I would like to add my family’s collective voice to the growing list of community members who oppose the Lambden proposal to redevelop and rename St. George’s Park. While we have been and will continue to be sensitive to and supportive of this family’s loss, our support will remain in the personal venue, not in a community forum.
The proposal we have seen makes many assumptions. It assumes that St. George’s Park does not serve the community in its present form and requires redevelopment. The plan assumes this small park can sustain higher density use not only of its currently unstructured green space but of surrounding side streets for required parking. The plan assumes the already run-down washroom building will suffice for an influx of users. It assumes the city will have a budget for maintenance and policing if more structured building takes place. And it assumes the St. George’s Park community wants those changes to be forever associated with the tragic loss of one of our neighbourhood children.
It is my hope that the diversity of Guelph is recognized and that the unique nature of our many neighbourhoods is respected. While the size and personality of St. George’s Park does not suit the current dream of the Lambden’s memorial vision, perhaps there is a more appropriate memorial to Nicholas for this location or a more perfect location for this dream.
People who have chosen to live in this community have done so because we value this older, historic, quiet area of the city. We have chosen to live where there are no large sports fields or play grounds, where traffic is quieter, where trees mask the sounds of traffic, where we can walk our dogs and chat with neighbours in the park. Had we been asked before this proposal had progressed so far, we would have been pleased to have worked along side the Lambdens to create a process to serve both the memory of Nick and the children of our community now and into the future. KE
May 8, 2008...7:34 pm
St. George’s Park / Lambden Family Proposal
Jump to Comments
Now Available! Guelph City Council meetings are broadcast live online at 
2 Comments
May 21, 2008 at 11:16 am
The overriding negative response to this issue is disappointing and confusing. St George’s Park is in a beautiful neighbourhood but could certainly use improvements. The neighbourhood should consider the generosity of the Lambden’s offer to improve the park as a positive step to making this an exceptional place for kids to play instead of spinning it as an “elitist” effort to “fast track” changes.
People must understand there is a process involved here. I would be very surprised if council approved the initial plan presented by the Lambden family. This is a public process that would involve local residents. In this dialogue it may be determined that radical changes are not desirable (as we have seen), but subtle changes may be. The city is not likely or able to pay for any changes, so the donation of private funds coupled with neighbourhood input should be seen as a blessing. I live in the neighbourhood and I use the park. Here are some observations and suggestions as I type:
1. There is a washroom which is usually covered in graffiti – proper planting/landscaping surrounding this structure would make defacing it more difficult and/or harder to see.
2. There is a ball diamond that rarely sees a game of baseball – This is an area that is well suited to people walking dogs and young children in the summer, and ice skating in the winter. Why not improve on the actual uses by way of clever planting/landscaping? A natural fence (low hedge) would separate younger ice skaters from older ones, and would not have to interfere with the park layout. Sports fields could still remain intact.
3. The tennis courts are popular but cast an obnoxious white light in all directions until 11pm – perhaps tasteful, less offensive lighting could be set up around the tennis courts (see lighting at courts in Exhibition Park that shine down instead of sideways) and adding lighting around the park in general (old fashioned coach lighting). This would add security by reducing the dark corners of the park while improving the neighbourhood by reducing light pollution.
4. There are a lot of beautiful maple trees in the park – many of which are mature. Why not plant more trees and perennial beds that will continue to live long after the existing trees are dead? Many of the homes surrounding the park have beautiful flowering trees. Similar trees could also be planted on the park property.
5. Because of the downtown location, there is heavy traffic surrounding the park. – to make it a safer haven for young children, subtle traffic-calming methods could be used to slow traffic, or even reduce it if this route becomes a nuisance for drivers using it as an alternative to more suitable roadways that are not designed for “local traffic only”.
6. There are several natural paths that have been formed in the sod throughout the park proving these are where people like to walk. – there are several natural products available that offer organic, environmentally friendly options for foot paths. This would simply improve the sometimes muddy paths that exist by having flat, accessible paths while keeping boots and pant cuffs clean. (see http://www.envirobond.com).
One complaint I have read is that the proposed changes would drastically increase park usage, adding crowds to a quiet park with organized soccer games, etc. If that is a concern, make it the top issue when considering the redesign. Maybe some simple, tasteful alterations are all that are desired, and would not bring in droves of minivans filled with teams of kids.
I have not seen the changes proposed by the Lambden family. It doesn’t make sense to me that they would desire to make unwanted changes. Perhaps the suggested gazebo is not the best idea if it’s going to attract teen-age drinking and vandalism. I can guess this is not what the Lambden’s want to encourage. We can all agree that Nick’s untimely passing is a tragedy that should have never happened. If the generosity of his parents will improve the playground he enjoyed, why stop it? Obviously with any development there must be consultation with professionals, public officials, and most importantly the surrounding neighbours. From what I have seen so far there has been a negative backlash of “NO” before even entering into dialogue or considering the opportunities. If the neighbourhood at least entertained the idea of improvement, there is a great chance that something special can be achieved.
It has been made clear there is no intent to change the name of the park. A commemorative plaque or sculpture to help remember Nick is not offensive to me. Instead it would remind me of how tragic it is to lose a young child – and make me think of my young nephews. It would make me double check to see that my child is wearing a helmet when playing hockey or riding his/her bike. It would make me look around at what a beautiful setting has been created in a beautiful neighbourhood. I don’t feel this is serving anyone’s ego. I think it is a generous offer that should be considered a great opportunity to make a wonderful place even better.
June 20, 2008 at 8:41 am
I am totally appalled and embarrassed about the cruel and frankly ignorant behaviour of some of the residents of the St George’s Park area. The Lamden family has suffered the most devastating kind of loss there is……and the fact that they would like to remember their son by a generous gift to the neighbourhood should be lauded and not attacked. All the petty little so called problems that have been raised, I am certain, would lose any significance whatsoever if any one of the complainants were to have to spend even one day walking in the Lambden’s shoes.
One thing that I am sure many people have given no thought to, the UGDSB has decided to close three schools and build one big school on the King George site. With the population of three schools now crammed into one site, there won’t be sufficient field space for outdoor activities. Having a beautiful upgraded park a block away would be an amazing bonus that would benefit all of our children at no cost to any of the parents or the school board.
Considering what the Lambden’s have to face each and every day when they get out of bed……. I’m sure they would pay anything in the world for their biggest concern to be if there were some extra cars parked by their house, or if some graffiti appeared on a wall……Kind of makes the petty complaints seem………ridiculous and heartless….. .