I was just about to post about the engagement. Every time I try going by with my family to go for a walk it is more complicated to get there and find any parking or access. Last time I ended up parking in front of the ridiculous Mazda dealership mansion to spite the owners who had their own private No Parking signs on the section of astroturf they laid to replace grass and trees. This not only reeks of Nimbyism but classism as well. Rich homeowners who believe they own the view. The arguments about recent shootings being caused by or connected to people walking along the ridge sounds like BS too. I have so many memories of going to Peter’s drive in with my wife then heading to the ridge for a walk and now it seems like they want to privatize the entire area by putting in gates. I recommend anyone who wants to continue to use this area fill out the city’s survey:
The Crescent Road N.W. Master Plan aims to create a cohesive vision for a safe, accessible street and public space for all users.
engage.calgary.ca
That article from the community perspective doesn't make them come off well at all. Insinuating public access is connected to murders a few kilometres away is a wild and unprovable statement that has no value in designing public spaces. Thankfully, the actual design options on the city website seem far more balanced that just purely catering to NIMBYs.
It's an interesting example of a problem we run into lots for local public realm projects. It often seems the city is trying to balance two similar but different problem definitions:
- "lets find ways to solve the traffic and congestion problem at Crescent Heights Road"
- "lets find ways to efficiently increase the quality and capacity of this popular area to accommodate more visitors".
Focusing on #1 defining traffic and congestion as the "problem" really plays into the NIMBY hand of the residents in the article. The problem is the visitors who must be restricted and managed.
Focusing on #2 defining the success of the public space so it's more efficient, effective and has more capacity is different - it's say the visitors are good things, we want more of them, we just need to find ways to accommodate them better. It's also acknowledging the truth - it's a public road and park, residents have no more right to the space than anyone else.
Trying to balance #1 and #2 is where we go wrong often. We give too much weight to "balancing" local input on things they don't actually own or control, like the park and roadways near their houses. Balance is not needed - #2 is needed. (This assumes we define #2 correctly - as we also have a history of incorrectly defining public improvements as just always provide more and additional vehicle access, via forever widening all roads and parking lots to popular destinations).
Of course, the actual designs themselves will have elements that benefit locals, some of which will be parking and vehicle restrictions - but the driver of the design needs to be to increase capacity, quality and ability for more people to enjoy the area.
calgaryherald.com
