[AlvinofDiaspar]

We currently have a 9lb shih-poo, and I often have the same concern when in the park when kids flock to him. But there are the occasional dog owners with large dogs, who keep them unleashed where they are not supposed to - the dogs in question might be the gentlest of giants, but the parents of the small kids don't always know.

Indeed - with usage comes responsibility - the proper response is to cultivate such, and provide sufficient enforcement when necessary. Not assumptions and blanket prohibitions that is not backed up by reasonable arguments. Parks aren't artworks - they are at a fundamental level something that is meant to be used (within reason - no one is suggesting anyone trample flowerbeds).

Shih-poos are snappy/nippy - mine is borderline evil and he is on leash at all times.

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

Parks aren't artworks - they are at a fundamental level something that is meant to be used.

Amen.

 

[Tewder]

Hateful accusation of elitism? I think we are a little overblown here in the flowery rhetoric of victimization, are we?

That's what you take issue with? I've offered some ideas for this park. Disagree if you like but Skeezix has called me 'disingenuous' at least four times, 'patronizing' and 'appalling' etc. He's made some pretty offensive accusations... and yes, accusing a poster of being 'elitist' is downright hateful - he's accused me of comparing dog walkers to prostitutes for pete's sake.

I don't sign on here, taking the time to contribute and post thoughtfully, to be insulted:

This whole "If I ban jogging, I am not banning joggers, etc." argument of yours is just utterly disingenuous and facile.

If one excludes the activities for which a park is enjoyed, it’s disingenuous and patronizing to then suggest to those users that they themselves are not being excluded.

That's a little rich since you're all about banning park activities. This ornamental garden you seem to be envisioning for Allan Gardens would actually preclude people using the park as they always have. Yours is an approach of exclusion.

Your argument is so feeble that now your grasping at scatology and trying to link dogs to illegal activities. I thought you must have some rationale for taking this extreme position of yours, but I guess you don't [...] What you're advocating is pretty appalling, given you have no substantive rationale for it, and runs counter to the whole principle of public parks.

And while on the subject of hyperbole, you're the last one to make that accusation given that in your post above you tried to link dog walking with "illicit activities". Given you are comparing the dog walkers to what we can only assume are prostitutes and drug dealers, you probably shouldn't be throwing the word "hyperbole" around because it's not my comments that people are going to associate it with..

Telling them they can enjoy the display of irises, for example, when they suddenly are no longer entitled to walk their dog or jog through the park, is, as I said, disingenuous and patronizing, and will be cold comfort to those people.

Trust me when I say I don't agree with any of your elitist and disingenuous theories about how to "improve" Allan Gardens (which apparently involves destroying some of its best aspects).

You're the one advocating an extreme position of excluding people from a public park without any rationale other than your personal predilections and some mistaken belief that the public sullies heritage.

When the heck did I say that the public sullies heritage?

I've tried to offer a vision for this park based on its horticulture/botanical heritage, the singularity of its heritage infrastructure, and the potential this can offer as a 'city-wide' draw/destination/tourist site. I've argued that this 'may' be at odds with normal community uses. I've argued that community uses should always be accommodated, if not Allan Gardens somewhere else handy to the community.

Don't agree? fine. Just sharing ideas. No need for the character assassination.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I've tried to offer a vision for this park based on its horticulture/botanical heritage, the singularity of its heritage infrastructure, and the potential this can offer as a 'city-wide' draw/destination/tourist site. I've argued that this 'may' be at odds with normal community uses. I've argued that community uses should always be accommodated, if not Allan Gardens somewhere else handy to the community..

You seem to want to dictate to others who live in the community how they should and shouldn't use a park - and at the same time offering little that substantiate how banning dogs will lead to "elevation of heritage".

I trust that you don't live in the community -it is indeed quite elitist to tell others that this is what I want, you can settle for somewhere else "handy". There is a certain pomposity in that - and before you accuse others of assassinating your character, it would be important to review one's words (which is of course not cited in your litany of postings)

This isn't surprising though. The city as a whole has ignored the heritage value of this site, which is why it is in the condition it's in, used as a toilet for dogs and a cruising ground for illicit activities and transactions. The adding of an off-leash area in 2008 was a white flag of surrender more than anything else...

