Mooney's Bay

[Glenlivet Ave]

The City of Ottawa has released artist renderings of two proposals for a new Mooney's Bay Pavilion.

They have released artist renderings for both the one-storey and two-storey options. I think I like the two storey option best.

In-person open house
May 8, 2025, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m. at Jim Durrell Recreation Centre – Ellwood Hall, 1265 Walkley Road

Online survey open
April 17, 2025 – May 17, 2025

Link to the article:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/a-...for-a-new-pavilion-at-mooneys-bay-beach/

[McDonald's Racoon]

Two story version is much nicer IMO

[daud]

Given the city's current fiscal situation, this seems like such a waste of taxpayer dollars. I realize the current structure is old but I highly doubt its at its end of life and it serves its purpose just fine. Maybe I'm wrong but this seems like a really bad use of our $$ There are so many other priorities.

[Richard Eade]

I can’t say that I like either of the buildings suggested. Especially when the presented renderings seem to be hiding the actual footprint that these buildings will take up.

Look at the renderings. The odd white concrete ‘wing’ is not the end of the building – there is a large area behind that (that appears to be about the same for either choice). The single-storey version removes 36 mature trees, while the two-storey option removes 17. To me, this implies that there is a lot of ground needed for these buildings. Why not build a multi-storey building with a small footprint?

The original 1961 building has a canteen, public washrooms/change rooms, a multi-purpose room, staff office and storage space. The new buildings will offer (according to the CTV News article) a Beach promenade, a water play area (with a potential for a future Splash Pad), a multi-purpose room, a lifeguard office, and a food service pavilion. I have to presume that there will also be washrooms/change rooms, and a storage area in the new buildings, but that was not specified.

So I checked on the Web for some more info. Google directed me to this site:
https://ehq-production-canada.s3.ca-cent...13f182a2d28037e7cb5c6dcef5872a15b9f181b8

I am NOT impressed by what is on offer. It looks as if the designer looked at all the ‘open’ space and tried to fill it the best that they could. Really, a two-lane road with a large ball at the building? And a bunch of accessible parking there – with the option for 34 more spots taking over park area! Keep the vehicles out of the park and away from people! And, penciling in Future Basketball Courts? There goes Hope Volleyball.

How about understanding that this is a Regional PARK. A place where people come to have open spaces, trees, and outdoor fun. IF the City feels that it NEEDS to do something at Mooney’s Bay, it should be looking at the ENTIRE park. As much as I like the unique pavilion (that only needs replacement, in my opinion, because the City has not kept up proper maintenance) being in the center of the beach area, I think that the new pavilion should be moved to the north, and connected to the parking area. A multi-storey building could have showers (indoor and outdoor), lockers, change rooms, washrooms, storage, services, and a small take-out canteen would be on the lowest level; the second floor would have the Parking lot entrance, storage, multi-function rooms, and a restaurant with deck; and on the third, are the ‘roof-top’ bar, and the lifeguard monitor office. There should also be a large clock on each side of the third floor, or on a tower.

From a higher view, there needs to be more parking (distributed), including more free parking for the Terry Fox Centre. The tennis courts should be moved closer to the free parking and the Terry Fox Centre.

And, the hill must be made safe for sledding!



The City needs to do a much better job at animating the park. With an opened-up area (i.e., remove the road and tennis courts from the main area of the park), the park should be a place for more festivals, small concerts, maybe bring back The Ex,

The playground, in my opinion, has not been very successful. It needs a lot more active stuff. A façade of and American old-west town is not very exciting for kids. There should be at least one large climbing structure. The one at Lansdowne is quite popular. Rope towers are also a big hit. There could also be a skate-park added there. And there needs to be a small washroom facility there – since kids often don’t acknowledge that they need o go until they REALLY need to go. Oh, and seating for parents/guardians.

[eltodesukane]

Reminds me of Pleasure Park becoming TD Park on Caldwell Ave.
Pleasure Park was a well-used interesting playground, but because it was getting old, it was redone (badly and boringly).
It is now deserted because there's nothing to do there.
The old one had a mini-fort to climb and occupy, with staircases and slide, while the new one has nothing of interest.
That's how Pleasure Park became a corporate TD Park. TD Bank is very proud...

[Richard Eade]

But I’d bet that the City’s bureaucracy is happy with how the TD Park turned out. The cost was significantly lower than coming up with and installing something that might be fun for kids of a range of ages; teens don’t hang out in the play-structures at night, intimidating surrounding families; and with no (or very few) kids entering the area at all, the risk of an injury, and subsequent lawsuit, is way down. From a bureaucratic point of view, it is a win, win, win.

As with many things that the City’s staff (or its consultants) design, I suspect that the designers are not local users of those things. Thus, they make changes without having a good appreciation for what actually works for current and potential users.

And, BONUS, there are TWO new bear-resistant garbage cans installed – not in the play area, but for outside it – so that people can throw out their junk mail, instead of taking it home and recycling the paper.

