City Developing Parks Strategy
Prince George, B.C.- The City of Prince George has 124 parks, covering 1900 hectares, and some have reached the end of their life.
Two thirds of the parks are smaller neighbourhood parks developed in the 1970s when subdivisions were rapidly developing throughout the City. The smaller parks make up about 6.5 % of the total park space in the City.
In an effort to prioritize its park investments, the City is launching an online feedback form and will be hosting a number of public meetings to get feedback from residents. The information will look at park use, conditions, operational costs and location to other public green space.
The Park Strategy will be used to determine where the City will focus its investments with a final draft of the Strategy shared with residents during the “Talktober” neighbourhood sessions .
The City will have a new Park Strategy app that can be accessed via smartphone or computer so residents can get more information on potential park priorities and offer feedback. The app will be ready April 26th.
The public information sessions will be held throughout the City, starting on April 27th.
| Date | Time | Place |
| Wednesday, April 27 | 6:00pm to 8:00pm | College Heights Secondary School Tennis Courts |
| Saturday, April 30 | 12:00pm to 2:00pm | Duchess Park Playground |
| Sunday, May 1 | 10:00am to 4:00pm | Canada Games Plaza (YMCA Heathy Kids Day) |
| Wednesday, May 4 | 6:00pm to 8:00pm | Blackburn Community Hall |
| Thursday, May 5 | 6:00pm to 8:00pm | Cpl. Darren Fitzpatrick Bravery Park |
Comments
Good idea, to include input from citizens. Far better than hiring out of town consulting firms.
metalman.
Developers whispering in the ears of city hall? A number of years ago a well know developer in PG said, “green space is wasted space”
How does a current park reach the end of it’s life?
Well, you know, they get all run down, the functions don’t work like they used to, the dirt wears out, pretty soon you have to scrap them when the cost of replacement parts and labour exceeds the cost of a new model. Tee hee.
Good call.
metalman.
“….. 124 parks, covering 1900 hectares, and some have reached the end of their life ….”
The same happens with houses, subdivisions, etc.
Residential buildings are renovated, added to, altered, torn down and replaced. In some places replaced by more dense housing, in other cases larger homes, resulting in less density.
If a park has reached the end of its life, one could build a higher density residential development in the park using part of the park as a private amenity, raze some old houses in an area which should have a park, and build a new park in that location.
A swap … to better match the park to a neighbourhood, update its function for current lifestyles raze dysfunctional residences and renew a portion of the residential stock.
All sorts of possibilities. Sort of like rearranging the rooms in a house to have an open living, dining, family room, kitchen area as well as renovating built-ins and furniture.
Some neighbourhoods and city quarters get just as “tired” as buildings contained in them.
.
I get that playground equiptment, and things of that sort may come to the end of their useful life at some point. But the park itself?
Not sure how they determine a park had reached the end of its life, but perhaps it has to do with its functionality and the amount of use it gets?
Where I grew up in PG, our neighbourhood park was basically a rectangular section of thinned out pine trees, where the city had installed a swing set and I believe a merry go round on a dirt patch in the middle of the park. It was pretty basic stuff and nothing like what a park would look like today, at least not the ones I’ve seen developed in recent memory.
Out here the approach to parks seems to be to integrate them into a central area where they can serve many residential developments. They are linked up to the road and trail networks and are usually landscaped to fit into the surrounding area. Splash pads are common, as are swing sets, climbing structures, monkey bars, sandbox areas, etc. They’re usually in open spaces, set a fair distance away from roads and traffic. Some of them will be adjacent to soccer fields and stuff like that, it really depends on the area. These would be “playground” style parks.
There are also other green spaces that would be more focused on nature, with ponds, walking trails, benched where you can take in a sunset, rain shelters where you could have lunch or a small gathering, etc.
I guess it depends on what type of park space they are looking at, but I think it’s good that they are reviewing what they have. It should provide opportunities to improve the overall network of parks in the city.
Good post NMG. I agree. Good thing the city is going through what they currently have and wanting to change/improve things.
They just want to sell them for maybe a raise in the works for next year
129 Parks give me a break . We had a green belt behind our property until the pine beetle arrived . They harvested the dead trees then it actually looked more like a park and a place for dog owners to let their doggie crap but it was one of 129 parks.
Cheers
It is “greenbelt” because as it approaches Cranbrook Hill the grade increases which causes it to be assigned to greenbelt. Unlike the Swiss, this City does not build on such grades.
The relatively flat area will become the extension of Ferry Avenue and the intersection of Massey and Ferry. Depending on whether the City will grow in population, Massey may eventually be extended up the Hill to intersect with Tyner.
The “park” will no longer exist as that development is completed as has been planned for many decades.
This news release is just a trick that the City and Ian Wells are playing with taxpayers. Just tell us the truth. Those parks are gone, and Planning and Development are just covering their butts. When the uproar happens they will be able to say “we consulted with the citizens, it’s what they want”.
My thoughts exactly. Park land is cheep land to acquire and rezone to develop. That’s what this is all about.
IMO PG doesn’t have enough parks, and enough trials that connect parks and river frontage in the city. Heck we can’t even manage garbage cans for our parks. We need a better river frontage development plan if anything.
Tot lots and neighborhood park usage seems to be declining, IMHO, except for a few upgraded parks throughout the City. However, I do know of one park that is used extensively by a day care that is located next door. It looks pretty run-down to me.
I like the idea of the City continuing to develop the trail system, work with the Prince George Naturalists Club and others, to enhance the Hudson Bay Slough area.
What I’d really like to see as well, is more work done on Cottonwood Park, before it gets washed into the river. It’s a very popular walking area year round!
Comments for this article are closed.