Browsing this Thread:
5 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
brewster wrote: Quote:
Posted on: 2007/5/24 3:48
Edited by nugnfutz on 2007/5/24 4:06:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Concept D large dog run=4391 Concept D Small dog run=2933 concept A,B & C=7733 I've described my methodology, I would guess the margin for error of sizes relative to each other to be under 3%. The actual sizes depends on whether Schorr Depalma drew the tennis court to scale properly, but that doesn't affect the relative sizes. You've correctly summed up what I think the pro/con should be. I don't know what to make of your request for an affidavit of my honesty. Either you're honest or not, saying you are if you're not is a natural, no? Remember Mr. Spock: "everything I tell you is a lie, I'm lying now". Well, I haven't groomed the numbers, I value my credibility. And I don't use AutoCad, they're the evil empire of the CAD world.
Posted on: 2007/5/24 3:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Agree. Lets get over the "Non Est Mea Culpa" stance and agree as a community to work for improvements on the design no matter what the outcome of the vote shows. For example we have bleachers, fountains and seating in other active areas...but NOTHING in the dog runs. I want at least 4 benches in the dog runs, running water - ideally a hand pumped well, and adequate shade for the dogs. And 7.7k space for a dog run doesnt cut it irrespective of option. We voted for 14k. If the city ignores this vote, so will dog owners ignore the park - dogs might run free ...might bite ppl...and we might have fun in court on personal liability insurance vs the City's. Just lets get it right together :)
Posted on: 2007/5/24 3:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14 Last Login : 2013/9/9 13:46 From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
152
 |
Quote:
Allright,? if you?re really sincere about keeping the signal/noise ratio down, l?ll play the PowerPoint game on a trial basis and we?ll see where this takes us. Just to make sure we?re clear on the ground rules ? in looking at the pros/cons of Concept D, we?re talking Concept D without any tweaks and any comparison to Concepts A/B/C is before any tweakes,? right?... Second, we?re relying on your numbers, derived from your AutoCAD. As a ?gentleman?s agreement?, are you vouching that the numbers you?re providing are consistent and haven?t been shaved/fattened to make you case more appealing?... If you?re willing to vouch for that, I?ll give it a go. However, I?ll need the sq footage of both the small and large-dog runs in Concept D (pre-tweak); I?m not sure if I?m seeing the right numbers in post #233 or not. Also, just to confirm, before the tweak I suggested, is 7,733 the sq. footage of the run in A/B/C?...
Posted on: 2007/5/24 2:52
|
|||
|
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The ballot is what it is, now. I haven't a clue how it got this way. Your security concerns can be presented to Councilman Fulop to pass on to Schorr DePalma. Personally, I find the risks you list very small and/or not much different from plan to plan, but I'm not the safety paranoid type. I know this from how much more safety obsessed some other parents are. They're appalled we let our 8 year old son use the stair banisters as his monkey bars, some of them would probably agree with your risk analysis. I'm sure the city is all aboard with listening to safety suggestions to minimize their liability, but we will have no opportunity for dialog about this before the ballot that I've heard about. Vote how you gotta.
Posted on: 2007/5/24 1:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
PS: and i dont mean erecting No Ball Playing signs.
Posted on: 2007/5/24 1:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The designs presented started out as one proposal, then based on initial feedback turned into 3 alternatives with mostly identical flaws. The architects took the feedback on the 3 flawed designs and have created a fourth improved, yet still flawed design. I don't think there was an intentional engineering of the vote by anyone, but unfortunately it's a valid complaint, however unintentional the circumstance. Adding a fourth design into the mix at this late stage with no real opportunity for feedback, and forcing a vote, takes us either a couple of steps back in the process if option D doesn't win, and highly controversial result if it does win. Particularly if the security and safety concerns are not addressed. If a kid gets hit by a car on 9th street, dog owner gets mugged in the dog area, a kid bitten by a leashed dog on the way to the play area, an injury to someone in an overcrowded dog area....well the park may end up costing the City more than the 2 million. Believe me...I dont want to hold back the process. The process itself needs to not only to be fair, but needs to be seen to be fair. I see a refusal to recognise there are issues with the vote potentially dangerous. If we have a commitment to address security and safety concerns with any of the options that win, then I'm cool. Hope that's constructive :)
Posted on: 2007/5/24 1:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I can't explain the designs presented, because (I repeat), they made no commitment to follow HPNA's survey. I can only be confident that the park will resemble the design voted on now, because this ballot is commissioned by the city, and thus they can be held liable by voters if they ignore the results. Complaining about the content & structure of this ballot is probably the least constructive thing to be done, yet it preoccupies several of you. To move forward you've got to start from where you are and don't look back.
