Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
44 user(s) are online (38 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 44

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 ... 32 33 34 (35) 36 37 38 ... 45 »


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/4/15 20:40
Last Login :
2016/3/23 17:09
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 390
Offline
We are in complete agreement. Just wanted to make it clear that I am a dog owner. But clarifying that I am not speaking on behalf of dog owners is a very good thing to point out... I get that now.

And just to be clear, I sent a message to JC Family that while Plan D is the most child friendly plan, it is the plan that gives the least amount of space to the dog run.

I also pointed them to this discussion group because, like you said, would you want one group to get what they want at the expense of another. People need to decide for themselves, not take any one person or group's word for it.

Althea

Quote:

4bailey wrote:
Quote:

Althea wrote:
...Uummm, my dog says I am a dog owner, so I will take his word for it over yours.

-Althea

The point is... do you have any problem with a dog-advocacy group like dogjc determing the large dog:small dog ratio of a dog-run as opposed to inviduals or child-advocacy groups??...

Posted on: 2007/5/31 14:09
soshin: Mention guns and bd pops up through a hole in the ground like a heavily armed meercat
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/7/14 18:51
Last Login :
2018/12/12 21:42
From on van vorst park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 462
Offline
Quote:

4bailey wrote:
After that, let the dog-owners in the community decide the large dog: small dog ratio; not brewster, parkman, Fulop, or (sorry) Althea ? dog-owners! Supposedly, dogjc has been asked by HPNA for assistance in planning specifics. Their consensus on a fair ratio would be fine by me.



I have never suggested a ratio for the size of the runs in HP. If you reread my posts you?ll see my objective is to try and maximize both runs and get clarification of certain issues on the ballots for both parents and dog owners.

Posted on: 2007/5/31 13:53
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14
Last Login :
2013/9/9 13:46
From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 145
Offline
Quote:

Althea wrote:
...Uummm, my dog says I am a dog owner, so I will take his word for it over yours.

-Althea

The point is... do you have any problem with a dog-advocacy group like dogjc determing the large dog:small dog ratio of a dog-run as opposed to inviduals or child-advocacy groups??...

Posted on: 2007/5/31 13:41
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/4/15 20:40
Last Login :
2016/3/23 17:09
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 390
Offline
Quote:

4bailey wrote:
After that, let the dog-owners in the community decide the large dog: small dog ratio; not brewster, parkman, Fulop, or (sorry) Althea ? dog-owners! Supposedly, dogjc has been asked by HPNA for assistance in planning specifics. Their consensus on a fair ratio would be fine by me.




Uummm, my dog says I am a dog owner, so I will take his word for it over yours.

-Althea

Posted on: 2007/5/31 13:29
soshin: Mention guns and bd pops up through a hole in the ground like a heavily armed meercat
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14
Last Login :
2013/9/9 13:46
From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 145
Offline
Quote:

Brewster wrote:
?Get over trying to make me evil because I have a different opinion than you?


?Evil??... nah. I think your view is clouded because you?re still so incredulous that anyone could ask that the HP dog-run should be bigger that the VVP run, conforming to the intent in the survey. Or,.. as another poster smugly suggested to me in post #246:

Quote:

?someone? wrote:
..you seem to be looking at it more narrowly than I, but that's your right?


Back at ya, brewey!...

Quote:

Parkman wrote:
?Is there a reason why the southeast quadrant was not considered for the dog runs?...

IMO, I?m less concerned about the exact 1/8 segment than that we?re talking an entire 1/8 segment ? no game tables, no sharing with gardens, minimum buffer. After that, let the dog-owners in the community decide the large dog: small dog ratio; not brewster, parkman, Fulop, or (sorry) Althea ? dog-owners! Supposedly, dogjc has been asked by HPNA for assistance in planning specifics. Their consensus on a fair ratio would be fine by me.

Quote:

FAB wrote:
?I'm still on the side of more room / area for kids and play area for people?

