I’ve followed with some alarm and a rising sense of déjà vu the proposed, further, diminution of the Goldie Mill Park and the associated environmental impacts. Those present at the 1995 OMB hearing to decide the fate and use of the old seed building may well recollect the significant concerns from several parties including City staff (especially Parks and also Planning). Those concerns were about the impact of the, then, proposed Guelph Youth Music Centre (GYMC) on the park in which it is now located, and the attempts, at that time from all parties, to restrict the loss of green space and respect the historic mill and the land. And, now, here we are again.
The Goldie Mill Park, a small intimate space, utterly charming, was always about that historical and beautifully restored (by the City) mill and the setting amongst the trees and grass with close proximity to the Speed River. It’s conveniently located within walking distance of the city core and is a beloved venue for weddings, photos and many other events.
It would be a great shame for the GYMC, who have contributed significantly to local (and beyond) cultural activities, to have as their enduring legacy a heavy and over-engineered footprint on their site within this small park. Fortunately, the Mayor has already stated that the initial proposal was a mistake and that there is a revised plan. But questions still need to be asked about the necessity for the destruction of habitat, mature trees, loss of green space, and the use of, what seems like, overbearing lighting. And…..the greatest insult of all to the environment of the park and the river….. to take a natural looking, limestone screenings parking lot, proximate to mature trees and the Speed river, enlarge it and completely asphalt it over! We were all told, years ago, by City staff, that the present surface would never be asphalted. The GYMC have become victims of their own success but this shouldn’t lead them to demand the usual bigger, bolder, brighter, bellicose approaches without really considering more creative ways to accommodate their patrons. And as for those spectres of safety and convenience which have been raised as a raison d’être, these should be seriously challenged.
One has to ask what message does this engineered (in both senses of the word) project send to the young children, tomorrow’s youth, etc., who make use of the GYMC facilities as an educational tool. Especially in these days of greater environmental sensitivity and the need to care for our ever diminishing natural environment.
Given that the park has already bent over backwards to welcome the GYMC, there has to be some responsibility here. The City should be more caring about the treatment of its parks and the natural environment. The first proposal that came through seemed as though it was devised by those who just didn’t care. The GYMC, in particular, should, as an example to the young and the patrons, not seek to impose themselves even more upon what’s left of the park. Rather, they should be more alert to their impact upon the park in which they are lessees at the pleasure of the City (for next to nothing), and regard themselves as stewards of the park and act responsibly.
Nick Westwood