Posted on: 2007/5/24 0:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Don't worry, the dog haters have stacked the deck so that there are two virtually identical plans siphoning votes from each other ensuring that the plurality of votes yields the smallest dog run.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 22:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
To answer a few questions posed above:
1. Large dog run should be a minimum of 10k sq ft, and small dog run be 4k sq ft, based on the discussion above and the 2 tennis courts vote. 2. Ice cream vans would be more inclined to stop on McWilliams Place if the play spaces were put at the East as in A,B and C. They stop on 9th currently since the play areas are mostly NE at the moment and McWilliams Place is regularly blocked. My question to the JCPD on safety was also relevant. I lot of people exercise their dogs late evening. I don't know how safe a sound-proofed, fenced off and hidden area is in the center of the park? Similarly, currently juveniles tend to congregate around the swings at night - not a huge issue to people walking past on 9th street at the moment, but may become a problem in option D. On balance - I'd vote for option D if some security assurances were given and a better compromise was being put forward on the dog run. As it stands, it's not going to get this dog owner's vote..
Posted on: 2007/5/23 22:25
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So why then are there concepts so seemingly inconsistent with previous ballots? Why does only one plan contain a multi-use court? Why do three interrupt the pathways?
Posted on: 2007/5/23 22:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 19:17 Last Login : 2016/2/7 17:42 From Ward E - Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
465
|
Reminder - now is the time to request an absentee ballot for the Hamilton Park Renovation vote, which will take place during the Festival on June 9 (June 10 rain date)
Absentee ballots are available and must be requested by Saturday, June 2nd. Please e-mail hpnajc@gmail.com to request a ballot. You must include your name(s) and physical address in the request and an absentee ballot with return instructions will be delivered to your residence. Voting is open to all Jersey City residents aged 18 and over.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 21:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Does the playground not count? Or people who want a separate and larger small dog run? (a small dog run isn't even indicated in ABC, though we all assume it's there) Quote: Second, the fact that all of this is non-binding pretty much means the city will go ahead and do whatever they damn well please anyway. possibly, but I think Steve Fulop is too ambitious to leave that kind of turd in the road to be thrown at him.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 21:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/5/11 19:17 Last Login : 2016/2/7 17:42 From Ward E - Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
465
|
Quote:
Ian, speak for yourself. Don't tell us what the voters want. That is what the balloting is for. Quote:
It is reasonable to assume that the winning concept will not be set in stone, and will be tweaked, based in part from community input after the balloting. Tennis courts may be changed to multi-use, the foot print of the dog run may be altered.... The ballots have been finalized and are being printed. If you might be away on June 9/10, put your request by June 2 for an absentee ballot so your vote will be counted. May the best concept win!
Posted on: 2007/5/23 21:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Two points: First, making a pro / con list is silly in light of the fact that this ultimately is a referendum on multi-use court vs. a large dog run. Either voters want a large dog run or they want a multi-use court. Second, the fact that all of this is non-binding pretty much means the city will go ahead and do whatever they damn well please anyway.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 21:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
Joined:
2005/8/10 0:53 Last Login : 2018/10/4 14:20 From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
87
|
Washington Square Park's size from the NYC Site:
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_p ... park_info.php?propID=M098
Posted on: 2007/5/23 20:18
|
|||
|
Myth: Pancakes are for breakfast.
Fact: There are no rules when it comes to pancakes. |
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I'd be interested to hear from the JCPD if they think whether any of the plans materially impact park safety and their ease of enforcing local laws such juvenile curfews, under-age drinking, leash laws. Even if they think there are no differences, that would be good to know.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 20:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
3 more cons!!
