Treasured Island
The conflict over Calgary's Prince's Island
by Scott Rollans

Prince's Island Park, Calgary's most beloved green space, has drifted along for decades, amid rising pressures. Increasing hordes of frazzled urbanites seek the solace of its grassy banks and shaded pathways. At the same time, thanks to the host of annual festivals that thrive on the island, on most summer days the porta-potties outnumber their more permanent cousins.

When the public heard in December 1990 that a Master Plan was being developed for the park, most would have agreed that it was long overdue. Few could have foreseen the storm ahead.

The first wave hit as soon as the report was published in October 1991. The redevelopment it proposed was immediately attacked from all sides. Environmentalists accused the City of plotting to "pave paradise." Local residents complained that the new facilities would overcrowd their neighbourhood park. Festival organizers worried that the permanent structures in the plan wouldn't suit their needs. Most of all, nearly everyone balked at the price tag, conservatively estimated at $11 million.

With the plan at least temporarily on hold, the fury has somewhat abated. Although planners and protesters continue to hold their ground, everyone involved in the issue shares one thing: a belief in the island's vital importance. As they continue their debate, the compromises they make and the conclusions they reach will tell us a lot about how Albertans see the future of their urban parks.

Nestled in the shadow of the downtown skyscrapers, Prince's Island lies geographically, as well as emotionally, in the heart of Calgary. Although it represents only a tiny fraction of the city's green space, it dominates people's perception of the parks system.

Because of that, some form of redevelopment is absolutely essential, argues Will Pearce of the Parks and Recreation Department, City of Calgary. "The park hasn't had a major upgrading for over 20 years," he points out. "It goes without saying that over those twenty years there have been some pretty substantial changes in the city, not only in its size, but also in the feelings of Calgarians towards parks, open space, and the environment in general. The island, as a natural resource, is trying to hold up under conditions and demands that it wasn't really designed for."

In designing their proposal, the planners had a lot to consider. The park's central location and stunning beauty draw people from every corner of the city. Calgary's festival organizers pitch their tents on what just might be the best site in Canada, while their counterparts across the country look on with drooling envy. Cyclists whizz across the island on their way to work, and then return at lunchtime to eat their sandwiches under the trees.

At the same time, people in the communities of Hillhurst and Sunnyside, on the north bank of the Bow River, look at Prince's Island as their neighbourhood park. As traffic and activity on the island continue to rise, they sometimes feel as if they're being pushed out. Whenever a festival takes place, many of them feel assaulted by the noise and the congestion.

In adapting the park to satisfy city-wide demands, planners couldn't ignore the wishes of neighbours who passionately wish to preserve its cozy ambience. At the same time they had to accommodate an inevitably increasing number of park users, while respecting growing environmental concerns.

For the purpose of discussion, project consultants Carson-McCulloch Associates Ltd. devised three park options. The first, which they called the "Nature Park", emphasized the island's potential for environmental education and appreciation. The park's vegetation would be altered to more accurately reflect the Bow River ecosystem. One small, reoriented bandshell would be provided, but its size would rule out the major festivals. The east end of the island, which has been largely undeveloped, would be preserved and enhanced as a natural area. Bicycle traffic would not be allowed, and recreational activity on the lagoon would be restricted to winter skating on natural ice.

The second alternative, "Prince's Island as a Garden", more closely resembled a traditional urban park. Planting would be horticultural, with flowers, ornamental trees and lawns. A permanent bandshell would be built on the west end of the island (where festivals are currently held) and would accommodate the same number of spectators as before. Slow moving bicycles would be allowed (although through traffic would be discouraged), and the lagoon would be used as a year-round recreational area.

"Prince's Island as a Festival Site", the third model, would see the park heavily landscaped, with only the northeast fringe left in its "natural" state. With two permanent amphitheatres and two secondary stage areas, the island would accommodate over 20,000 spectators. Bike paths would be significantly upgraded, as would the lagoon, attracting swimmers and canoeists in summer, and skaters in winter.

