I literally linked to the criteria clarifications on parks ( Parks & Outdoor Recreation ) which says, and I quote: “A nomination can be made for a park even if a park does not have a physical sign but is clearly a park.”
So then why does whoever reviewed the appeal tell me to go take a picture of the sign (which this park doesn’t have)?
Hi you might want to read this topic
And can we see the whole nomination please.
I would be very interested to know what sort of training or tools these appeals reviewers have, responses of this sort are sadly far too common and cause so much confusion.
It’s a small park with some shrubbery and trees and an X-shaped walkway that runs through it. It’s surrounded by houses and can only be reached through two small alleyways, which makes it a little-known local hideaway. The X-shaped walkway is bordered by a sloping wall that becomes tall enough to comfortably sit on near the center.
You described this as a nice place to sit and relax for a bit. Where do you sit in this “park”?
Good point. I was going to say one sits in the tree, but I don’t think that level of humour is required here. Would be good to know what seating arrangement is available.
I mentioned that in the post with the pictures. You can see in the pictures that the sloped wall becomes taller the closer it gets to the center, and it’s tall enough to comfortably sit on near the center.
I don’t consider a wall a good place to sit. Can you sit on it? Some people can. But it’s not designed for sitting. I wouldn’t expect an elderly couple to sit on a wall. But if there was a bench, that could be a nice place to sit.
What you are showing here has the potential to be a signless park, but right now it just looks like an undeveloped piece of land with some paths cut through it.
It’s possible to sit on the wall, but it’s definitely not intended and most people wouldn’t.
It’s more than that. The paths are bordered and at least one triangular section has been planted up. It doesn’t have a /lot/ to it and has nowhere to properly sit.
Ok, but it’s not a park. There’s no place to sit and the “grassy” area does not look like you are meant to walk on it. It’s literally just a cut through.
I really love this. It’s a quad, a courtyard with a variety of greenery. Looks like a great place to exercise to a T
Look up the definitions of a park. The only point it misses is ‘large’ which is why it’s a minipark, or pocket park. No need to be able to walk on grass specifically or sit down even. As explained, you can sit on the wall.
It’s clearly developed for recreation and the enjoyment of the local community
Again, what recreation are you doing in this “park” other than walking through it? There is no designated place to sit. There is not an open space to play some kind of game.
I have a signless park in my neighborhood that actually has open space to play/run around in and 2 benches that I’ve never tried to submit because I know it would be too hard to get accepted.
I can only speak from a UK perspective but I do not see this as a park.
Most Housing Estates will have “Green Space” but they are not Parks.
Some are large enough that younger kids could kick a football on it but it’s not what it is meant for, others are just filling in spaces near junctions etc.
Personally I believe that a Park is something made for that reason and will contain items for that reason. Even an individual bench would not change this for me. If it had multiple benches I could see it being a “non park socialising area”.
Walking is recreation. Walking is exercise. With paths and beautiful landscaping, this is a great public space to exercise.
The criteria has no mention of need of a place to sit or play games.
We are not claiming this piece of land is more than it is, as it does not need to be more than it is to be accepted.
It sounds like the park near you should be accepted too. I submit nominations for suitable locations even if they are ‘hard’
Thanks for posting.
In the post I linked to the person was able to provide a document that showed there submission was considered a green space for recreation by the local council. Have you got an equivalent for this?
Now I know you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing. That is not beautiful landscaping. It’s scrubby underbrush. These paths are utilitarian, just like my hallways at work. Should I nominate my hallways at work because they allow me to walk through them?
The answer is “No,” by the way.
It’s a quadrangle made up of walls with an X shape path through it. Designed and landscaped. Different shrubbery or grass in each corner, beautiful. Sure, some patches missing and some slight overgrowth, but maintained and beautiful.
I have stuck to discussing criteria, not to argue, but keeping to the topic, whereas you have unreasonably accused me of arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to game the system.
This is an argument we see regularly but it could be used almost anywhere. The path (sidewalk) outside my house is walked on and could be part of someone’s exercise but it is not eligible.