I would prefer if con #5 were rewritten relative to size rather than ratio. the ratio could be fixed in D by reducing the size of the small run, but that clearly isn't the point. Who cares if the small dog run is too big, isn't it all about whether the large dog run is large enough? Con #6 I don't get, the ice cream trucks stop on 9th now. Pros: 1 - The dog runs are physically separated, which Parkman say reduces 2 - reopens the northeast spoke path, restoring the historic walkways. 3 - Retains 2 tennis courts, making one multiuse. 4 - creates bigger more consolidated playground, which makes it easier for parents (and preschool teachers) to watch kids of multiple ages. 5 - Playground area has larger trees well placed for shade in playground, a perennial complaint about the existing one. 6 -water play area is better placed for monitoring multiple kids there as well as in the playground. 7 - because of actually moving the playground there\'s a possibility of the new one being built before demo-ing the old one, thus not being without for many months. 8 - Brings the playground further away from the basketball court and it\'s loud, often foul voices. Cons: 1 -Dog runs in total together are 5% smaller than the run in A,B,C. This is without any tweaks to either design. 2 - No putting green 3 - No community garden replacing ball court. 4 - Dogs must be walked past other active features to get to run, possibly leading to negative interactions. 5 - introduces an undesirable 50-50 split between large and small dog runs. 6 - Traffic on 9th street is higher than that on McWilliams Place. For example, ice cream trucks will become a more regular feature on 9th. 7 - Even with the larger trees, the north side of the park is more exposed to direct sunlight than most other areas. It's also closer to the Holland tunnel traffic.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 18:20
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Is that you, Minnie? The HPNA survey was to tell the city what we think, it was not binding upon them and their designers. Personally, I choose not to argue against our findings within the choices we have been given. Had we been given an option for a 2 tennis court dog run not tied to losing an option or feature we voted for, I would vote for it. The format of the current ballot is unfortunate, but it's what we have, and we must move forward if the park is to be renovated at all.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 18:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
For cons I'd add:
- introduces an undesirable 50-50 split between large and small dog runs. Is there any data on environmental factors (air quality, hours of sunlight, etc) and the park layout? I'm concerned over the siting of the playground for 2 reasons: - Traffic on 9th street is higher than that on McWilliams Place. For example, ice cream trucks will become a more regular feature on 9th. Though I'm not sure what the new development will do to traffic - moving/delivery trucks and the like. - Even with the larger trees, the north side of the park is more exposed to direct sunlight than most other areas. It's also closer to the Holland tunnel traffic.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 18:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I guess the "wiki" idea hasn't penetrated very far around here. If you don't like the way I said it, correct it rather than bitch and moan about it, and the format of the ballot, of which we have no control. Powerpoint bullets got popular because they organize and transfer ideas easier than long rambling essays. LIke I said, signal/noise.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 17:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Since all of these plans blatantly disregard the previous votes, why not present a plan without a playground? Too many pesky kids running around anyway.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 17:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14 Last Login : 2013/9/9 13:46 From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
152
|
Quote:
So, you want me to play your game, where you get to make the rules and you?re the editor-in-chief? It?s been 2-days and I still can?t agree with you about the wording of Pro #1. You so generously write: ?1 - The dog runs are physically separated, which Parkman say reduces barking through the fence of a divided run.? From reading Parkman?s posts, I got the impression that he sees the divider fence as one factor that might reduce barking among a host of other factors when both large and small runs are occupied at the same time. Look, you already have a ballot that has a big chance of distorting the will of those who vote via a split vote. How much real value is there in the exercise of reducing complex arguments to PowerPoint bullets that look simple but warp the realities?...
Posted on: 2007/5/23 17:39
|
|||
|
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
4b,
I did open the can of "tweak worms", but then I made a cogent list of pro/cons for D, as is presented, since that is what we're voting on. We may be able to ask for minor size adjustments but locations are where they are in each choice. I didn't rank the points in importance, just a list of what the issues were, and then I asked for additions. You make many arguments, some quite good like the survey result, and some not, like "why don't they walk to another park for the feature they want". That one was used against having a dog run in the park at all, which I vehemently disagreed with. Water play, B-ball courts etc were all supported by the vote, so if you want to use the vote as a reference, be as consistent as you asked me to be. I actually took a blood oath not to contradict the survey findings! Can you boil down your "cons" to add to that list so the signal/noise of the thread is reduced? I took the liberty of adding one of Nug's as an example. Nug, don't pillory me if I got you wrong, just correct it with another brief "con". As for area of playgrounds, it actually decreases with D from 8557 for ABC to 8343. Doesn't bother me. Pros: 1 - The dog runs are physically separated, which Parkman say reduces 2 - reopens the northeast spoke path, restoring the historic walkways. 3 - Retains 2 tennis courts, making one multiuse. 