Amy wrote:
They're digging up the sidewalk along the perimeter of the park. What's the plan here, and why aren't they concentrating on the inside of the park?

As a relatively new resident of downtown JC (almost 1 year now), I have to say how disappointed I was...

GoEagles wrote:
I can't wait to NOT have to "relax" in the grassless, dog piss infused dirt that made up the open space of HP. While it had potential, it certainly was not by any means a place of "simple beauty of trees and green space" - actually far from it. Bring on the high tech playgrounds, dog runs, new benches and tables, open space with grass and a place for all to be happy. I can't wait for the new and improved HP - take as much time as you need to do it right....

StephanieHC wrote:
As a relatively new resident of downtown JC (almost 1 year now), I have to say how disappointed I was when I gathered my things to walk to Hamilton Park today only to arrive there and find the entire park shut down, and then have a worker there tell me it would be shut down for at least three months. I was ready to write a fiery letter to the city government--you would choose to shut down a park so that there's no access throughout the time of the year when people most want to be outdoors?--but thankfully did a little research and saw that this renovation has been long desired by residents, which tempered my anger somewhat. (Though I still don't understand why they need to shut the entire park down instead of shut it down in sections and leave part of it accessible like with Washington Square Park.) So now I come here to vent instead

I share the previous poster's concern about the intentions for the new park. One of the things I really liked about Hamilton Park as it was, was that it was a simple space with trees and benches where one could enjoy a relaxing moment in nature. Tennis courts, high-tech playgrounds, and so on, are not to me what makes a park appealing. I know they are for many residents with families, but I certainly hope the new park maintains the simple beauty of the old. Because I think what people in cities need most when it comes to parks is not high tech playground equipment but a place where they can relax and enjoy the simple pleasures of nature, a respite from the pace and endless concrete of the urban environment.

I'm sad that my first spring/summer here will be devoid of access to HP, where I had hoped to go often to think and relax. Thankfully, Van Vorst Park looks similar and not too much further from me than HP was. But I really hope that when they unveil the new park they hold on to what made the park great originally, which was the simple beauty of the trees and green space. If people want a park with fewer trees and lots of sports-oriented playground space, they can go to Enos Jones, which is exactly what I DON'T look for in a park, and some place I can't see myself going to relax or for any reason, really.

Amy wrote:
I'm not an attorney or a labor expert, but if the park workers are hourly, then yes, there is a reason why they can't work more than 40 hours a week. If they do, the law requires that they be paid overtime, and maybe the city won't pay it. Also, they may be unionized and under a contract that says they will work 40 hours a week. Finally, physical labor is different from non-physical labor. I think 40 hours a week is reasonable, assuming it's the same group of workers every time.

I have worked desk jobs and physical jobs. In general, it's a lot easier to work long hours at a desk job.

newtothearea wrote:
Walking around the park this morning, I heard one of the construction dudes say, "they are really crazy about the trees around here. we're not gonna take it down unless we have to."

Amy wrote:
For all who are wondering why the park is quiet in the evenings when they return home-- I work from home and can hear them working steadily from about 7 am well into the afternoon.

newtothearea wrote:
I would love to know why no work is done on the weekends. And also why work stops at around 3:30 every day?