not? Did they donate it? It just seems unfortunate that Perimeter (also private) got all this beautiful landscaping alongside the trail reconstruction... and Clay & Glass got a concrete pad and their Trellis ripped up and put on city property. Just seems strange.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(07-02-2018, 06:46 AM)Canard Wrote:
(06-16-2018, 12:07 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: I hadn't been to the Central/Albert corner of Waterloo Park in a while. It is looking quite nice. I think that is part of the old steel trellis from the Clay and Glass gallery that has been repurposed:

:O

My husband and I were talking about Clay & Glass as we biked by last night - that the trellis is now gone, presumably a casualty of the LRT and Trail right-of-ways encroaching on that corner. We wondered if it might come back in a modified form.

It’s interesting to see it reused... but the Clay & Glass is (as far as we know?) a private institution, is it not? Did they donate it? It just seems unfortunate that Perimeter (also private) got all this beautiful landscaping alongside the trail reconstruction... and Clay & Glass got a concrete pad and their Trellis ripped up and put on city property. Just seems strange.

Oi don't know if it is just me, but as I drive around and notice landscaping as a result of LRT, it seems Waterloo got a much better deal.  I don't know if the City asked for more, paid for more, or what the situation is?
Reply
If you are referring to the circular structure that used to be close to the train tracks, some of it has been moved to Central Street entrance of Waterloo Park.  According to this Record article in 2010, Waterloo won the bid to host the Canadian Clay and Glass Gallery at some point after 1982 and it opened in 1993.  When fundraising fell short, the City paid the balance of the costs and took ownership of the building in compensation.  I also would not be surprised if the City continues to own as a separate parcel, all of the land outside the footprint of the building, similar to the land around the Perimeter Institute.  All of that land would continue to be a part of Waterloo Park.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links

              Advertise