[Are those garbage cans actually projecting back through the fence-line? If so, why? They would not be accessible from the ‘playground’, and they would be too far back from the sidewalk. And why not put one on either side of the mail boxes, to catch junk from people going in either direction? This position seems to be worst of all options.]

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by eltodesukane

Reminds me of Pleasure Park becoming TD Park on Caldwell Ave.
Pleasure Park was a well-used interesting playground, but because it was getting old, it was redone (badly and boringly).
It is now deserted because there's nothing to do there.
The old one had a mini-fort to climb and occupy, with staircases and slide, while the new one has nothing of interest.
That's how Pleasure Park became a corporate TD Park. TD Bank is very proud...

Incredible

[Mikeed]

Wow - what a waste of money. They could have just repaired any issue with the existing park for not a lot of money. Its wood!
Totally destroyed to avoid a risk of a lawsuit from kids being kids. Madness.

[Richard Eade]

In fairness, there are things that we don’t know. For example, was the old wooden structure built with wood that had been pressure-treated with arsenic? Were the structures a hang-out for destructive and menacing teens in the evenings? Were the structures considered dangerous in some other way?

Also, I have pointed the finger at City bureaucrats; perhaps unfairly. I don’t know if this is a City-owned playground or not. It might be private; in which case, cost might have been the overriding constraint. The parent committee was appalled at how many bake sales and other fund raisers were needed to replace a play structure at one Kanata school. Installing a simple steel structure cost tens of thousands of dollars.

My complaint would not be that the structures were replaced so much as they were replaced with much inferior structures, with regards to play-value. Perhaps multiple sponsors should have been sought out.

Anyway, although I agree that what happened to that playground is a travesty, this thread should be dedicated to Mooney’s Bay. I’ll stop continuing on the side track.

[J.OT13]

$3.1 million plan to turn Mooney’s Bay into a sledding destination

By Josh Pringle, CTV
Updated: November 17, 2025 at 11:04AM EST

Turning Mooney’s Bay into a winter sledding destination with a “thrill hill” and a “bunny hill” would cost the City of Ottawa $3.1 million, according to a new report.

After studying three options to convert the man-made hill into a sledding hill, a report for the Community Services Committee outlines a plan to create three separate slopes on the hill, with a 14.6 metre “thrill hill,” a 5.7 metre “bunny hill” and a cross-country ski training hill in its current location.

There is no money proposed in the draft 2026 City of Ottawa budget, but staff say estimates for construction will be presented in a future budget.


The Mooney’s Bay Park Hill is a man-made hill created from construction landfill in the 1970s. Staff say it was originally designed as a junior ski hill, with the slopes “extremely steep for winter sledding in all directions.”

The giant hill at Mooney’s Bay has been closed for sledding since 2017, but sledders continued to use the hill. After a young girl died in a sledding incident at Mooney’s Bay in 2021, the city has been installing temporary fencing on the hill to prevent sledding during the winter months.

In 2024, council approved spending $150,000 to study options to make Mooney’s Bay a sledding destination, looking at external engineering and landscaping proposals to make the hill safe.


The report for the Community Services Committee says the study concluded it is “feasible to modify the Mooney’s Bay to allow for reasonably safer sledding for multiple user groups.”

The report, from Recreation, Cultural and Facility Services general manager Dan Chenier, says three options were considered:

• Option A - $2.5 million: Thrill Hill and Cross-Country Ski Training Hill. The “thrill hill” would be 14.6 metres high with a consistent 18 per cent grade on the northwest slope with an extended 70 metre runout and a re-located cross-country ski training hill on the north slope.
• Option B - $1.3 million: A 5.7-metre-high sledding “bunny hill” on the north-slope with a 13 per cent slope, and the cross-country ski training hill maintained in its current location.
• Option C - $3.1 million: A combination of Options A and B with three separate slopes, including a 14.6 metre sledding “thrill” hill, a 5.7 metre “bunny” hill and a cross-country ski training hill between the two sledding hills.

“Understanding the attraction of this site to all levels of users, it is concluded that the significant investment required should meet the needs of beginner and advanced sledding enthusiasts, as illustrated in Option C,” Chenier said.

The Option C would also include pathways adjacent to the two sledding zones to separate sledders and the “strategic placement of post and rail fencing and staggered vegetation to prevent sledding in undesignated areas of the hill.”

Chenier says soil management measures will be required in conjunction with any earthwork and grading modifications to Mooney’s Bay Hill to address levels of soil contamination that exceed provincial guidelines.

“This park and hill need to be open”

River Ward Coun. Riley Brockington tells Newstalk 580 CFRA’s Ottawa at Work with Patricia Boal that closing the hill at Mooney’s Bay to tobogganing is “not an option.”

“I want it safe, number one. I want to speak to the various users, not just to people who toboggan,” Brockington said.

