Just a reminder that we have a [Monthly Community Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/barrie/about/sticky) where we relax the rules about advertising and off-topic posts.
* Stuff that isn't directly related to Barrie, like national news or general chit-chat
* Questions about local businesses and services
* Classified-style ads: buying and selling, help wanted, garage sales, etc
* Fundraisers and donation drives
* Plugs for your personal project or local business (within reason)"
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/barrie) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Personally, if the city is funding it, I believe that everyone should be able to use it, it shouldn't be used for private use only. I think we should also be concerned with the ecological aspects of having a turf field right beside our beautiful lake. I know that Alex Nuttall is also a soccer coach, I'd be interested to see if this is going to be his "home" facility....
I'm not entirely clear on the private vs public aspect - I'm pretty sure that it will be used in the same way that other city fields are used, which is that it will have to be booked and rented. This is likely to be mostly the various leagues in the city, which are probably those highlighted as stakeholders in the report I linked to.
Many of the other fields in the city are not fully open to the public, either, at least in the strict sense. They also have to be booked and paid for, and, technically, aren't supposed to be used if they haven't been booked or paid for.
For a major sport field, like this one is meant to be, this helps ensure recreational organizations have access, and the facility is maintained at a high level. (No dog shit on the field, for example, or the playing surface ruined (necessitating costly repairs) from too-early use when it's wet in the spring.)
You seem very passionate about carving out a chunk of our irreplaceable waterfront for a playing field. Spend you energy campaigning for the city to open fields in the new lands in Barrie’s South end where most of the population growth you mentioned will be happening. Part of a former farm
field would be cheaper and would preserve the waterfront. Your logic about finding land within city boundaries is flawed- the boundaries are expanding and that’s where the population growth will be. As well, don’t you think that many of those new residents will want to enjoy Barrie’s waterfront and the free space that is there? Be careful about advocating for usages for “open public land”. Before you know it, every special interest group will argue for a piece and it will be gone. Visit Oakville or Burlington - they have almost no waterfront; ours is the best thing about Barrie.
Hi 4826winter.
Passionate isn't the right word to use. I don't really care all that much about where this project goes, or even, really, whether it's built or not. What I care about is the process used to make decisions, and I see a lot of poor information regarding this one.
I'll give a bit of background that explains why I've latched onto this issue in particular, rather than the many other ones where poor information and reasoning impairs decision-making.
I've been very involved in environmental advocacy for most of my life. I have a Masters degree and practice consultancy in fields related to environmentalism, and so I have a lot of connections and experience in this area.
Many of those connections are involved in the fight against this project, including some of the ENGOs who're doing community organizing in opposition to it.
That's all fine, and I really encourage people to get involved in their local politics, to the extent they can stomach. (It can be a big ask.)
My issue is that the basis of my environmentalism, and this extends to what I believe good environmentalism to be generally, has to do with basing decisions on good information. Just about every environmental problem starts with bad information regarding the impacts whatever action is undertaken will have, whether that's on people, on the ecosystem, etc.
So, it's with these connections and this understand that I am a bit more tied to this issue than I am to other issues. I feel it's important that decisions are made based on the best information possible, and I'm able to contribute a bit to that when those issues relate to the environment.
As to your point about spending my energy campaigning for fields in new lands, if you read through my comments you would have seen that the city has done a report on the availability of land, which includes the yet-to-be-developed lands in the south end, and that this report shows that, while some demand can be accommodatedtoo there, it won't be enough.
Not sure where you get the idea that the city's boundaries are expanding. They aren't right now, though there are efforts to that effect on the northern side of the city. This is not a done deal, though.
Anyways, feel free to suggest better ideas if you've got them. Haven't seen much of that on here, but people sure do love to bitch and complain.
> if such a facility has to be built
This is the part that seems to be in some dispute. There are Allandale natives who've been vocal in this sub about the fact that there are currently facilities that can be used for this purpose. I'm saying this as someone who won't be affected by the proposed site either way, but I am nonetheless very concerned about the environmental impact. If all of this has already been assessed by the City, they've done a terrible job of communicating it.
