Admiral Beez
Superstar
Yozzers, I'm sorry I mentioned the possibilities of a dog-free park.
|
|
|
- Thread starter AlvinofDiaspar
- Start date
Tewder
Senior Member
I'm only suggesting that a further revitalized park, elevated to make this an important heritage site and a city-wide draw, would improve the neighbourhood even more.
The heritage infrastructure here is pretty significant right? This isn't an 'anti-dog' or 'anti-dog walker' assessment.
I"m curious 'Whatever', are there other options in the hood for walking the dog? Or are there other green spaces nearby that could accommodate an off-leash area?
Patently not true. Heritage. I am arguing that this site is significant enough to warrant considerations that prioritize Heritage over other uses. That's it. Not elitist. Not anti-dog. Not anti-dog walker. Not any of the other accusations you've smeared me with.
Wait, what?! Wow, sling the mud and hope some sticks eh? Please show me where I tied dogs to illegal activities or called dog walkers 'prostitutes'. Look, you have to dial back the verbiage here or there's no further discussion to have.
No hyperbole there at all
This is a non-sequitur, pure and simple. You are suggesting that because Whatever has a dog he/she must be banned from visiting a revitalized heritage site. Nice! According to your logic people who swim have effectively been banned from parks that don't have swimming pools. By the way, dogs are not permitted on Toronto's swimming beaches. Does this mean dog owners are banned from these beaches? No, of course it doesn't. You are grasping at straws.
There is no entitlement for dogs in the Toronto park system. They are banned from many parks. They are accommodated where it makes sense. They are accommodated in Allan Gardens because it makes sense, now. It may make sense to accommodate them in a different space within the neighbourhood if Allan Gardens is being elevated for other uses. This is ok. Not a crime. Not elitist. The dogs aren't going to miss the conservatories!
Perhaps you should be fighting the Toronto Parks system because according to your logic the Toronto parks system is anti-dog and bans people who own dogs from the system.
Not at all. If there are other spaces provided to enjoy the activities in question there is no issue. People want to walk or run their dogs. It doesn't have to be in Allan Gardens.
A revitalized heritage site is a benefit to all, not just neighbours in the area. A heritage site must be evaluated from a wider perspective. This is not elitist. This is not a civil injustice. We all benefit from the preservation of heritage sites. A park that is revitalized and elevated to a degree where it will draw visitors from all parts of the city and beyond will be an asset to the community in many ways.
This is childish. We are having a discussion about the best use for this site. There are different perspectives and viewpoints. The discussion is good. Put away the pitchfork and open your mind to possibilities.
Heritage revitalization is elitist? The Toronto Parks system is elitist? I think you've lost the plot here, clearly.
Oh I get it, the use of a french term is 'elitist' to you. Okaaaay.
Of course high garden/landscape design necessitates a limit on activities. This is an art form and a science. This art form and science is fundamental to the heritage value of this site.
This is an asset for the whole city. The development potential is not being maximized if you are focusing on it as a 'local' park only. From BlogTo it is clear that the objective for this park is to elevate it to a status that is greater than community infrastructure:
http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/05/nostalgia_tripping_allan_gardens/
This is not just another community park! From the Friends of Allan Gardens:
http://www.torontoparksandtrees.ca/Projects/Current-Projects/Friends-of-Allen-Gardens
Clearly the dog run was an initiative to improve local usage, not one to make it a 'city-wide attraction'. If we are revitalizing this park to city-wide attraction we should be assessing the activities according to different parameters.
Bottom line, this park deserves more...
Attachments
Register123
Active Member
+ 1 Tewder. You''ve nailed it, without even simply flipping skeezix argument around. Skeezix, I could say your stance that dogs should be allowed effectively bans people who: either don't like being around dogs, can't tolerate the noise they make, don't like the fact that their waste products kill vegetation, etc. from the park. Does your logic work the same way in reverse?
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Why aren't dogs allowed into the green houses at Allan Gardens? Certainly their owners are equal park owners, and if your animal is going to piss on the paths and plants outside, why not inside? Certainly in the summer months many of the flowers, beds and plants found outside at Allan Gardens are as nice as those inside.
It is an odd contradiction, put a roof over a park and dogs are suddenly verboten, but take away the roof and your animal can piss and dig in the above to his heart's content.
Don't misunderstand me, I love dogs, live dogs, and have built much of my career around dogs. But the way POWPs have allowed dogs to rise to the point that they deserve park access is notable.