With the models in place, the planners set about seeking public feedback. The three options were displayed at City Hall and the Eau Claire YMCA (adjacent to the park), and later at a one-day open house at Sunnyside School. Approximately 200 public comment forms were collected or mailed.

During the next three months, the consultants faced an unenviable task. Armed with the questionnaires, and under the direction of the Steering Commmittee, senior management and officials from every level of government, they put together a detailed redevelopment proposal.

The plan they came up debuted quietly on June 5, 1991. Despite running a large, full-colour ad in the Calgary Herald , Parks and Recreation could attract only 35 people to a public discussion of the plan at Fort Calgary. "It was a little disappointing, considering the expense we went to," concedes Pearce.

The redevelopment they proposed most closely resembles the "Garden" option, with a few key differences. The festival bandshell would be relocated east of the island's north-south corridor, encroaching slightly on the so-called "natural area". The central portion would be more highly developed, featuring a plaza, a permanent washroom and concession building, a fountain, and a wide bike path. The plan also included a seemingly insignificant change, which would nevertheless strike a nerve in many Calgarians. The paths, which currently consist largely of red shale, would be paved in asphalt.

As the report neared its publication date, Project Manager Gary Carson knew he was headed into tricky territory. "There are a lot of conflicting objectives and expectations regarding the park," he says, "so it's inevitably going to be controversial when you start talking about changing what's already there. Everybody gets a bit nervous."

Even so, Carson was shocked, and a little hurt, by the report's reception. "Both we and the Parks Department were surprised at the venom that was generated over the plan that was prepared and the process that was undertaken. I guess my personal view, having been very close to it for over a year, is that it's a totally reasonable solution. It tries to balance a conflicting bunch of objectives.

"There is no right answer for it, but the solution that we selected attempts to accommodate existing uses in a better way. I think a lot of the people who were against it didn't really want to understand. They were just against anything that represented change."

Jim Besse unapologetically falls into that category, as a founding member of The Friends of Prince's Island. "We came together with the explicit purpose of stopping the proposed redevelopment," he says. "Beyond that agenda, there was never really any discussion of, 'Well, do we need more bathrooms in the park or not?' or 'Do we want to hard pack the paths for handicapped access or not?'

"I would like to see the planners just go down there on a summer day, when the island is full of people just relaxing, playing frisbee, and ask the park users what needs to be done. The overwhelming response is, 'Leave it alone.' Prince's Island does need some maintenance. It does not need redevelopment."

Besse has an unlikely ally in Vic Bell, Artistic Director of the Calgary Folk Festival. He feels the report is completely inaccurate in portraying festival directors as avid supporters of redevelopment. "In the overview it said that the festivals were approving Coney Island, and that was not the case at all. At our meeting with Parks and Rec and the proponents of the plan, we said 'What we've got right now is fine.' Nobody approved the amphitheatre. It would be nice to have a permanent stage facility of some kind. But I've got no problem with the temporary stage we've used in the past. It works out well for everybody.

"The other problem a lot of people have is the price tag . You're looking at $11 million to do this, and people are saying, 'Hey, why fix it if it's not broke? $11 million can go a long way to helping other things.'"

If he has misgivings about the current proposal, he also has little time for those who would evict the festivals in a bid to preserve the island's natural habitat. Bell spent a good part of the 1980's successfully fighting to save the South Moresby wilderness on B.C.'s Queen Charlotte Islands, but he's not about to sound the battle cry for the eastern tip of Prince's Island. "That whole end of the island is there because when they dredged the canal that made the island in the first place, that's where they dumped the fill.

"There are certainly other areas in the city that are much more natural than that end of the park. I concede that it could be transformed into something like that, but it certainly is not a threatened wilderness right now. We're talking about a gravel pit that has grown over."