The two greatest misconceptions about dog-runs are: 1.) that a run is intended to be a ?dog toilet? and that 2.) a dog-run is for dogs. Let?s ?table/postpone/defer? (whatever) #1 for now.

A dog-run is not for dogs ? a dog-run is for dog-owners! If anyone wants to put up a sign on the run saying ?NO DOGS ALLOWED WITHOUT OWNERS?, I will support that 100%. You might have a difficult time reaching the population of stray dogs that are literate, but, hey,? I?m with you.

If I choose to ?blow off steam? and recreate in the park by throwing a tennis ball or Frisbee with my dogs, is that recreational activity any more/less valuable then someone else swinging a $200 tennis racquet a couple times a year?...

I?d argue that a dog-run is a very efficient use of park space. Say you had imaginary fire marshals at the gate or each park amenity area, clicking off on a counter how many people enter. The marshals are clicking away at the counters 365 days a year (rain, sun, snow) at each and every basketball court, tennis court(s), playground, etc. counting just people, no dogs. I?d bet that the dog-run would have the highest use from people compared to any other amenity space; even if you adjusted by people per square yard, the dog-run would still be on top.

Isn?t that why the community thought it important enough to vote for a ?2-tennnis-court? size dog run?...

You?ve heard posters argue for the entire ?2-tennis-courts? and others, like brewster, who can?t see the need for anything bigger than the VVP run (something less that ? of one tennis court).

For me, an entire 1/8 segment simply sounds like the best compromise.

Posted on: 2007/5/31 12:21
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42
Last Login :
2/28 7:31
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4118
Offline
Since a huge effort is being made to accommodate the needs of everyone that use the park, have you forgotten the small group that spend the most time there?

What about making some of these available?

Resized Image

Posted on: 2007/5/31 10:05
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/8/22 9:22
Last Login :
2011/2/28 15:23
Group:
Banned
Posts: 152
Offline
....or i might add...one late evening rape or mugging in the sound-proofed and hidden "concept D" dog-run.

Posted on: 2007/5/31 5:52
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/8/22 9:22
Last Login :
2011/2/28 15:23
Group:
Banned
Posts: 152
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
They were given a copy of the HPNA survey report, and included in their designs most of the features we said we wanted. Except a 2 tennis court run. How much clearer do you need?


You're inferring intent to support your postion rather than basing anything on fact. Like a lot of your posts on this topic.

Quote:

brewster wrote:
"Opt-out" is not a legitimate alternative, not least because when there's a dog run community tolerance of dogs off leash will escalate.


Again, you're inferring that the JCPD and the community will actually start enforcing leash laws with zero evidence. Possibly the reverse...people may recognise the dog run itself is dangerously overcrowded and will tolerate off-leash dogs in other areas of the park. It just takes a few dogs or owners to get mauled in the dog run....or one kid on the way to it.

Plus i'm not opting out. Ever hear of "devils advocate"?

Posted on: 2007/5/31 3:10
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/7/27 20:48
Last Login :
2020/12/15 0:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 248
Offline
there is no confusion in what nugnfutz meant

Posted on: 2007/5/30 15:48
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/5/10 16:36
Last Login :
5/20 18:32
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 913
Offline
Quote:
"Table" in this context does not mean propose. It means put aside for another day.


The confusion here is due to an English vs US-English language difference.

Robin.

Posted on: 2007/5/30 15:42

Edited by tern on 2007/5/30 16:07:23
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/7/27 20:48
Last Login :
2020/12/15 0:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 248
Offline
From Wiki

"In parliamentary procedure, table as a verb has two auto-antonymic meanings, both arising as a shorthand for to place on the table. These contrasting meanings arise depending on whether one is considered as placing a motion on the table to suspend discussion on it, or to commence discussion; the former is used in the U.S. and the latter in the rest of the English-speaking world, although which meaning is intended in a particular context may not always be clear."

So it's a contronym or janus word (after the two headed Roman God of exits and entrances).