“I don’t know what’s best, to be honest. I just read to the report. There’s got to be a way to do this as financially economically as possible. Maybe not taking the most expensive option and still speaking to the main users who use this hill.”

Brockington admits funding to transform the hill at Mooney’s Bay into a safe tobogganing area likely won’t be approved in the 2026 budget, and he wants to take time to review the report and speak with residents.

“This park and hill need to be more 12 months of the year, obviously I have some work to do now that this report is out,” Brockington said. It is my objective that a public park and a public hill be made safe for the public and use it, not fence it off which I think is the wrong way to go.”

The report notes all studies, reviews and assessments of the hill have “supported the City administration’s position that there were/are no mitigating measures” that could be implemented to make the park “reasonably safe” for sledding.

“The report says every angle of the hill is unsafe; I don’t believe that to be the case,” Brockington said.”

“I’ve always pitched the north facing side, the side of the hill that faces the Terry Fox Athletic Centre, has the most reasonable grade. It is not as long as the slope that faces the river.”

Three options for Mooney’s Bay

Here is a look at the three options and costs for Major’s Hill Park.

Option A: Thrill Hill and Cross-Country Ski Training Hill

Price tag: $2.5 million

• 14.6m high “thrill” hill with a consistent 18 per cent grade on the northwest slope with an extended 70m runout zone
• Re-located cross-country ski training hill on the adjacent north slope
• Ascending pathways adjacent to the sledding zone to separate sledders from those returning to the top for another run
• Limited tree removals to clear potential obstacles in or immediately adjacent to the sledding runout zone
• Strategic placement of post and rail fencing and staggered vegetation to prevent sledding in undesignated areas of the hill.
• Proposed pathways extending from the top of the hill to the Terry Fox Athletic Facility parking lot and Mooney’s Bay Beach parking lot
• Total hillside regrading including soil required to cap existing contaminated fill is estimated at 6570 m3 of cut and 7450 m3 of fill

Option B: Bunny Hill and Cross-Country Ski Training Hill

Price tag: $1.3 million

• 5.7m high sledding “bunny hill” on the north slope, re-graded to a consistent 13 per cent slope with a 40m long runout zone
• Cross-country ski training hill maintained in its current location
• Ascending pathways adjacent to the sledding zone to separate sledders from those returning to the top for another run
• Strategic placement of post and rail fencing and staggered vegetation to prevent sledding from the higher slopes / hilltop and create separation between the sledding bunny hill and cross-country training hill
• Proposed ascending pathway adjacent to the bunny hill on the east slope extends from the Terry Fox Athletic Facility parking lot to the Mooney’s Bay Beach parking lot.
• Total hillside regrading including soil required to cap existing contaminated fill is estimated at 1770m3 of cut and 2550m3 fill.

Option C: Thrill Hill, Bunny Hill and Cross-Country Ski Training Hill

Price tag: $3.1 million

Combination of Options A & B

• Includes three separate slopes, including a 14.6m sledding high “thrill” hill, a 5.7m high “bunny” hill and a cross-country ski training hill between the two sledding hills
• Significant grading required to make the thrill hill slope consistent at 18 per cent while rounding out the bottom of the sledding zone and extending the runout zone to 70m
• Minor grading required to relocate the cross-country ski training hill
• Regrading required for the bunny hill to lower the slope to 13 per cent and create a 40m long runout zone
• Ascending pathways adjacent to the two sledding zone to separate sledders from those returning to the top for another run
• Strategic placement of post and rail fencing and staggered vegetation to prevent sledding in undesignated areas of the hill
• Pathways extending from the top of both hills to the Terry Fox Athletic Facility parking lot and Mooney’s Bay Beach parking lot.
• Total hillside regrading including soil required to cap existing contaminated fill is estimated at 9050m3 of cut and 9150m3 of fill

https://www.ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/31...mooneys-bay-into-a-sledding-destination/

[Richard Eade]

How long do you think Council will deliberate on spending $3M verses how long they had to examine the final plan presented before them before agreeing to spend more than $400M?

[kwoldtimer]

Seems like the seed of a good idea, but they'll have to dumb it down to make sure they only spend second rate money to get a third rate facility, a la Lansdowne.
Too cynical?

[harls]

This thrill hill has safety theatre written all over it.

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

How long do you think Council will deliberate on spending $3M verses how long they had to examine the final plan presented before them before agreeing to spend more than $400M?

Stop being so real Chief. Gonna need to slow that down a notch.

[Richard Eade]

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.)

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

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.)

There's still thinking about this?

If so someonr find the city lawyer & provide percussion maintenance.....

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

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.)

Unlike when we were kids, parents will sue the city for any injury. Who can resist free money? Just look at all those injury lawyer ads on the evening news. You know what businesses are raking in the bucks by who can afford TV ads.

It is much safer for kids to be sitting on their *sses playing video games all day, and 300 lbs by age 18.