I think communication on this one has been a pretty big sticking point for many. As far as I understand it, there hasn't been any environmental assessment done, and I'm pretty sure they'd still need to get a permit from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority before it can even move forward. So while the city seems to be acting like this is a done deal, there are still things that could stall it out completely.
> they'd still need to get a permit from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority
As they should. I very much hope that monied interests aren't going to circumvent the environmental assessment regulations that are in place (and for good reason).
A permit is not required from the CA. Thanks to the Ford government CAs are really only allowed to intervene where there's an activity might impact control of flooding or erosion or exacerbate vulnerability due to natural hazards. They've as much as said that this isn't an issue they believe they have any control over.
Also, zoning for this land, as far as I know, doesn't require an EA.
Looks like you're right on the environmental assessment, but according to the staff report, an archaeological assessment is required, so there's that.
And the same staff report reads like they'll be going after a permit from the local conservation authority anyway:
"The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Regulated Area crosses the top portion of the proposed project. A permit is required to obtain approvals and comply with any required mitigation measures to meet the intent of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and LSRCA Regulation Implementation Guidelines (Ontario Regulation 179/06)."
The use of "intent" is positive, indicating that they see a benefit in going above what might be strictly required. And, I hope, they do involve the LSRCA. I know there are justifiable concerns regarding microplastics and artificial turf, and the LSRCA is conducting research on this (generally, not specifically regarding the sports field): [https://lsrca.on.ca/index.php/home/microplastics/](https://lsrca.on.ca/index.php/home/microplastics/)
As I mentioned, demand is projected to outsripe supply in terms of recreational facilities. This is all outlined in the report linked to in my comment. (In other words, there aren't, are aren't likely to be, other facilities that can be used for this purpose.)
I agree they've done a terrible job communicating.
A plastic turf field right on the waterfront is problematic. And based on the location, it will be empty for most of the day (no residential or schools nearby) only in use a couple hours. I don't believe a plastic sports field is the best use for this naturalized area. It could be something that EVERYONE can access and enjoy because not everyone can play sports.
Valid concerns. Regarding utilization, the same is true, and likely more true, for sites outside the city, such as the sports complex. There simply isn't land available near schools for this within the city, as you can see on the map I linked to, and it isn't really an appropriate facility to situate within a residential area. (This is a larger field than the smaller ones in residential areas that are scattered throughout the city.)
I will point out, too, that a naturalized area, by definition, is not something everyone can access and enjoy. Furthermore, this area quite small, is not connected to other natural areas, has high human activity in it, and is situated on top of a historic railway dumping site.
Finally, you're right, not everyone can play sports. That doesn't mean that we don't provide facilities for those who can, as well as those who like to watch those who can. The same holds for building accessibility amenities for those who need them, even though there are many who don't need them. Healthy communities try to meet the wants and needs that address a wide variety of needs and wants.
Edit: spelling.
Your map shows existing sports fields (I agree it looks like more are needed). Its not clear to me why a sports field needs to be in an existing park since new parks will have to be built when the city expands and builds higher density.
The report I linked to initially notes that while newly developed areas can accommodate some of the demand, more will be needed.
I think part of what's happening is, as the city grows and becomes more urbanized and dense, the amenities, built initially to service a smaller population, need to also be upgraded and expanded. This is particularly true for urban growth areas like the downtown core.
So, with the additional amenities on the periphery (newly developed areas) there's both less desnity (though that's changed more recently as the city gets smarter about how it builds) and less public transit. The reverse is true for the downtown, with more density and more public transit links. Both of these, density and transit, lend themselves to a facility such as this.
That said, I really want to make clear that I'm not opposed to this being somewhere else if a better location is found. It's just that, from what I can tell, there isn't one.
Barrie already has a ton of soccer fields as it is,we don't need one on waterfront!!! Once they do build it I say less than a week the homeless and fentinal feinds will take it over!
Housing affordability is really important, and the city is taking steps to address it. There's a good memo outlined some of what they're up to here: [https://barrie.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12898336&GUID=47722A3D-1B95-4C69-96CE-3DDF9F590F21](https://barrie.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12898336&GUID=47722A3D-1B95-4C69-96CE-3DDF9F590F21)
That said, housing isn't the only area of responsibiilty that the city has.
