[Admiral Beez]

Thankfully, we don't exclude people from parks here.

Sure we do, we just do it dishonestly by letting the parks go to disrepair and by ignoring existing laws on sleeping in parks, loitering and public intoxication. These two acts alone will ensure that many people will feel excluded from the park.

Unless we reasonably enforce the laws and maintain the parks, there can be no peaceful coexistence between the housed, sane and employed downtowner and the drunk/high mentally ill homeless guy splayed out on the park bench muttering to himself. Instead, the sane downtowner feels excluded and stays away and the homeless own the park.

I look at Central Park in Manhattan as an example of how to run a park well, albeit on a much larger scale. There are folks that appear rough or homeless mixed amongst everyone else, and IMO it works well, with no public drunkenness or people sleeping on benches, and there are police and park staff everywhere. Kids run and play, people read on the grass, enjoy a book on the benches, and just enjoy the park. Compare this to Allan Gardens.

BTW, the Halifax Public Gardens do not exclude anyone. They're owned by the public, and anyone is welcome to visit. The only rules they have are shown here http://www.halifaxpublicgardens.ca/visit/guidelines-when-visiting-the-halifax-public-gardens/ Imagine if we had a kids program at Allan Gardens, this would be a great attraction for all the families in the area http://www.halifaxpublicgardens.ca/visit/kids-zone/

 

[Tewder]

Don't you realize that our streets and public spaces should be flop houses for vagrants and how dare you suggest otherwise? Let us aim low and revel in our social smugness!

 

[greenleaf]

Why not?

"As for ensuring that all New Yorkers have equal access to good public parks, we should require private parks conservancies to chip in to rehabilitate parks in low-income parts of the city, just as developers are expected to help finance affordable housing. If we want even the semblance of equity in civic spaces, new ways must be found to pay for it."

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/opinion/the-billionaires-park.html

 

[Tewder]

So you're equating 'low-income' with vagrants? Nice.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

So you're equating 'low-income' with vagrants? Nice.

Though vagrants of the sort we are talking about has a 99.99% likelihood of being extreme low-income. That said, I am not sure just how much private conservancy funding there is for our public realm.

Anyways, the fact that they are sleeping in the park is indicative of insufficient social support - and you can't really tackle the homelessness issue without looking at that. It will cost a significant amount of resources though.

AoD

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Sure we do, we just do it dishonestly by letting the parks go to disrepair and by ignoring existing laws on sleeping in parks, loitering and public intoxication. These two acts alone will ensure that many people will feel excluded from the park.

Unless we reasonably enforce the laws and maintain the parks, there can be no peaceful coexistence between the housed, sane and employed downtowner and the drunk/high mentally ill homeless guy splayed out on the park bench muttering to himself. Instead, the sane downtowner feels excluded and stays away and the homeless own the park.

So people who are housed in Almost Cabbagetown like you or who are unemployed are automatically drunk/high or mentally ill?

 

[Admiral Beez]

What do you expect of a dog run?

If parks aren't for people to linger in, what on Earth ARE they for?

So people who are housed in Almost Cabbagetown like you or who are unemployed are automatically drunk/high or mentally ill?

Andrea, why all the rhetorical questions? If we can refrain answering with another question, I'd like to know your thoughts on the topic of how to improve our parks, and in particular Allan Gardens.

On the other hand, one could argue that there's nothing wrong with the parks, in that they seem to be popular with those that use them, and that it is in fact gentrifying middle class folk that are forcing an ideal of a clean, tidy and safe park unto those that have been using the parks as is for decades.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I'd also like to point out that it is possible to be drunk/high or mentally ill in a park without causing a disturbance.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Andrea, why all the rhetorical questions? If we can refrain answering with another question, I'd like to know your thoughts on the topic of how to improve our parks, and in particular Allan Gardens.

I'm just trying to understand why you want to keep anyone who is not so well off as you out of parks. Thus far, I can't understand it, and asking questions is how one learns.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm just trying to understand why you want to keep anyone who is not so well off as you out of parks. Thus far, I can't understand it, and asking questions is how one learns.

I agree totally. Yet, that's the one question you never asked. I always suggest going directly at what you want to know instead of beating around the bush.

To clarify, I want a park that is welcoming to everyone, regardless of income or mental state. I do want the city's by-laws and provincial legislation followed concerning appropriate use of public space (eg. no e-bikes on paths, permits for large events, no public intoxication, etc...).

 

[nfitz]

IMO, Allan Gardens could the nicely converted into a downtown gated park like Halifax's Public Gardens, but with provisions for the dog run.

It could be turned into Condos as well - which won't happen either.

I'm glad we don't live in some kind of police state where people feel they should gate the parks!

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm glad we don't live in some kind of police state where people feel they should gate the parks!

The gates aren't locked, it's more for a sense of the ornate and definition of park boundaries. There are several gated parks in Toronto, and IMO we're not in a police state. To me, I like the look of historic park gates.

Trinity Belwoods

High Park

Craigleigh Gardens

Guildwood Park

I think you might be confusing gates with fences. AFAIK, there are no fenced off parks in Toronto, and even when the gates might be closed, you can simply walk around them into the park. Where exactly is your police state in this instance?

 

[nfitz]

The gates aren't locked, it's more for a sense of the ornate and definition of park boundaries. There are several gated parks in Toronto, and IMO we're not in a police state. To me, I like the look of historic park gates.

My apologies, by gated parks, I assume you meant parks with gates and fences all the way around. Not simply an ornate gate, that you can walk around because there is no fence (though I confess to not being familiar with Guildwood Park).

Do ornate gates repel the homeless somehow? Perhaps playing with the self-esteem and scaring them away?

 

[AndreaPalladio]

AB's posts leave the distinct impression that he would be happy to put out the unwelcome mat to anyone who isn't fortunate enough to be white, rich and healthy.

 

[Admiral Beez]

AB's posts leave the distinct impression that he would be happy to put out the unwelcome mat to anyone who isn't fortunate enough to be white, rich and healthy.

Then perhaps that's the question to ask, as nowhere have I intentionally suggested anyone be any of that. However, since we can't read minds, I've always believed that the reader gets to determine the meaning of a post or piece, not the author. So, let me clarify.... I want our parks to be nicely maintained and welcoming of everyone, including all folks of all colours, incomes and health. Currently our parks, specifically Allan Gardens serve the homeless, but IMO not many housed folks living in the towers and neigbourhoods nearby, and I'm thinking of ideas to attract a more mixed demographic to the park, one more reprsentative of the community. So, I hope that clarifies my position somewhat.