Here's a few other janus words which may or may not have clear meanings depending on the context.

fix (problem/solution)

sanction (to allow/to prohibit)

alight (to settle onto/ to dismount from)

draw (to open /to shut e.g. drapes)

fast (a fast horse that runs quickly, a fast colour that doesnt run at all)

snap (break apart, to fasten together)

went off (the alarm went off, the alarm went off)

quite (complete / partial I was *quite* exhausted. I was quite *exhausted*)

wind up (to stop (e.g. a company) to start (a clock))

secrete (to give off, to conceal)

etc. etc.

I disagree PhillyGirl, from the context it could only mean one thing (to propose).
Reason being you could only propose an *alternative* motion, you could not suspend an *alternative* motion that has not even been specified yet.

Posted on: 2007/5/30 15:38
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/9/15 0:10
Last Login :
2007/8/10 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 59
Offline
Quote:

nugnfutz wrote:

My opt-out just reflects my fustration with the meaningless vote. Destructive? Mebbie. Table an alternative.



"Table" in this context does not mean propose. It means put aside for another day. That is, if the council tables a motion, they decide not to vote on it today (or maybe ever). It is used not to mean "put another proposal out on the table," but rather, "put that back down on the table for today." Propose is the word you are looking for.

Don't know if it was you, nug, or someone else earlier (maybe not even in this thread), but this mistake has been made several times recently. It matters because they mean such opposite things.

Posted on: 2007/5/30 14:40
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5559
Offline
Quote:

nugnfutz wrote:
2. The city's designers didn't clearly agree or disagree with the size of the dog run. Disingenious statements like that don't help the discussion neither.


They were given a copy of the HPNA survey report, and included in their designs most of the features we said we wanted. Except a 2 tennis court run. How much clearer do you need?

"Opt-out" is not a legitimate alternative, not least because when there's a dog run community tolerance of dogs off leash will escalate.

Posted on: 2007/5/30 14:05
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/13 18:42
Last Login :
2/28 7:31
From 280 Grove Street
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4118
Offline
Quote:

nugnfutz wrote:

1. More risk of dog fights in an overcrowded dog park than outside - and i'm still liable if my dog even accidently bites someone or another dog inside the dog run.


How does a dog 'accidently bite' someone - I always thought it required a conscious effort to bite!

This topic has been one of the more 'civil' discussions on jclist. You will never get everyone to agree, but at least it has been interesting reading everyone's bias or point of view.
I'm still on the side of more room / area for kids and play area for people - and yes I don't own a dog!

Posted on: 2007/5/30 12:36
My humor is for the silent blue collar majority - If my posts offend, slander or you deem inappropriate and seek deletion, contact the webmaster for jurisdiction.
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/8/22 9:22
Last Login :
2011/2/28 15:23
Group:
Banned
Posts: 152
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:

Sweet. After all your careful analysis of the tort risks of walking a leashed dog past a fenced playground, you're going to turn yours loose wherever. Keep your liability insurance paid up.

Look, the city's designers clearly disagree with the size of the dog run we voted for, and we got half in every design. Let's work to expand the run what we can in whatever design is picked rather than make destructive "opt out" comments like you have.


1. More risk of dog fights in an overcrowded dog park than outside - and i'm still liable if my dog even accidently bites someone or another dog inside the dog run. Less risk if i keep my dogs away from the dog run and the kids play areas. And perversely, outside the dog run, if the City doesn't enforce leash laws, i might actually have a defense.

2. The city's designers didn't clearly agree or disagree with the size of the dog run. Disingenious statements like that don't help the discussion neither.

My opt-out just reflects my fustration with the meaningless vote. Destructive? Mebbie. Table an alternative.

Posted on: 2007/5/30 11:42
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5559
Offline
Quote:

nugnfutz wrote:
THE VOTE FOR A DOG RUN THE SIZE OF 2 TENNIS COURTS WAS UP THERE ....TOP3. I WONT SETTLE FOR LESS!

Well - based on this discussion ive decided the entire process is meaningless. The vote A, B C D on the "concepts" aint worth my time and aggro given views expressed here. Gonna execise my dogs where i see fit in the park. An occassional ticket..meh! Worth it. JC have never enforced dog laws anyways. JC have decided to ignore the community vote....im gonna ignore JC.