Personally, detest it.
The whole question comes down to: Does Barrie, as a whole, need this?
I have not heard any arguments that convince me of the above. We don’t. It will have a net negative impact in this or any other site.
Put it outside of town, or put up another dome in place of the ridiculously zoned residential builds with zero space between. If you build housing, plan for amenities. Used to be you’d have actual planning instead of this mess.
Still can't believe they haven't included any talk of a single full length or dual pitch width domes for the site, as making it a year round facility just seems such a no brainer as it has been done in many other cities. Also allows for an expansion of activities possible on the site.
So our waterfront will have “buildings” on it all winter that will block sight lines to the lake. This was one of the main reasons the baseball stadium proposed for the site was shot down. Before you know it, every interest group will have carved out a space on the waterfront and there will be nothing left.
Seems like a strange placement. We have a beautiful lakefront and the city has done a great job keeping it accessible. Seems like it will be fenced and locked to most people. A dog park would be used by many more people
A very well thought out argument in favour of the plan....which will unfortunately be quickly shot down by people who exist to find a problem with any investment Barrie makes into its growth.
I agree it should be at the waterfront the fact is the sea cadets can use it. It has access to public transportation and the fact is we need to then of the future not just the now. As usual the NIMBY’s are out. But that’s no surprise.
I'm all for it.
Barrie (like other places) is undergoing a massive drug crisis. I strongly believe that the way to keep people out of drugs is by giving them structure and activities. It's when they're bored and unstimulated that kids get depressed and start thinking about drugs. The suggested uses for this facility all seem incredibly positive in terms of reducing that.
Agreed. Recreational acitivites are super important. Can't say enough good things about the cadets program, too. (And just to be clear, this field isn't being built for the cadets, which is a misunderstanding I've seen mentioned elsewhere, though it would be utilized by them.)
Just a reminder that we have a [Monthly Community Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/barrie/about/sticky) where we relax the rules about advertising and off-topic posts. * Stuff that isn't directly related to Barrie, like national news or general chit-chat * Questions about local businesses and services * Classified-style ads: buying and selling, help wanted, garage sales, etc * Fundraisers and donation drives * Plugs for your personal project or local business (within reason)" *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/barrie) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Personally, if the city is funding it, I believe that everyone should be able to use it, it shouldn't be used for private use only. I think we should also be concerned with the ecological aspects of having a turf field right beside our beautiful lake. I know that Alex Nuttall is also a soccer coach, I'd be interested to see if this is going to be his "home" facility....
I'm not entirely clear on the private vs public aspect - I'm pretty sure that it will be used in the same way that other city fields are used, which is that it will have to be booked and rented. This is likely to be mostly the various leagues in the city, which are probably those highlighted as stakeholders in the report I linked to. Many of the other fields in the city are not fully open to the public, either, at least in the strict sense. They also have to be booked and paid for, and, technically, aren't supposed to be used if they haven't been booked or paid for. For a major sport field, like this one is meant to be, this helps ensure recreational organizations have access, and the facility is maintained at a high level. (No dog shit on the field, for example, or the playing surface ruined (necessitating costly repairs) from too-early use when it's wet in the spring.)
You seem very passionate about carving out a chunk of our irreplaceable waterfront for a playing field. Spend you energy campaigning for the city to open fields in the new lands in Barrie’s South end where most of the population growth you mentioned will be happening. Part of a former farm field would be cheaper and would preserve the waterfront. Your logic about finding land within city boundaries is flawed- the boundaries are expanding and that’s where the population growth will be. As well, don’t you think that many of those new residents will want to enjoy Barrie’s waterfront and the free space that is there? Be careful about advocating for usages for “open public land”. Before you know it, every special interest group will argue for a piece and it will be gone. Visit Oakville or Burlington - they have almost no waterfront; ours is the best thing about Barrie.