This predate the scatological/prostitution reference. Like really, adding an off leash area equate to white flag of surrender? Holy batman hyperbole, I shouldn't remind you the surrender that is Berczy in that case.

Look, we all want better public realm, but can we focus less on "banning" something and more on ensuring appropriate level of investment and maintenance from the part of the city and responsible behaviour as part of stewardship of a public space instead?

AoD

 

[Tewder]

You seem to want to dictate to others who live in the community how they should and shouldn't use a park - and at the same time offering little that substantiate how banning dogs will lead to "elevation of heritage".

I trust that you don't live in the community -it is indeed quite elitist to tell others that this is what I want, you can settle for somewhere else "handy". There is a certain pomposity in that.

AoD

I'm done. Peace out.

 

[Skeezix]

With all due respect, your response to people who would suddenly find their activities banned from this park was both disingenuous and patronizing. That's not character assassination. And you don't have to agree. But the position you advocate is not exempt from frank criticism.

ETA: To the extent, however, that I was in some of my comments not 100% clear that I was calling your position on this thread disingenuous, versus calling you disingenuous, I apologize. It is not my experience in these forums that you are typically disingenuous, which is perhaps why I found your responses so jarring.

When the heck did I say that the public sullies heritage?

By repeatedly insisting, over and over again, that heritage revitalization means telling park users that they can no longer use it for many of the reasons for which they rely on that space.

 

[Tewder]

... and this disgusting manipulative trolling is supported by the moderators here. Great. I'm done with UT. The discourse has reached new lows.

 

[Skeezix]

People who disagree with you are disgusting manipulative trolls?

Peace out, indeed.

 

[gabe]

 

[Admiral Beez]

Peace out, indeed.

Please hold yourself to that.

I for one find myself scrolling past page after page of quotes and rebuttals on dogs, with almost nothing about Allan Gardens.

I often think there's a disconnect in people's minds here. If a discussion becomes personal, no one seems to make the natural step to suggest taking it offline into the private messages. Instead we're like those people in a meeting where two guys are arguing back and forth and everyone else is looking for the exit.

 

[Skeezix]

Please hold yourself to that.

I for one find myself scrolling past page after page of quotes and rebuttals on dogs, with almost nothing about Allan Gardens.

I often think there's a disconnect in people's minds here. If a discussion becomes personal, no one seems to make the natural step to suggest taking it offline into the private messages. Instead we're like those people in a meeting where two guys are arguing back and forth and everyone else is looking for the exit.

The whole discussion was about whether dogs and other uses should be banned in Allan Gardens because a heritage revitalization of the park would require such activities to be shunted elsewhere - a discussion which you contributed to (and actually initiated), except unlike others here, your posts made no reference to Allan Gardens. It wasn't personal from my perspective, and nobody required you to participate.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I happily agree with whatever you've posted above.

I just don't understand your reasoning for continuing the barrage of quotes and counter statements. Of what do you want to convince us? When will you have sufficient satisfaction to stand down?

IMO, the quote function is one of the least useful tools here on UT. Many use it to pull a single element out of an otherwise multifaceted post to then argue meaninglessly about the specifics of that one element. Skeezix, I challenge you to avoid the quote function for your next six posts when contributing to someone else's thread - just six - and I suggest you'll feel better for it. I know I do, whenever I find myself guilty of the idiocy of posting a half dozen quotes and then aggressively challenging their specifics, instead of looking at the greater meaning of the post.

 

[Skeezix]

Well said. We can all move on.

ETA: Sigh. I thought we'd all moved on. But apparently not - you decided to edit your comment to add some criticism. Beez, not clear why you feel the need to follow up a heated on-topic discussion which was over, with unsolicited off-topic complaints and advice (which, with all due respect, is patronizing as all get out). I don't actually use the quote function all that much, other than to clarify to whom I am responding, but here, where there were so many different points being made, I am actually quite content with the approach which I took (and I was not the only one, although I seem to be the only one you are haranguing).

I'm pretty tired of this discussion. At least with Tewder and the others, we kept on-topic. If you want to keep having this discussion about the quote function and your critiques of other users, I would ask that you follow your advice above and take it offline. Thanks.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I happily agree.

 

[Tranquillity]

Are there any plans for George st just south of Allan Gardens? A few weeks back I walked through and couldn't believe it was in Toronto!