What is up with that newly fenced area of Lucas Park? I never see dogs in there.
- 11K
Well, it's got to be one or the other, clearly. Are there never dogs there or are there always dogs there?!?! First pic of the Lucas Park Dogpark with or without dogs wins!!!
- 11K
A lot of people seem to buy into the belief that “you can’t prove a negative!” and use it in order to deflect criticism or to keep themselves from fulfilling the burden of proof on their position. In fact, this never fails to annoy me, because it’s most definitely not true that “you can’t prove a negative.”
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2 ... -negative/
In any case, I saw Howard Wynder this morning at the Washington Avenue Post and he told me that the new dog park will soon be open. It's been closed because various administrative hoops needed to be cleared -- insurance, etc... Will keep you up to date!
More info here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=1 ... 588&ref=tsMoorlander wrote:can anyone use this?
Went to Lola Friday night, fairly early. At least four dogs in the park, one of them doing a fair impression of an opera singer.
- 8,924
innov8ion wrote:More info here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=1 ... 588&ref=tsMoorlander wrote:can anyone use this?
um...so can anyone use it? What's this about blue identity collars?
As long as you've registered your dog to use the dog park. Perhaps you can ask on the Facebook group?Moorlander wrote:um...so can anyone use it? What's this about blue identity collars?innov8ion wrote:More info here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=1 ... 588&ref=tsMoorlander wrote:can anyone use this?
- 37
Membership is limited to 50 dogs. You have to have all updated vaccines etc. which is a good thing imo. I think the idea is great, but so far everyone i have seen with a dog still uses the older, bigger, and technically illegal dog park. I am a bit annoyed with the leadership of this project, which seems like a waste of parkland with only minor and somewhat snooty nimby-esque allocation of public input time. I understand the old park site may become something else, but i just don't see why the existing makeshift dog park was not made compliant. The new dog park is also smaller, and this weekend while showing family around after the marathon, i was asked why we had two dog parks. Upon explanation, I got a pretty blank stare, and a response of why not just use the old one. As for the 50 dogs rule, it seems a little exclusive considering about half of all 5000 residents seem to own a dog. You can get more info on downtownstl10's website, but it doesn't look like any updates have been posted on it since 2009. Who are these mystery people?
- 11K
Sorry to interrupt, but shouldn't this be in the "downtown" forum instead of "central corridor"?
How can a portion of a public park be reserved for the exclusive use of such a small group of people (and their dogs)?
- 11K
Maybe you can ask Forest Park (and other places) about their pools, tennis clubs, golf courses, etc. etc.Framer wrote:How can a portion of a public park be reserved for the exclusive use of such a small group of people (and their dogs)?
- 6,775
The same way a portion of Forest Park is reserved for the exclusive use of golfers. Both golfers and dog owners are members of the public, last time I checked.Framer wrote:How can a portion of a public park be reserved for the exclusive use of such a small group of people (and their dogs)?
My point is that if the dog park is indeed limited to 50 registered dogs, that seems a bit exclusionary. As Washuslouser points out, there's a lot more dogs than that Downtown.
Well what is the driving factor behind the limit of 50? Is it city code?Framer wrote:My point is that if the dog park is indeed limited to 50 registered dogs, that seems a bit exclusionary. As Washuslouser points out, there's a lot more dogs than that Downtown.
- 6,775
Is that a hint?innov8ion wrote:Well what is the driving factor behind the limit of 50? Is it city code?Framer wrote:My point is that if the dog park is indeed limited to 50 registered dogs, that seems a bit exclusionary. As Washuslouser points out, there's a lot more dogs than that Downtown.
Actually, I don't know. But sometimes its best to find out why before complaining.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Is that a hint?innov8ion wrote:Well what is the driving factor behind the limit of 50? Is it city code?Framer wrote:My point is that if the dog park is indeed limited to 50 registered dogs, that seems a bit exclusionary. As Washuslouser points out, there's a lot more dogs than that Downtown.
Also, in response to WashUslouser. There was an open design charrette for phase one. Another charrette will take place for the second phase. If anyone wishes to be involved in the process, I encourage you to join the group and attend meetings: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=1 ... 588&ref=ts.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=1 ... 1415166513
Howard wrote:David, We needed to find an average of dogs in the park with 50 members during peak owner use. The space will only hold 10 to 12 dogs safely. Also our insurance presently covers 50 members.
Am I the only one who feels Lucas Park has taken a turn for the worse? It used to be like a garden oasis, but now it's lost most of it's trees and gained a whole lot of fencing. I think a dog park is a great idea for Downtown, I just feel that Lucas Park was the wrong place for it. It's especially disappointing to think that the Central Library's new main entrance will overlook a defaced park.
Just my opinion.
Just my opinion.
The fencing on the easternmost side will eventually come down. Relaxing in this beautiful pocket park, it still feels like the garden oasis you mention. I particularly enjoy the view toward the Shell Building and church.Framer wrote:Am I the only one who feels Lucas Park has taken a turn for the worse? It used to be like a garden oasis, but now it's lost most of it's trees and gained a whole lot of fencing. I think a dog park is a great idea for Downtown, I just feel that Lucas Park was the wrong place for it. It's especially disappointing to think that the Central Library's new main entrance will overlook a defaced park.
Just my opinion.
What is the purpose of a park if it does not serve to better the welfare of a community? Particularly a community with a bevy of dogs and in the past no place for both they and their owners to socialize. And where is a more perfect place for a dog park in the loft district than Lucas Park?
- 6,775
I'd guess it's been at least 40 years since it's been a garden oasis. It was a bum oasis in recent years. A dog park seems as good a use as any.Framer wrote:Am I the only one who feels Lucas Park has taken a turn for the worse? It used to be like a garden oasis, but now it's lost most of it's trees and gained a whole lot of fencing. I think a dog park is a great idea for Downtown, I just feel that Lucas Park was the wrong place for it. It's especially disappointing to think that the Central Library's new main entrance will overlook a defaced park.
Just my opinion.