4 - creates bigger more consolidated playground, which makes it easier for parents (and preschool teachers) to watch kids of multiple ages. 5 - Playground area has larger trees well placed for shade in playground, a perennial complaint about the existing one. 6 -water play area is better placed for monitoring multiple kids there as well as in the playground. 7 - because of actually moving the playground there\'s a possibility of the new one being built before demo-ing the old one, thus not being without for many months. 8 - Brings the playground further away from the basketball court and it\'s loud, often foul voices. Cons: 1 -Dog runs in total together are 5% smaller than the run in A,B,C. This is without any tweaks to either design. 2 - No putting green 3 - No community garden replacing ball court. 4 - Dogs must be walked past other active features to get to run, possibly leading to negative interactions.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 16:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14 Last Login : 2013/9/9 13:46 From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
152
|
Quote:
Good. Then don?t. Quote:
If it?s a ?fantasy?, why do you care so much what I think?... All I saw was a flurry of posts/PMs regarding yet another tweak to Concept D. I?d like to reserve judgment until I see the specifics regarding size, shape, and ratio. However, nugnfutz makes a good point: Quote:
At least Concepts A to C have the dog-run bordering one of the passive lawns on a long side. Doesn?t all this hand-wringing trying to make Concept D work point to the fact that is fundamentally flawed?... I think I was one of the 1st to mention on this thread that concept D was the only one that preserves the hub-n-spoke design of the park, I?d like to see the integrity preserved myself. But, in an effort for this, you?re willing to make all sorts of gyrations to the dog run to the detriment of dog-owners, but keep everything else off the table. In my previous post, I feel that the tweak I?ve been proposing, 10,122 sq. ft., is a fair compromise to the community given that 14,848 (the square footage of 2 tennis-courts) was the ideal size of dog-run area identified in the HPNA survey. In that spirit, where?s the compromise from the other groups?... Parents ? brewster is the AutoCAD/numbers expert, and I?m sure he can?t wait to correct me, but hear me out. It looks like in all four concepts there?s no change in the total footprint or number of children?s amenities. Now, before all the hoodmama?s out there get all riled up, I?m not suggesting that there?s should be any decrease in the footprint or number of children?s amenitites ? yet. The big alleged ?pro? of Concept D is that there?s ?better monitoring? of children in the spray pool. I?d say to parents, if you?re unwilling to compromise on the supposed ?better monitoring? - I?m sorry, ditch the spray pool. A 5-minute walk away, you already have a spray pool at Enos Jones. Court enthusiasts ? in all four concepts, there?s a full size basketball court with bleachers (bleachers!... WTF?!... ). I?m not seeing anyone of the AutoCAD experts out there look at making the basketball court a half-court and the potential active-space savings. I?d be the first to say that this isn?t perfect, but again, you have a full-size basket ball court a 5 minute walk west on Pavonia at Enos Jones. Another idea - Why not get inventive and take one asphalt surface and make it multi-court: put basket-ball backboards and a tennis net on the same surface so that you could play a half-court basket ball game or tennis in the same space. Do I hear any compromise from the court enthusiast camp??...
Posted on: 2007/5/23 13:49
|
|||
|
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
It seems that one of the major problems here is fundamentally the architectural and design firm really F-ed the designs based on the previous community input. The previous surveys have already determined 1. The Majority wants multi-use courts 2. the majority wants to preserve the spoke pathway design 3. the majority wants a large dog run.
Anyone want to take a guess why the plans were developed by Schoor Depalma to begin with? Here's my guess: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q= ... contributions&btnG=Search
Posted on: 2007/5/23 12:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Size is important no matter what some say, but consider also the aesthetics.
The areas the dog owners currently exercise their dogs tends to be mostly to the west and south. Not entirely sure why this is, but probably down to the fact that its the quietest and coolest area of the park in the evenings. Keeping dogs far away from excitable children and ball games is a good idea. Putting the dogs in the middle of the active space is probably a recipe for trouble. Every dog getting into and out of the option D spaces will have to run the gauntlet of one or more of: kids play area, basketball court, tennis court and local homeless guys. Personally, I'd rather see option D, with the current space allocated to dogs given over to communal gardens, and a SW slice of the park given to the dogs. The benefit is that local schools who want to maintain the gardens can easily split their time between the play areas and communal garden with less supervision, the communal garden doesn't get lost in a trade-off with the additional multi-use active area, and dogs get their play-space away from the plants and people. (Btw: Who decided that the 50% active/passive split should be contiguous?)
Posted on: 2007/5/23 7:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
parkman wrote: I can tell you for a fact that their small run is only 500 sq. ft. and that WSP it is not twice the size of HP. 
Posted on: 2007/5/23 6:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/7/14 18:51 Last Login : 2018/12/12 21:42 From on van vorst park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
515
|
Quote:
Anyway, I?m done arguing with you on minutiae, good luck on the renovations.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 3:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Parky, I getting tired of doing your homework for you. If you had bothered to use google's map photos yourself you could have seen how wrong you are. But I did my magic and HP is 52% the size of WSP. I'm sure you've got plenty of wonderful skills and knowledge, but you've basically got no credibility when it comes to relative sizes of things.
Posted on: 2007/5/23 3:29
|
|||
|
||||