Sweet. After all your careful analysis of the tort risks of walking a leashed dog past a fenced playground, you're going to turn yours loose wherever. Keep your liability insurance paid up.

Look, the city's designers clearly disagree with the size of the dog run we voted for, and we got half in every design. Let's work to expand the run what we can in whatever design is picked rather than make destructive "opt out" comments like you have.

Posted on: 2007/5/30 4:11
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/8/22 9:22
Last Login :
2011/2/28 15:23
Group:
Banned
Posts: 152
Offline
THE VOTE FOR A DOG RUN THE SIZE OF 2 TENNIS COURTS WAS UP THERE ....TOP3. I WONT SETTLE FOR LESS!

Well - based on this discussion ive decided the entire process is meaningless. The vote A, B C D on the "concepts" aint worth my time and aggro given views expressed here. Gonna execise my dogs where i see fit in the park. An occassional ticket..meh! Worth it. JC have never enforced dog laws anyways. JC have decided to ignore the community vote....im gonna ignore JC.

Posted on: 2007/5/30 3:19

Edited by nugnfutz on 2007/5/30 3:35:45
Edited by nugnfutz on 2007/5/30 3:43:50
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/7/14 18:51
Last Login :
2018/12/12 21:42
From on van vorst park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 462
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

parkman wrote:
5. It seems that in order to ?bump out? the tennis courts, as per brewster, you would have to remove a number of very large trees and lose shade for the courts.


I see 1 tree between the north court and McWilliams, on the north end where it's shade effect is minimal. It's canopy does not extend over the actual play court, just the out of bounds.

As for the rest of the post, Steve has made pretty clear we're voting on where things go as presented. What's negotiable is size & shape. Tell me, since you're the dog run expert, can the dog run go right up against a tennis court fence, and would it be significantly different than the 15 ft distance as drawn?
I thought you were talking about the south court that does have multiple trees to the east. If they could shift the court, it would make a difference but not as much as using the current playground area as a large dog run.


I would recommend a buffer (a minimum of 10ft.) on all sides of the dog run no matter where it winds up. Dogs tend to react (barking),to people and dogs that are outside the run, than in.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 23:51
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5559
Offline
Quote:

parkman wrote:
5. It seems that in order to ?bump out? the tennis courts, as per brewster, you would have to remove a number of very large trees and lose shade for the courts.


I see 1 tree between the north court and McWilliams, on the north end where it's shade effect is minimal. It's canopy does not extend over the actual play court, just the out of bounds.

As for the rest of the post, Steve has made pretty clear we're voting on where things go as presented. What's negotiable is size & shape. Tell me, since you're the dog run expert, can the dog run go right up against a tennis court fence, and would it be significantly different than the 15 ft distance as drawn?

Posted on: 2007/5/29 23:20
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/7/14 18:51
Last Login :
2018/12/12 21:42
From on van vorst park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 462
Offline
I know it?s late in the game for this, but I spent an hour in HP with plans in hand and have a few questions and comments.

1. Is there a reason why the southeast quadrant was not considered for the dog runs? It has the capability of providing at least 10,000 sq. ft. without removal of trees, is well shaded, affects fewer homes than 9th st. as it does in the ?A-C? designs, and gives an excellent safety buffer from the kids play area. You would still have 3 very large lawns areas.
2. By using the southeast quadrant for the dog run, the children?s play area could be in the northwest, that is also shaded, as opposed to ?A-C? which at this time has no shade at all and splits the playgrounds.
3. By looking at the plans, it seemed that in ?D? you could expand the south run to make it much larger but by physically seeing the area, I realized that many trees would have to be removed in order to accomplish this.
4. In three of the four designs you lose a spoke, if that is not a deal-breaker, the existing playground area is a great space for a large dog run and it even can be expanded on its east side. The small run would be where drawn in ?D? and the children?s water feature could shift into the far eastern corner of the lower northwestern quadrant; this quadrant would also become one of the ?pet free? areas. From comments I?ve heard, there will be more foot traffic from the Exeter property on the middle spoke as opposed to the northeastern diagonal.
5. It seems that in order to ?bump out? the tennis courts, as per brewster, you would have to remove a number of very large trees and lose shade for the courts.

