Peter Massiah
My feedback
2 results found
-
60 votesPeter Massiah supported this idea ·
-
145 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Peter Massiah commentedA RESPONSE TO HASTINGS PARK PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Vision Statement:
The vision statement is incomplete. It lacks an essential and undeniable element. Hastings Park is a neighbour.
For example:
Hastings Park is a neighbour:
-a neighbour to vital residential neighbourhoods of long standing;
-a neighbour to the places and processes of raising families and enjoying the comforts and shelter of home and local community.
As a neighbour, of municipal and regional scale, Hastings Park will be aware of and responsive to its impact on these sensitive and valued neighbourhoods.The stated intention of increasing Playland by 30% to 70% raises more questions than answers. If one assumes continuation of current trends in Playland type attractions, (bigger, better, crazier) the negative visual and auditory impacts are obvious and need to be addressed.
That the selection and placement of ‘additional attractions’ will reflect concern for the neighbourhood context in which Hastings Park finds itself, needs to be a stated operating principle of the Hastings Park Plan.
New Brighton Park:
New Brighton Park is the only open Vancouver park space associated with the community of Vancouver Heights. It currently gives us spaces for quiet walks, pet exercise, jogging, soccer leagues, family and community picnics, tennis games and for 4 months of the year, a local swimming pool. It provides the community with a quiet, tranquil space for individual and family enjoyment.
To integrate New Brighton Park into the municipal/regional entity of Hastings Park is to risk losing it as a local, community friendly, community scaled resource and amenity.
The other unique features of Hastings Park make it the municipal and regional attraction that it is. It does not need New Brighton Park to achieve its purpose. It ought not to include it.