Oakridge Park playground improvements

I went down to the park and located the X where site C is located. In my opinion this site is too close to the end of the street, too close to the roadway; and too close to the walking trail that pet owners use when they are walking their dogs. When I brought this up during the online meeting the idea of putting barriers (such as benches) between where dogs would walk and where the kids would play was considers. I still think it is too close. I can state from experience that children like dogs and come running to pet the animals not waiting for permission. The C location does not provide the distance required to allow parents, especially with their backs to the dogs, to act before the children reach the dogs.

Site D is my preferred location for the park.

Site D is where the park has been located for generations. It is a SAFE location away from traffic, dogs, and others playing in the park.

Please upgrade the equipment at the current site and don't move the park's location.

I much prefer Option D. It seems much safer as it's farther from the road and traffic. I play at the park with my family multiple times weekly and the road is really busy. And whenever there is a softball game or other large gathering in the park, people park their cars along the street around the north tip of the park, which is right where the playground for Option C would be, which does not seem safe at all. Part of the reason I enjoy the current location of the park so much is that children, especially little ones, can run and explore and play freely at a very safe remove from traffic. In addition, the shade and wind provided by the trees in the current location is a godsend. Please keep the playground where it is!

I prefer option D, because it is sheltered from the wind. The weather at the north end of the park is quite different than that at the south end due to the more mature trees on the Corrections property.

I also feel strongly that the new playground should have similar elements (though the updated, modern version) to the existing playground, which includes swings for all ages and well as monkey bars and a slide. The addition of other elements such as small spinners and bouncers are a nice addition for younger children, but should not be instead of some of the other established elements that children currently use daily.

I don't personally see the need for a picnic table and would prefer those funds be allocated to better a play structure with elements for younger and older children.

I feel that option D (existing location) is the best option, please consider building the new playground at this site.

While we would be happy with either location our preference is Option C especially if it permits additional park elements and the potential for further park development in the future (e.g. pickle ball court, basketball hoop).

We realize it involves other Departments within the City but we feel strongly that to enhance the safety of and the accessibility to this playground there should be consideration to further traffic calming measures on the street, specifically at the corner near the park plus the creation of a public path linking through to college street. Parents from the College St/Earl St neighbourhood drive their children over to use the park which is unnecessary given the proximity but understandable given safety concerns for children navigating Brock/Johnson on bikes, scooters etc.

Park upgrades or new parks should include Pickleball courts, given that Kingston's population is aging.
If you build them, they will come.
Tom Adam

I prefer the Option C (NE location, not Option D the one in the current location) as I feel it helps with inclusion, access, not feeling cornered when dogs sprint towards people using the park, and doesn’t add a lengthy asphalt walkway through the park that has to be kept clear and maintained…and it is still distanced from the road which is great.

Thank you for the public session last evening. A few comments occurred to me since that time:
- if there is already going to be a spinner as part of the original structure, do we really need an additional tall element (which appears to spin) as proposed as an "extra" feature if the community acquiesced to Option C? With two kids who get motion-sick, it would seem to be better to offer a diversity of options, rather than 2 of something that some children can't use. If the additional element proposed also spins, could we not have the bouncy airplane (or the like) originally proposed, rather than a spinner?
- I'm still not overly comfortable with the proximity of the playground to the road in Option C -- is there the possibility to shift it even 10ft deeper into the park? Given that the road is circular, even a small distance to the south exponentially increases the distance of the playground from the road
- although I appreciate that safety related to softball is a concern, it is only a few nights a week for an hour or two a few weeks of the year. And how many left-handed sluggers are there in local leagues who could drive a ball to the current location of the playground? I would submit that putting it further out (in-line with second base) actually increases the chance of a ball ending up near the playground. We have lived in this neighbourhood and used this park for many years in all weathers and seasons and have never come upon a softball game. I would hate to have the park design centered around users who are very infrequent, at the expense of those who are.

In summary, I would vastly prefer that the playground stay in its existing location, for safety and sun protection reasons. Recognizing that accessibility is an issue, I can see why moving it closer to the north side of the park would be attractive, and I value that as well -- but hope that some middle ground can be found to still keep it as deep into the park as possible while still keeping accessibility in mind.