It is an odd contradiction, put a roof over a park and dogs are suddenly verboten, but take away the roof and your animal can piss and dig in the above to his heart's content.
Don't misunderstand me, I love dogs, live dogs, and have built much of my career around dogs. But the way POWPs have allowed dogs to rise to the point that they deserve park access is notable.
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
Well, I understand that people need and want to walk their dogs... and want to enjoy walking their dogs. This is a great thing. It just requires an appropriate space. It sounds like Allan Gardens has been a great location for this. I'm just arguing that perhaps there are some better uses for Allan Gardens, given its extraordinary potential as a heritage and horticulture site. Of course dog walkers in the area must be accommodated. I wouldn't suggest 'pushing them out' and not having options for them.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
One of the best things about the off leash section of the park is that it greatly altered the ratio of crazed and drunk vagrants to normal folks, in the positive for the latter.
Skeezix
Senior Member
Using your logic, Register, just about all park activities exclude others. If we're talking about noise, frankly there are numerous activities you would ban before one got to dogs if one wanted to be effective about reducing noise. And its actually sports and similar activities that have a much greater adverse impact on turf and vegetation.
Parks serve the public and are meant to be inclusive.
UserNameToronto
Active Member
+1.
I don't buy Skeezix' pro-dog arguments (my small children have had awful experiences with antisocial dogs parks and I wish at least some places were dog-free), but most dog parks tend to have a positive neighbourhood effect, and most dogs & dog owners are cool.
Tewder
Senior Member
There are many instances where noisy or destructive (to plants/habitat etc) activities are limited, not just dogs.
Clearly you equate 'restrictions' with exclusions, and this is a fundamental flaw in your logic. The Toronto parks system has all kinds of restrictions, literally pages and pages of them. Have a read of their rules and regulations, you'll likely blow a gasket...
This false ideal you have that all parks MUST accommodate all possible users with all possible functions at all times has no bearing on reality. The fact that you conflate this to some sort of civic injustice, lobbing around hateful accusations of elitism or discrimination means you have no sense of nuance or objectivity when assessing these issues. Please understand your limits and make an effort to understand another point of view before resorting to base insults. We are all advocating for the best for this city.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Hateful accusation of elitism? I think we are a little overblown here in the flowery rhetoric of victimization, are we?
And speaking of which...I find kids in general awfully destructive to the peace and tranquility of park space (if not the actual physical aspects of the park itself) - can we exclude them in at least some areas of the parks, please? Or at least put them on leashes? They have the playgrounds and that ought to be sufficient.
Heritage is not an arbitrary argument to ban pets from a park - and the latter isn't a museum.
AoD
And speaking of which...I find kids in general awfully destructive to the peace and tranquility of park space (if not the actual physical aspects of the park itself) - can we exclude them in at least some areas of the parks, please? Or at least put them on leashes? They have the playgrounds and that ought to be sufficient.
Heritage is not an arbitrary argument to ban pets from a park - and the latter isn't a museum.
AoD
Last edited:
Skeezix
Senior Member
None of that is inconsistent with keeping the park inclusive and welcoming to all, including dog-owners. When you advocate banning dogs, and can't seem to articulate any reason or back-up information to support that point, its not unreasonable, in fact, to interpret that as "anti-dog". And why look for other spaces when the off-leash area has been so positive for Allan Gardens, and is not inconsistent with a heritage-inspired revitalization of the park?
Actually, it is true. You've thrown the word heritage around, but have failed to articulate how it requires an exclusionary approach to park plan or banning specific activities. In fact, your approach is quite elitist, as you seem to be advocating a revitalized park that it unsullied by the majority of people who have always used it.
Scroll up and look at your comments. You're the one that linked use by dog walkers to illicit activities.
No what I said, and not the same thing. I'm not advocating the construction of swimming pools, off-leash areas or other facilities in all parks. But when people make use of paths and open spaces in parks for normal and common park activities which don't need special facilities, like walking their dog, and you suddenly ban that activity, you are excluding that person when you have eliminated the main reason they use the park. You exclude activities, you exclude people.
Dogs are banned from many city beaches (not all) because of water safety issues and to meet Blue Flag criteria. Nobody in Allan Gardens is going to drown and the park does not qualify for Blue Flag.
