Parking Lot Extension - 8 Carleton St. S.

The secondary design option is an improvement -- retaining existing trees, keeping the extension in line with the current parking perimeter, and avoiding an entrance/exit on Albert street are all important concessions. But the fact that this compromise has been extended is a sign of the troubling abruptness of this plan and lack of meaningful engagement with community members. Like other commenters, I'm not convinced that this additional parking is truly necessary. I walk by this lot at least once a day, at variable times. The lot and street spots are sometimes full for events, as one would expect, but more often I see only a handful of cars in the lot. I don't know for a fact if the City has moved into space within the building, as someone else suggested, but if so I don't think it's appropriate to define *community* needs based on where the city's decides to place its personnel. And I'm sad that the value of the park itself -- as a tribute both to history and memory and to green space -- is deemed up for sale at the first inconvenience. Yes, safe and accessible parking is important in the context of a seniors' centre. But is that need really not being met already?

I am very concerned and unhappy about the idea of extending the parking lot at 8 Carleton St. S., for a number of reasons:

- Memorial Park is designated as a heritage property. The information about it on heritagethorold.com makes it clear why the park should not be defaced by a parking lot: it mentions the park's mature trees, the sense of history it evokes, and the fact that it is "an outstanding example of Thorold’s natural heritage." Mature trees would be destroyed, green space replaced by asphalt, and the character of the park compromised.

- Encroaching on Memorial Park is disrespectful to the veterans it honours.

- Has a study been done of the actual rate of use of the parking lot? It is often not full, but the argument in favour of the extended parking is that there's not enough parking for the users of the 50+ Centre. Is that true? Occasionally, of course, it will be busy when there are events occurring there or at St. John's, but does the occasional full lot justify expanding it for all time?

- Parking enforcement would be a prudent first step. If business owners and other non-users of the building are taking up spaces there now, won't they just take up more spaces if there are more of them?

- The Yoga Centre of Niagara recently moved into the basement of 8 Carleton St. S. If parking is such an issue, why was a business allowed to move in?

- The alleged parking problems appear to be tied to the move of part of the City's administration to the building. Find a different place for them!

- It is deeply disturbing that the City was prepared to move on this without early, thorough consultation with the citizens of Thorold who will be most affected by this, namely the homeowners/taxpayers and others who live across from 8 Carleton St. S.

A parking lot is permanent. The park should be left untouched, and other solutions researched and implemented - but not without input from the people of Thorold whom those solutions would affect. The plan to install a parking lot was devised to satisfy the complaints of people who visit the building, but precedence should be given to those who _live_ alongside it.

The more I learn about the lack of transparency with this project, the more concerned I get - and I'm not alone. It sounds like a few people decided (over a year ago!) that all this extra parking was needed, but there were no data gathered to identify the extent of the need, no impact assessments (environmental, heritage, etc.) conducted, no information shared with advisory committees that normally deal with these issues, no effort to manage existing parking concerns, etc.

Just yesterday, some of us living close by found notices in our mailboxes from a company that wants to photograph our houses, inside and out, in case of construction damage - so it looks like the city has already signed a contract with a construction company even though staff were directed at the Nov. 18 Council meeting to develop alternative plans and hold a public meeting.

I realize the senior centre folks are frustrated since apparently they were promised something long ago, but the rest of us are only just finding out about this - and there are so many unknowns. Rushing things through now to stymie concerns is unreasonable and not in the spirit of what Council agreed to on Nov. 18.

Why do people feel they need to park so close to where they are going? When I attend classes at the Seniors Center I prefer to park a few blocks away and enjoy a healthy walk in a delightful urban setting. Sure there are those who may not physically be capable of that walk, but why not devise some way of keeping the existing parking spots available for them (perhaps becoming paid parking with rebates for some). This park is a gem in our city. We need to protect what nature we have left. Parking lots are a blight in the urban landscape. Aren't we seeing that too many people are having mental health issues? Greenscape such as in this park is a vital remedy to maintain our mental health.

Why are local governments so eager to encroach on green space all the time? We have a beautiful space that does not need to be manhandled for the sake of the once every 6 months when this parking lot actually has some relevance. This park is a beautiful part of local history as well as having a larger more poignant message and I find it troubling for the city to spend the foreseeable future nibbling at the edges unnecessarily until it's a fragment of its former self. Taking a (not so) little bit now sets a troubling precedent.

Rarely in my life, having lived on Albert Street for 20+ years have I EVER seen this parking lot even close to full. Maybe for some special events, but most certainly not on a regular basis. I understand there is a larger plan to increase parking across the city, but this seems like a stupid place to do it. I also understand that the city is now using the building, but this is an extreme and disproportionately large extension that would take away a ridiculous amount of space from the park. I can’t believe there was no consultation with residents on the surrounding streets. The park space that will be paved over is a uniquely large grassy area that families with children use to play and that people bring their dogs to, this parking lot would dramatically reduce the use of the park. In the face of climate change and urban sprawl, it is also very important to protect our green spaces and ensure that there are opportunities to access park spaces nearby. The construction would also be a significant nuisance to the neighbourhood, the streets are narrow and not fit for large construction equipment and it would be very loud and noisy for an otherwise quiet community.

I’m quite surprised that there was not a PIC about this. I understand the extension is on municipal property, but this large extension is going to have a big impact on our beautiful park and the neighborhood.
There seems to have been consultation with the Seniors Centre, but no others.
I can understand some extension, but 40 spaces? That is just about double the parking space. It seems excessive.
To quote Joni Mitchell, “Paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”