Unlike Bell, Doug Olson of Calgary's Wildlife Trust sees tremendous potential in the park's eastern end. "It's viewed by most people as a wasteland. But if you were to plant that stuff, it would cost you literally millions of dollars. A very detailed pathway system through and around the natural area could act like a framing device, like framing a painting.

"This is never going to be a wildlife sanctuary. That isn't the point. It has no real importance to the ecological system of the area. But it provides a display of native plants and a naturally evolving ecosystem that offers a much greater complexity than the horticultural work at the other end of the island."

Olson doesn't feel uncomfortable with the concept of redevelopment per se. "Recognizing that there is going to be increased use in the area, and that there is a desire for more urban, festive-type activities on the island, we have to design for them. I would totally agree with the Parks Department that we have to design for a certain amount of increased use." However, he's adamant that the existing proposal goes too far. "My feeling is that it's overkill. There's a real feeling that an overdevelopment of the island is going to destroy its character.

"I think there's a process problem here. The Parks Department has to listen to people a bit more, and I think they tend not to want to do that in some cases. It seems that Parks has a certain agenda of their own."

Will Pearce reacts angrily to that kind of charge. "There's no hidden agenda, other than to say we want to work very hard to protect and preserve this island for all Calgarians."

He's quick to defend his Department's efforts in the area of public involvement. "What would I do if I started all over again? Much of it I'd do just as we did. It was quite a valid process." If there was a flaw, he concedes, it may have been that neighbouring residents were over-represented in the data. "We may have gone to a larger, random sample of households in Calgary, to generate a statistically valid sample, so we could say 'This does represent the view of Calgarians.'"

He also feels that the backlash against pavement is misguided. "I can certainly understand the emotional element when you talk about pavement. But when we reach a very high level of use, and I think we're beyond that, you have to design the trails to withstand the use they receive. Gravel trails get compacted, and over the years the trail slowly gets wider and wider. We'd rather be able to define an appropriate width, and be able to maintain it.

Pearce points out another, more fundamental problem with the existing paths. "Red shale gets very soft when it's wet, and unless it's regularly graded it's very difficult for wheelchairs. It also gets picked up by the wheels, so when they head home they have to wash the wheelchair before they go into the house. This ain't like taking off a pair of sneakers. It's a whole different ball game for these folks."

In general, Pearce views the outcry as an example of a vocal minority being heard above the crowd. "There is an important and significant group of folks and communities who are concerned about the proposal, but there are many other groups who are as adamantly, if not more so, in favour of the development proposal."

Bill Milne definitely fits that description. As Chairman of the Parks Foundation's River Valleys Committee, he sat on the Steering Committee which helped guide the report's preparation. "I believe it's the best we're going to get. It's not perfect, but it had to address the concerns of a great many people, both city-wide and locally. On the whole, it's a good compromise plan.

However, the alderman whose ward takes in Prince's Island Park hasn't exactly been overwhelmed by those sentiments. Says Bev Longstaff, "The interesting thing about the plan they came up with was that no one liked it. I think the whole thing will have to be started over from scratch. We've been given a pretty clear message. Although the Parks Board supported it," she says, a hint of incredulity creeping into her voice. "They did, they supported it."

At Longstaff's urging, the City has put the plan on hold for the time being. She believes the controversy will ultimately have a positive effect. "I'm glad it has attracted all of this attention, because I think that needs to happen. We can continue the process now, and really involve people in the redevelopment of the park. I think that's important."

The delay has also allowed the atmosphere of confrontation to subside somewhat. Doug Olson points out, "There's been a polarization of views that I think is really too bad. There's been a lot of misunderstanding about the positions that have been taken. It's not a black and white issue."

With municipal elections creeping up, the Prince's Island question is sure to remain on the political front burner. Perhaps, in time, some common ground will be reached. In the meantime, everyone interested in the future of Alberta's urban parks will want to keep one eye on the little island in the Bow River.

Return to Scott's Environment Views articles

| home | writing | editing | music | personal | weird stuff | rollans.com |