If any of these ideas work for the majority, I?d be happy to present them to Public Works before the vote and find out how flexible they really are.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 22:57
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/8/22 9:22
Last Login :
2011/2/28 15:23
Group:
Banned
Posts: 152
Offline
I'm reassured somewhat by Councillor Fulop that there is wiggle room in all the plans, but share Phillygirl's concerns as to what that means, and what meaning can then be attributed to the results of the upcoming vote.

4Bailey asked about trade-offs. Most features were voted on in the ballots in 2005. From the original ballots it looks like the best compromise might have been losing the 2nd court, keeping the communal garden. Perhaps a cross between options C & D.

- Childrens playground adjacent or single (80% 199/50)
- Basket ball court (79% - 202/55)
- Dog run 2 tennis courts or greater (75% 192/62) - 89% for dog run in total
- Childrens water play feature (73% - 165/62)
- Preserve spokes (72% - 189/70)
- Picnic Area (69% - 102/45)
- Chess and chequers tables (63% - 88/53)
- Childrens communal garden (62% - 122/54)
- Basketball bleachers (56% - 138/109)
- 2 Tennis courts (54% - 122/106) - 88% for one

I couldn't find where the 50-50 active-passive split came from. Is this a City policy on minimum or maximum active space? If so, which?

PS: Brewster - the 14k dog run wasn't my request, but the community's based on the ballots.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 19:58
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/8/10 0:53
Last Login :
2018/10/4 14:20
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 79
Offline
As someone who lives on 8th right in front of the South East entrance of the park who has neither children or a dog I gotta go with Plan D, but would prefer it if the bump that Brewster suggested in post 233 were possible. At first I didn't like the idea of the dog run near my place, but of the proposed layouts, it seems to work the best for the most people. I can't imagine the Exiter folks would go for closing that spoke off, but by moving the courts further east, the runs (by brewster's numbers) would gain quite a bit of space.
Either way, there's no way I'm voting for anything that includes a putting green (what's that gonna look like in 2 months) and I don't think we should give up a tennis court in exchange for a garden.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 19:44
Myth: Pancakes are for breakfast.

Fact: There are no rules when it comes to pancakes.
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/9/15 0:10
Last Login :
2007/8/10 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 59
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:

As for the rest, Althea & Phillygirl are all over it.


Thanks Brewster

Also, to clarify, I was not endorsing a particular plan. Just trying to clarify what the bottom-line differences are.

And, as a general matter, if things need not be mutually exclusive, then they shouldn't be presented that way. But if they are, we all need to know that information to be able to cast an informed vote.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 19:23
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13
Last Login :
2021/7/30 1:08
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1204
Offline
yes, simple, get rid of the 2nd tennis court.

concept D is a nice and attractive 50/50 split between active and passive parts of the park. Most important in my opinion is that concept D does not locate the dog run in front of the homes of existing residents.




Quote:

Althea wrote:

..... Is there anyway to get a bigger dog run and keep the kids playground together? The real problem here seems to be keeping the spokes. It you didn't have a spoke then it seems you could have both a larger dog run and keep the childrens playgrounds together.

....Is there anyway to fight (meaning dog and kids people) for a larger dog run in plan D? Anyway? Because if we are able to get plan D that keeps the playground together, then I'm going to fight really hard to make sure the large dog run is as large as possible.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 19:11
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5559
Offline
Quote:

4bailey wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

?the dog people won't support D since it is slightly worse than ABC in the allocation of space between large & small run, though the playgrounds in ABC are MUCH worse than D for the reasons you state?



brewster ? great use of "slightly" and "MUCH". Not as creative as ?aggressive dog barking at the fence?, but fine fiction nonetheless. Editorial opinion stated as fact with the bonus of putting dog-owners in the worse possible light - I?ll say this for you,? at least you?re consistent.