As I have said many times, I have no issue with specific facilities withing a park being dog free (e.g. a conservatory, a children's play area, botanical gardens, etc. etc.) where conflicts can arise. Such conflicts can arise between facilities and other uses too (e.g. pikc-up football in such botanical gardens, etc. - I listed a number of examples above). But outside those specific areas within a large park, banning common activities where there is no conflict is exclusionary, and designing parks so as to promote such conflicts is bad planning, exclusionary and an elitist approach to public park space (especially when one can have beautiful space and still accommodate all).
There is an entitlement to for the public to use public parks. Their ability to do so should only ever be restricted when there are compelling reasons to do so. You have not articulated any.
I have asked you where several posts ago. You haven't responded.
You haven't articulated any reason for ceasing to accommodate them, except repeating the word heritage ad nauseum, but without explaining why an unavoidable conflict would exist over the entirety of the 13 acres (or anywhere, for that matter).
And dog owners are accommodated because that's what public parks do -- they accommodate the public.
And excluding people from a park, but telling them to go elsewhere, is as disingenuous as your previous explanations.
Nobody said bad park planning and exclusionary policies are a crime. The latter is elitist.
No. Toronto Parks does not ban dogs simply because they think, as you seem to, that dog are inconsistent with revitalized parks. They ban dogs from specific facilities, which I support (and said so right at the beginning of this discussion).
You can say "it doesn't have to be in Allan Gardens" to all park users for any and all activities. The public gets to use public parks. There are no compelling, or otherwise, reasons to restrict that fundamental principle here.
Heritage does have a wider benefit, but I disagree with your assumption that heritage requires excluding the neighbours or anyone else. Successful revitalization accommodates everyone. Otherwise you are detracting from its value as a public asset.
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. I'm not the one here with a pitchfork and a closed mind.
I didn't say that heritage revitalization or Toronto parks are elitist. Both are great. I said that your position is elitist.
I didn't say the french term is elitist. I said that your position is elitist.
You're making all kinds of assumptions, and assuming that the only appropriate landscape garden here has to be exclusionary, over the entirety of the park, and that the heritage value can't be recognized unless it is fundamentally exclusionary. That's hogwash. And, by the way, the "high garden" you desire would likely necessitate the banning of all kinds of activities (basically most of what the park is enjoyed for today) before you ever even got to the need to ban walking leashed dogs.
Nobody (certainly not in that link), except possibly for you, is advocating that it cease being an asset for both the city and the area. Our large parks serve a number of communities.
Nobody said it was. By the way, Friends of Allan Gardens supports the current revitalization efforts (which commenced with the off-leash area), is not advocating a ban on dogs or the removal of the off-leash area, and has been encouraging a mix of improvements and new facilities that would serve the park community, the area community, and the wider city community (the link you provided has multiple references to serving the surrounding neighbourhood/local community!) They understand that good park design and planning is inclusionary and accommodating.
You're making incorrect assumptions about intent, again, mainly because you also assume (again, without any back-up) that a large, grand city park cannot accommodate the local community while also being a city-wide asset. That’s just bunk.
Not sure what the "today" photo is meant to imply (did dog owners pour all that concrete?). The "yesteryear" photos are beautiful - but nothing they show would preclude a park accommodating to all users, including those who wish to walk their dog.
Last edited:
Skeezix
Senior Member
Don't get me started about jackass dog owners. But there is a jackass element among just about every group of park users. Play areas for small children should generally be dog free.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Honestly, I would be more concerned about small children mishandling my dog than the other way around (granted, she IS a yorkie)
AoD
Skeezix
Senior Member
I didn't say that all parks "must" accommodate all possible users. I said that a important principle of public parks is that they should accommodate all users, and restrictions need to be backed up by compelling evidence only where you have unavoidable conflicts (e.g. no dogs in the Allan Gardens conservatory, etc. - I named several examples).
And designing a large park from scratch, such that it excludes the activities for which many people rely on the park (your desire "haut lieu" park design is likely to exclude lots of users beyond people walking dogs, the way you describe it), and eliminates one of the most successful and dynamic facilities in the park, all on the dubious assumption that heritage revitalization somehow requires this exclusion, is very much an elitist approach. That's not a base insult to say that. I'm not being hateful - I'm simply pointing out that you are advocating excluding swathes of the public one of our best downtown parks, unnecessarily and without any substantive justification. You're entitled to take that position, and I am allowed to strongly criticize it.
Skeezix
Senior Member
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.