Does anyone else think that the Mooney’s Bay Park – Hill Modification is a whole crock of ridiculous that has sucked up way more time and money than it should have? And how does this project interface with the plan for the lower south land and new pavilion?
Full disclosure: I am Ottawa born and raised; and I spent much of my youthful free time during winters sliding at Mooney’s Bay, Hog’s Back, the Arboretum, and a number of other places that were not ‘sanctioned sliding hills’. It is a wonder that I survived some of the reckless sliding that I did.
According to the Background information provided by the City (
https://engage.ottawa.ca/mooneys-bay-park-hill), the hill at Mooney’s Bay was created in the 1970s. It has been used by the public for about 50 years. What in heck are they talking about when they say that it needs “clean soil capping of contaminated fill”? There has been 50 years of leaching. There has been 50 years of microbial action. There has been 50 years of people laying on the hill in shorts, and children rolling down it. (In the winter, folks generally are on top of snow, wearing a full snow-suit, so coming in contact with any lingering contaminants is unlikely.)
I find it very hard to believe that there is any measurable level of contamination that would exceed the ‘normal’ background level found in almost most any neighbourhood in the city. How much of the astronomical cost is devoted to trucking away the old fill so that ‘clean’ soil can be brought in? The soil doesn’t need to be PERFECT, just not more hazardous than what would be considered ‘normal’.
Why does the hill need to be re-profiled? Sure, to create a ‘Bunny Hill’, you might want a lower slope, but the lower north slope is already 13% grade – which is the goal in the plan. Why does the ‘Trill Hill’ need to drop from the existing 24%->11%->flat to the proposed 18%->3%. If it really is to be a ‘Thrill Hill’, keep it at the steeper angle. Going from 13% to 18% will seem like moving from a ‘Bunny Hill’ to an intermediate hill, not a ‘Thrill Hill’, for most youth. I think that most kids would rather keep the existing south-west slope of 29%! Move the walking/ski/MUP path to boarder the sand and playground, and put a negative-grade (up-sloping) run-out at the bottom of that slope, and then you would have a real ‘Thrill Hill’.
Putting wooden ‘rail-type’ fences along the planned ‘Thrill Hill’ is not a good idea, in my opinion. There is such a fence along one side of the Walter Baker Hill, but the spread on that hill is almost 45-degrees – so there is a lower chance of someone hitting the fence. With the narrow spread planned for the Mooney’s Bay Hill, the chance of hitting one of the fence posts is higher. Also, they are a maintenance headache.
Sliding is an inherently dangerous Thrill Sport. There will be injuries. Youth will ALWAYS look for bigger, faster hills, for more thrills. Pushing the bounds of the envelope is how the young find their limits. As a young person, I and my friends would try the steepest slopes, regardless of obstacles. The hills on the west end of the Heron Road Workers Memorial Bridge (just called the Heron Road Bridge, when I was a child) has steep slopes leading down to the canal. A run down the south slope ran you across the (hopefully frozen) canal and into the concrete wall – but we did it. Between the bridges was even more dangerous, since you had to jump off the wall on the way down – but we still did it. At Hog’s Back, we started up near the highest point and zoomed down – barely missing trees – to come out racing diagonally across the open slope that now has the MUP snaking down to Heron Road. The fence stopped us at the bottom – assuming that we made it that far. I think that the MUP was added to stop kids from sliding down that portion of the hill, since it had little run-out before the fence – unless you went diagonally.
The City needs to understand that kids are looking for that adrenaline rush. The best thing to do is to understand that there will be injuries while people slide. It is inevitable. Even at other existing hills, I have seen collisions. Sliding is NOT A SAFE THING TO DO.
However, the City can make it safer. It can remove as many obstacles as practical. This includes moving sign posts and overhead lighting masts from the runs. (NEWS FLASH to City: Putting in signs that say sledding is prohibited only adds dangerous posts – it does not stop sliding.) The pathways can be moved away and run-out grading improved. There can also be a rating system for tobogganing hills, similar to what is used for skiers.
In short, the City should understand that kids will be kids. The City can try to force them into doing things the ‘safe’ way (as determined by unaccountable consultants), but, just as “You cannot make things ‘Foolproof’ because fools are so ingenious” (G. Cox), kids will find a way to get real thrills – even if it is trying to slalom the ‘NO SLEDDING’ sign posts as they race down the hill.
I think that it is time for the City to actually step back and create a holistic plan for Mooney’s Bay Park. The new pavilion, the parking, beach spaces, H.O.P.E. Volleyball spaces, sledding/skiing spaces, exercise spaces, playground spaces and any other uses.
(That playground at Mooney’s Bay Park certainly did not become the regional draw that we were promised by Mayor Watson. I took kids there once, and they never asked to go back. They had much more fun climbing on the huge structure at Lansdowne, or going to Half Moon Bay Park, in Barrhaven. At the very least, the Mooney’s Bay playground should have some shade.)
Threaded Mode