Jarry stadium “needs roof to keep tennis event”
Tennis Canada honcho says the Jarry Park stadium “needs” a $70‑million roof to keep the Rogers Cup event in town.
Tennis Canada honcho says the Jarry Park stadium “needs” a $70‑million roof to keep the Rogers Cup event in town.
Chris 08:12 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
I was in that park the other day, for the first time in a long time. Amazing how much of it is not actually greenspace. Parking, pavement, police station, etc. Maybe they could trade a roof for removing the parking and cop station?
Kate 09:16 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
I recall discussion of enlarging the police station, but it was eventually decided against. I think even the SPVM realized if they wanted a bigger facility they would have to move that station somewhere else.
I agree with you, Chris: there’s already too much of that park paved for stuff, often “deserving” things like the roller hockey rink, skate park, swimming pool, basketball court, but of course also the parking (around the police station, but also around the tennis and a big piece of paved land on Jarry close to the tracks) and so on. Every little “useful” element chips away at the green space.
They could easily do some things. Reduce the parking, get rid of that bathroom building not far from the police station that hasn’t been used in living memory and green it over.
When I went to look for the change.org link for the petition against the stadium roof I found another one: a petition against parking fees at the tennis stadium! Some car owners are 100% entitled.
Chris 18:20 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
Car parking is a human right, didn’t you know? 🙂
Ian 20:16 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
Another way to look at it is that people don’t like getting charged for what they used to get for free.
But yes, evil cars, blah blah blah.
Chris 21:31 on 2019-08-02 Permalink
They’re not mutually exclusive.
Ian, what are your thoughts on climate change? If you think it’s a real/big problem, how do you reconcile that with car culture not being evil? (Genuinely curious.)
dhomas 09:09 on 2019-08-03 Permalink
Ian is completely correct. It never should have been free in the first place.
Chris 10:50 on 2019-08-03 Permalink
It’s rather long, but if the topic interests you, I highly recommend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking
Ian 12:52 on 2019-08-03 Permalink
I get it. You hate cars.
Let’s look at the numbers though, c02 emissions worldwide… all of transportation (including shipping, air, trucks, etc.) accounts for 15%.
Of all greenhouse gas emissions, c02 counts for 76%.
https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/
So that’s 11.4%.
Even specifically closer to home, using US stats, transportation accounts for 29% of all greenhouse gases, with cars (no distinction between private and commercial) representing 59% of that, so 17%.
https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions
Now I understand, not everyone that drives needs to – but some people do need to drive to get to work or for a variety of other reasons. But you guys don’t care. You don’t care if the car is a used car. Or a fuel efficient compact car. Or if the person carpools. To hear you all go on about it, cars are unconditionally bad, nobody should drive. You don’t complain about trucks, rail, flight, shipping, it’s cars that are the problem, cars that are killing the planet. There is no nuance, there is no context, evil cars, blah blah blah. There is no incentive to stop people from driving, only punishing them because they are EVIL.
Reactionary narrowmindedness aside, this much the same thing as people that go on about recycling while ignoring the fact that most waste is from heavy industry.
…or how we need to take 3 minute showers and use low flow toilets, or get rid of plastic bags, or meatless Mondays, or veganism – whatever your personal obsession is… Yes these are all useful things BUT…
In the big picture you as an individual are not going to be solving the climate crisis by changing your consumer patterns. That’s misdirection, and big business/ industry want to make sure that is where you are focused instead of getting mad at them.
… but really, it’s that all you have to do is mention cars and the same brigade of reactionaries comes faithfully trotting out the party line, and it’s just tiresome.
Michael Black 14:07 on 2019-08-03 Permalink
For the record, I’ve never objected to cars for environmental reasons, just a sense that as a pedestrian I feel like drivers expect me to get out of the way.
Yes, many drivers could reduce their driving, I’ve seen people who got really lazy since they had a car, but that seems the same sort of entitlement that makes drivers bad, like illegally parking. I think cars parked i the wrong place should be towed, because it can be an influence invenience or danger to others.
I won’t give a pass to cyclists “because they are environmentally good” when some behaviour is the same sort of entitlement that car drivers have.
I’m sorry you had to get a car, and maybe sorrier that public transit doesn’t fit your needs. I like taking the 211 to St. Anne’s every so often, but I wouldn’t want to do it daily, and I’ve never taken a commuter train because theschedule wouldn’t fit even a recreational trip.
Your buying a car says something is wrong,there are lots of reasons to need publuc transit, but public transit is too often seen as something for the “marginal”. People who can’t drive, or can’t afford a car get stuck, and may not be able to relocate closer to work, or get a job near their home.
One can’t ignore those affected when wanting to make change, they need to be part of the equation, and probably solutions aren’t as black & white as some would like, but somewhere in between.
I’ve never driven a car, I guess I have that luxury, but I think it incidentally makes me a good “environmentalist” even if I seem less anti-car than some. I’ve done my share, at least one thing trendsetting back in 1970, thiugh maybe I’ve become more balanced in “old age”, at least better able to see value in what others are saying.
Michael
Chris 14:13 on 2019-08-03 Permalink
Ian, you again seem to have this mutual exclusion thinking. In fact, we should go after heavy industry, *and* change consumer patterns, *and* go vegan, *and* take short showers, *and* fight car culture. That’s how one should react to an emergency, on all fronts. (Unless there isn’t a climate emergency?)
You also appear to be strawmanning: arguing against all kinds of points no one has made here. Perhaps you misread/misunderstood when I describe “car culture” as evil vs “cars” as evil? I still want motor vehicles for fire trucks, ambulances, public transport, and the like. This is far different from our culture’s idea of an idyllic large house with two car garage in a far flung suburb, one car per person, free parking everywhere, subsidized oil, massive strip malls, toll-free roads, taxpayer bailouts for car companies, etc.
On your 17% number: Does it include emissions to build the cars? from mining for steel? to cut the trees to build roads and parking? to manufacture asphalt and cement? Does it account for the disfigurement of our cities? urban sprawl? the space to store all these individual cars? heat island effect? etc. The problem of car culture goes much deeper than just direct emissions by vehicles.
On business/industry vs individuals: Who do you think business/industry are making things for? Everything is ultimately made for human beings. Business is nothing more than a collection of humans after all. For every trinket one forgoes buying, it goes all the way up the chain. Obviously one individual changes little, a critical mass of individuals changing their behaviour is required.
Raymond Lutz 14:32 on 2019-08-03 Permalink
Excellent commentaire, Chris! Et @Ian, j’aurais voulu vous corriger au sujet de l’importance des déchets industriels mais vous avez raison à prime abord: aux USA la quantité des déchets industriels est 25 fois plus élevée que celle des déchets municipaux (domestiques)… mais ils ont été produits lors du processus de production de biens qui sont finalement acheté par les consommateurs.
dwgs 08:53 on 2019-08-04 Permalink
The truth of the matter is that there are too damned many people on the planet, we are a virus which is slowly killing our host. As nasty as it is to say, the best thing that could happen for the planet is a global pandemic that culls the human population drastically. For the time being we’re just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Tim S. 19:10 on 2019-08-04 Permalink
Or we could just continue our current policy of creating a housing bubble so no young people can afford space for kids anymore. Might take slightly longer than the pandemic option, though.
I was also in Jarry Park for the other day (to watch some of the tennis practices, actually) and was struck by the lack of trees. I guess you can’t play cricket in a forest, but as a green space on a hot day it seemed a little unfriendly.