Great Canadian Urban Parks Thread

[Denscity]

^^^ I guess if we're talking about urban parks then yes.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Looks more suburban/exurban than urban.

That's because it is suburban lol. This thread isn't just for inner city parks that meet whatever subjective version of "urban" some person is using.

[Dwils01]

Might be easiest to just include parks within the city limits that way there is no debate about it.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Dwils01

Might be easiest to just include parks within the city limits that way there is no debate about it.

Agreed.

Based on that, Rouge park would be different because it's between municipalities, at least that's what Wikipedia says...

[Doug]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Does it matter?

Yes. Farmland isn't parkland.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Looks more suburban/exurban than urban.

It's surrounded entirely by the urban area of over 1 million people, unlike Rouge Park and Pippy Park which are only bordered by urban area on two or three sides, not surrounded. Pretty much as urban as it gets.


Now that that's been cleared up, some more pics!



http://www.hikebiketravel.com/31400/...ose-hill-park/

http://canadianphototours.ca/index.p...agerotator&483

http://canadianphototours.ca/index.p...agerotator&483

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/68123690

http://www.where.ca/tag/cycling/



And the western view from Nose Hill...


http://robmosesphotography.com/2013/...n-the-rockies/

[1overcosc]

Rouge Park is almost entirely within Toronto proper (some within Pickering). It has urban land on most sides. If/when the Seaton community is built out, and the Pickering Airport is constructed, it would be surrounded.

[Chadillaccc]

I didn't say Rouge Park may not be fully surrounded one day, I merely said it isn't now. Nose Hill and Fish Creek have been fully surrounded for decades (~35 years for Nose Hill, ~25 years for Fish Creek).


Some photos of the often underappreciated Fish Creek Provincial Park, Calgary...


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...ch-Szmurlo.jpg

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11812757

http://www.albertaparks.ca/fish-cree...s/day-use.aspx

http://www.albertaparks.ca/fish-cree...s/day-use.aspx

http://www.albertaparks.ca/fish-cree...s/day-use.aspx

[Bcasey25raptor]

OK

Queen Elizabeth Park









Stanley Park











All Pictures taken by me today.

[logan5]

That park in Calgary could be a lot more inviting if it wasn't surrounded by highway and large fence. It gives it an off limits feel. Definitely not urban, but a good amenity for the city nonetheless.

A true urban park is one that is part of a densely populated neighbourhood, where people can go to get drunk and smoke weed. Grandview Park on Commercial Dr. being one example.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Denscity

^^^ I guess if we're talking about urban parks then yes.

Fish Creek or Tommy Thompson are urban parks by the broadest sense of the term. I really don't see why a productive usage like community farming in a vast conservation area makes Rouge Park any less "park" than those two.

[spaceprobe]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I didn't say Rouge Park may not be fully surrounded one day, I merely said it isn't now. Nose Hill and Fish Creek have been fully surrounded for decades (~35 years for Nose Hill, ~25 years for Fish Creek).


Some photos of the often underappreciated Fish Creek Provincial Park, Calgary...

you can't be too strict in the definition. If the park is big enough, of course it will extend beyond city limits or "built up" areas. In fact, Fish Creek Park isn't completely surrounded by development (the western edge is undeveloped and is borders the reserve which is not park of the city of Calgary). And in a similar way, the strict definition would exclude Pacific Spirit Park since it is not in Vancouver proper, and Stanley Park because it only borders built up areas on one side, while the other sides borders ocean.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by logan5

That park in Calgary could be a lot more inviting if it wasn't surrounded by highway and large fence. It gives it an off limits feel. Definitely not urban, but a good amenity for the city nonetheless.

What the hell are you talking about?

Here comes all the people bickering about what is urban enough lol. I think the definition for this thread is satisfied by a park surrounded (or mostly surrounded) by a city, regardless of how dense the immediate area is.

[Chadillaccc]

There are no highways anywhere near Nose Hill Park, so it seems like you don't really know what you're talking about. If by highway, you mean road, then yes there is a road going around it, as many parks do. At least it doesn't have one going through it. It probably wouldn't need a fence if it weren't for the dozens of deer that call the park home. A fence on the outer periphery of a 11.3 km2 park hardly changes how inviting it feels while inside Just another day on the Canada forum though

Originally Posted by spaceprobe

you can't be too strict in the definition. If the park is big enough, of course it will extend beyond city limits or "built up" areas. In fact, Fish Creek Park isn't completely surrounded by development (the western edge is undeveloped and is borders the reserve which is not park of the city of Calgary). And in a similar way, the strict definition would exclude Pacific Spirit Park since it is not in Vancouver proper, and Stanley Park because it only borders built up areas on one side, while the other sides borders ocean.

Yes, I suppose there is a 500 meter stretch of undeveloped land along the Tsuu Tina Nation border with Fish Creek PP, cut off a by major roadway. However, neither of the parks I mentioned (Rouge and Pippy) border large bodies of water, so that wasn't what I was getting at all. They're both up against unprotected, developable land that is not developed, unlike Pacific Spirit, Stanley, Fish Creek, or Nose Hill parks. That was my point. I didn't mean for it to turn into a federal case

[logan5]

It's a highway. You can plainly see that. No traffic lights. Deer crossing signs. It's a highway.

Like I said it's a nice amenity, but access isn't very good.

[BretttheRiderFan]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

That's because it is suburban lol. This thread isn't just for inner city parks that meet whatever subjective version of "urban" some person is using.

Yeah, this is basically what I meant. Sorry if there was any confusion. But hey, let's not have narrow spectrums of what's possible.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Here comes all the people bickering about what is urban enough lol.

Just out of curiousity...is there anything at all that Calgary forumers won't throw hissy fits over? Are you this infantile in real life? Did you swear to defend the honour of your city in some secret ceremony? Do you get paid to post here?

Look at this park in Calgary:



One of the Calgary forumers has the unmitigated audacity to pronounce that this is "pretty much as urban as it gets," and naturally some of the other sentient beings participating in this forum with phreaking eyes chime in that it's obviously not very urban at all, being that it's smack dab in the middle of suburban two-car garage territory and a stone's throw away from the flat prairie, and--quelle phreaking suprise--the crying chorus from Calgary starts up the passive-aggressive whining and bleating.

Can you never give it a rest?

Here's how you discuss something, or disagree about something, without making ridiculous claims or spouting off in a huff like a vindictive clique of screeching harridans:

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Rouge Park is almost entirely within Toronto proper (some within Pickering). It has urban land on most sides. If/when the Seaton community is built out, and the Pickering Airport is constructed, it would be surrounded.

There. Was that so hard? Now maybe you can eat at the grown-up table someday.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Just out of curiousity...is there anything at all that Calgary forumers won't throw hissy fits over?

Yeah, rational, well informed posts. The rest I won't dignify with a response.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by BretttheRiderFan

Yeah, this is basically what I meant. Sorry if there was any confusion. But hey, let's not have narrow spectrums of what's possible.

Seemed pretty clear to me.

[Harrij]

I live near Forest Heights Park in Edmonton where I took a few photos last week. It's mostly field with a path along the treeline at the top of the river valley, but the views are spectacular.


Pathway, by harrjames, on Flickr


Oooo what a view, by harrjames, on Flickr