How could you construe my reply to Althea as claiming to be anything other than editorial opinion? "Facts" can be quantified & verified, like my measurements, "better" & "worse" are opinions. Get over trying to make me evil because I have a different opinion than you.

As for the rest, Althea & Phillygirl are all over it.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 18:44
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/9/15 0:10
Last Login :
2007/8/10 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 59
Offline
Quote:

parkman wrote:
I?m not sure why you?re ignoring Steve Fulop?s post of this morning that addresses some of your concerns.

Steve is acknowledging there are shortcomings in the designs and that clarity is not one of its assets.

. . . .

The option to increase the size of the dog runs is now tied to them ?being of size and shape appropriate to the community?s needs?. For example: in ?D? you could either encompass the middle spoke and/or extended into where the game tables are drawn.


Parkman,

It is my understanding (albeit second hand) that maintaining the spoke design was one of the things that many folks found important when input was sought from the community earlier in this process. I am not at all sure that Steve's comment about the size and shape of the dog run can be read to include the option of unifying the run by encompassing the spoke path. I have asked him to clarify elsewhere, hopefully he will do so here as well. But until given more specific information, I don't think we can assume that there is a realistic possibility of having both a unified dog run *and* a unified children's play area.

Luckily, Steve has clarified that a multi-use court and a unified dog run are not mutually exclusive. But that's easy. There's no reason they might need to be. I think the idea that a unified dog run and a unified children's play area are not mutually exclusive is a much bigger jump, with pretty substantial design implications.

Just my 2 cents.

PG

Posted on: 2007/5/29 18:28
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/4/15 20:40
Last Login :
2016/3/23 17:09
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 390
Offline
I think it is very hard for someone with no children or one child to understand the practicality of the situation. This is not meant as condescending in any way. Someone just explained to me a reason why you would want a small dog run right next to the large dog run as small does that are physically unable to play with the large dogs are able to still socialize with the large dogs. Not being a small dog owner, I would never have thought of this before. This makes a lot of sense.

So for me, as a parent of multiple age children, there are two issues. Practicality is that there is no safe situation anywhere... kids hurt themselves all the time in ways that you can't even imagine. I'm a very laid back parent as far as let them go and learn. However, there are things that you can help when you seen an impending disaster.

Say I have an 18 month old in the little area and my 5 year old is in the older kid's area. I need to be with the younger kid of course because they need more supervision. I have a clear sight line of my kid about to put himself in a dangerous predicament. So I race to grab the toddler and race through one gate closing it behind me, across a walkway, through another gate to try and stop my kid. Now imagine this happening several times in an hour period.

No one in their right mind who knows me would call me an over protective parent... quite the opposite actually. However, if you had two play areas next to each other and connected by an inner gate, well this resolves this problem.

Now on the safety issue... again, having that much between you and your older child makes it hard to check on them and hard to see who might be talking to them... and increases the ability of them to go out of sight. I also think it is easier for your child to open one inner gate to get to your or reach across a fence to you.

While Tern questions whether I am the only one with this issue, I assure you that as a representative of JC Family, there are many. I'm not here for myself by any means and will be happy stay at VVP. But I go to the meetings, ask for meetings, correspond with those involved, and come here to find out all the angles and issues, as a representative of JC Family. If you want proof, because people are definitely not always who they say they are, I can produce proof enough. It just seems silly since it is really only the voting that counts in the end.


I really want to thank 4Bailey, Parkman, and Brewster for helping me get a much more rounded view of the whole situation. There are so many things that I simply did not think of when looking at the whole picture.

Althea


Quote:

4bailey wrote:

What are all the children's amenities? I guess a big question that I now have would be what is fenced in and what is not? But since that is getting too specific at such an early stage viewing concept plans.



