I agree that we need to plan for our future city which will have less private green space and a higher concentration of people. I have lived in a number of highly dense cities, and none of them would have ever considered the amount of space being dedicated to dogs. Take for example Lyon, France. French people love their dogs, but there are very limited spaces for unleashed dog areas. It is too crowded to have dogs unleashed on streets. Very few people have private green space, and the larger neighbourhood parks are fenced and house public pre-schools/daycares. The public shares the green space with the young children, but dogs do not. A fairly clean space, free of dog poo and pee, is saved for the toddlers and pre-schoolers. I observed the same scenario when living in Cambridge, close to the boundary with Boston. The few green spaces in the area were fenced not for dogs, but for 'tots'. In Edmonton I did a small study of families living in multi-unit housing and asked them what they liked or did not like about living in multi-unit housing in Edmonton. A number of the mothers mentioned they did not like the fact that their children could not play in the snow outside the building because the dogs in the building used the area as their toilet. As more and more families in Edmonton live in multi-unit housing we will have to reconsider who takes priority - dogs or children. Maybe the next park developed downtown will include a fenced space for young children, rather than dogs.
We also need to reconsider what activities are compatible with dog off leash areas. In my experience it is unsafe to have unleashed dogs near a bike path. Yet, the City has designated many bike path areas as off leash areas. It would be good to collect data on the number of accidents or near accidents between cyclists and dogs.
I agree we need to study the impact of dog off leash areas, and establish criteria for developing or eliminating dog off leash areas. Talking to people in the area certainly should be done.
Planning parks requires planning for the future. If we envision a compact city, then we shall have to rethink the amount of land dedicated to dogs.
Nice to hear from you Bev. Your points are well taken, but maybe I didn't articulate clear enough my perspective. My support for dog off leash areas is contingent on community engagement and support. I trust the community to strike the right balance. New sites in existing parks are replacing something else. Its all about the process for me.
This also reminds of the discussion I had internally with some of my environmental colleagues. There was tension between manicured park space vs natural park spaces. My point was always - it should not be about two legitimate needs contesting the same space allocationg. The larger problem is that there may not be enough public spaces (10% of the GDA), and maybe we should focus instead on re-deploying transportation and utility dedications. Edmontons strategy does allow for non-park land sites, which as always been the case anyway.
With respect, I don't see these spaces as people vs dog spaces. Unlike cats, dogs don't show up without their owners. Its the interaction between the humanoids that makes them attractive to me, and the fact the spaces are used year round.
At the end of the day, this discussion is emblematic of peoples connection to their public spaces, which I appreciate. I would love to see more of your thoughts Bev on past or future vlogs. I always loved hearing your perspective when we connected at EFCL. Not sure I can answer each one because my number of subscribers (and comments) are growing. But I do want to engage.
I agree that we need to plan for our future city which will have less private green space and a higher concentration of people. I have lived in a number of highly dense cities, and none of them would have ever considered the amount of space being dedicated to dogs. Take for example Lyon, France. French people love their dogs, but there are very limited spaces for unleashed dog areas. It is too crowded to have dogs unleashed on streets. Very few people have private green space, and the larger neighbourhood parks are fenced and house public pre-schools/daycares. The public shares the green space with the young children, but dogs do not. A fairly clean space, free of dog poo and pee, is saved for the toddlers and pre-schoolers. I observed the same scenario when living in Cambridge, close to the boundary with Boston. The few green spaces in the area were fenced not for dogs, but for 'tots'. In Edmonton I did a small study of families living in multi-unit housing and asked them what they liked or did not like about living in multi-unit housing in Edmonton. A number of the mothers mentioned they did not like the fact that their children could not play in the snow outside the building because the dogs in the building used the area as their toilet. As more and more families in Edmonton live in multi-unit housing we will have to reconsider who takes priority - dogs or children. Maybe the next park developed downtown will include a fenced space for young children, rather than dogs.
We also need to reconsider what activities are compatible with dog off leash areas. In my experience it is unsafe to have unleashed dogs near a bike path. Yet, the City has designated many bike path areas as off leash areas. It would be good to collect data on the number of accidents or near accidents between cyclists and dogs.
I agree we need to study the impact of dog off leash areas, and establish criteria for developing or eliminating dog off leash areas. Talking to people in the area certainly should be done.
Planning parks requires planning for the future. If we envision a compact city, then we shall have to rethink the amount of land dedicated to dogs.
Nice to hear from you Bev. Your points are well taken, but maybe I didn't articulate clear enough my perspective. My support for dog off leash areas is contingent on community engagement and support. I trust the community to strike the right balance. New sites in existing parks are replacing something else. Its all about the process for me.
This also reminds of the discussion I had internally with some of my environmental colleagues. There was tension between manicured park space vs natural park spaces. My point was always - it should not be about two legitimate needs contesting the same space allocationg. The larger problem is that there may not be enough public spaces (10% of the GDA), and maybe we should focus instead on re-deploying transportation and utility dedications. Edmontons strategy does allow for non-park land sites, which as always been the case anyway.
With respect, I don't see these spaces as people vs dog spaces. Unlike cats, dogs don't show up without their owners. Its the interaction between the humanoids that makes them attractive to me, and the fact the spaces are used year round.
At the end of the day, this discussion is emblematic of peoples connection to their public spaces, which I appreciate. I would love to see more of your thoughts Bev on past or future vlogs. I always loved hearing your perspective when we connected at EFCL. Not sure I can answer each one because my number of subscribers (and comments) are growing. But I do want to engage.