My questions are:

1.) Can the safety concerns of parents only be addressed by putting all child amenities (except the Child?s garden) in one segment?...
2.) Can the same concern be addressed by splitting child amenity areas across two adjacent segments, but having the child areas in both segments as close to the center of the park as possible? I?d guess that a parent could sit on one bench of the between spoke and keep an eye on both sections fairly easy. Tell me if I?m wrong on this assumption; I won?t debate it.
3.) Why jump to alter the dog-run first without considering something else?

Posted on: 2007/5/29 17:50
soshin: Mention guns and bd pops up through a hole in the ground like a heavily armed meercat
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/12/12 22:14
Last Login :
2013/9/9 13:46
From Intersection of Venerated @ Ensconced
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 145
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:

?the dog people won't support D since it is slightly worse than ABC in the allocation of space between large & small run, though the playgrounds in ABC are MUCH worse than D for the reasons you state?



brewster ? great use of "slightly" and "MUCH". Not as creative as ?aggressive dog barking at the fence?, but fine fiction nonetheless. Editorial opinion stated as fact with the bonus of putting dog-owners in the worse possible light - I?ll say this for you,? at least you?re consistent.

I won?t pretend to debate the validity of the safety concerns Althea brings up, even though it looks like tern (another parent) isn?t as perturbed by them. Every effort should be made.

My questions are:

1.) Can the safety concerns of parents only be addressed by putting all child amenities (except the Child?s garden) in one segment?...
2.) Can the same concern be addressed by splitting child amenity areas across two adjacent segments, but having the child areas in both segments as close to the center of the park as possible? I?d guess that a parent could sit on one bench of the between spoke and keep an eye on both sections fairly easy. Tell me if I?m wrong on this assumption; I won?t debate it.
3.) Why jump to alter the dog-run first without considering something else?

Posted on: 2007/5/29 17:25
"Dogs are our link to paradise." - Milan Kundera
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/7/14 18:51
Last Login :
2018/12/12 21:42
From on van vorst park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 462
Offline
I?m not sure why you?re ignoring Steve Fulop?s post of this morning that addresses some of your concerns.

Steve is acknowledging there are shortcomings in the designs and that clarity is not one of its assets.

In order to prevent someone from having to vote for ?D? if they want a multi-use tennis court, at least one in each of the designs will now be designated as such.

The option to increase the size of the dog runs is now tied to them ?being of size and shape appropriate to the community?s needs?. For example: in ?D? you could either encompass the middle spoke and/or extended into where the game tables are drawn. If keeping the spoke open is a priority, then switching the large and small run as drawn and extending the area south into the game tables, considerably increases the total area.

In options ?A-C?, you could extended the run (which be divided into large and small even though not drawn that way) into the area of game tables and keep the addition space or use it to increase the buffer zone on 9th st.

It seems to me that our choices can now be based on a preference for separate children?s play areas or one large one without penalizing the dog owners. These plans will not please everyone but with the flexibility to tweak the designs within their overall concepts, it seems we will get very close.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 16:43
 Top 


Re: Hamilton Park Renovation - Meeting Dates
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5559
Offline
Quote:

Althea wrote:
Is there anyway to fight (meaning dog and kids people) for a larger dog run in plan D? Anyway? Because if we are able to get plan D that keeps the playground together, then I'm going to fight really hard to make sure the large dog run is as large as possible.


yes, 2 ways:

The tennis court "bump over" I described earlier in the thread (post 233), or take the spoke as the playground does in ABC. Neither will give Nug the 14k he wants, but both give more than the ABC as on the plans.

The problem is that since we're voting for the plans as drawn not as tweaked, the dog people won't support D since it is slightly worse than ABC in the allocation of space between large & small run, though the playgrounds in ABC are MUCH worse than D for the reasons you state.

It's an impasse, and the victory goes to who has the most troops. Unfairly, if D wins, the dog runs can still be expanded through advocacy, but the ABC playgrounds can't be combined in the spot voted on if those plans win.

Posted on: 2007/5/29 16:06
 Top 




« 1 ... 32 33 34 (35) 36 37 38 ... 45 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017