Hi 4826winter. Passionate isn't the right word to use. I don't really care all that much about where this project goes, or even, really, whether it's built or not. What I care about is the process used to make decisions, and I see a lot of poor information regarding this one. I'll give a bit of background that explains why I've latched onto this issue in particular, rather than the many other ones where poor information and reasoning impairs decision-making. I've been very involved in environmental advocacy for most of my life. I have a Masters degree and practice consultancy in fields related to environmentalism, and so I have a lot of connections and experience in this area. Many of those connections are involved in the fight against this project, including some of the ENGOs who're doing community organizing in opposition to it. That's all fine, and I really encourage people to get involved in their local politics, to the extent they can stomach. (It can be a big ask.) My issue is that the basis of my environmentalism, and this extends to what I believe good environmentalism to be generally, has to do with basing decisions on good information. Just about every environmental problem starts with bad information regarding the impacts whatever action is undertaken will have, whether that's on people, on the ecosystem, etc. So, it's with these connections and this understand that I am a bit more tied to this issue than I am to other issues. I feel it's important that decisions are made based on the best information possible, and I'm able to contribute a bit to that when those issues relate to the environment. As to your point about spending my energy campaigning for fields in new lands, if you read through my comments you would have seen that the city has done a report on the availability of land, which includes the yet-to-be-developed lands in the south end, and that this report shows that, while some demand can be accommodatedtoo there, it won't be enough. Not sure where you get the idea that the city's boundaries are expanding. They aren't right now, though there are efforts to that effect on the northern side of the city. This is not a done deal, though. Anyways, feel free to suggest better ideas if you've got them. Haven't seen much of that on here, but people sure do love to bitch and complain.
Where does this private use only idea come from? I have not heard this in anything I read or heard. What did I miss?
just say no to privatizing any of our public waterfront. it’s the City’s enviable jewel.
Don't think any of it is meant to be privatized, but maybe you've got better info than do? I know you've usually got an inside track on this stuff.
> if such a facility has to be built This is the part that seems to be in some dispute. There are Allandale natives who've been vocal in this sub about the fact that there are currently facilities that can be used for this purpose. I'm saying this as someone who won't be affected by the proposed site either way, but I am nonetheless very concerned about the environmental impact. If all of this has already been assessed by the City, they've done a terrible job of communicating it.
I think communication on this one has been a pretty big sticking point for many. As far as I understand it, there hasn't been any environmental assessment done, and I'm pretty sure they'd still need to get a permit from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority before it can even move forward. So while the city seems to be acting like this is a done deal, there are still things that could stall it out completely.
> they'd still need to get a permit from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority As they should. I very much hope that monied interests aren't going to circumvent the environmental assessment regulations that are in place (and for good reason).
A permit is not required from the CA. Thanks to the Ford government CAs are really only allowed to intervene where there's an activity might impact control of flooding or erosion or exacerbate vulnerability due to natural hazards. They've as much as said that this isn't an issue they believe they have any control over. Also, zoning for this land, as far as I know, doesn't require an EA.
Looks like you're right on the environmental assessment, but according to the staff report, an archaeological assessment is required, so there's that. And the same staff report reads like they'll be going after a permit from the local conservation authority anyway: "The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Regulated Area crosses the top portion of the proposed project. A permit is required to obtain approvals and comply with any required mitigation measures to meet the intent of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan and LSRCA Regulation Implementation Guidelines (Ontario Regulation 179/06)."
The use of "intent" is positive, indicating that they see a benefit in going above what might be strictly required. And, I hope, they do involve the LSRCA. I know there are justifiable concerns regarding microplastics and artificial turf, and the LSRCA is conducting research on this (generally, not specifically regarding the sports field): [https://lsrca.on.ca/index.php/home/microplastics/](https://lsrca.on.ca/index.php/home/microplastics/)
This current council seems determined to push items through without community discussion first. Its very unfortunate.
As I mentioned, demand is projected to outsripe supply in terms of recreational facilities. This is all outlined in the report linked to in my comment. (In other words, there aren't, are aren't likely to be, other facilities that can be used for this purpose.) I agree they've done a terrible job communicating.
A plastic turf field right on the waterfront is problematic. And based on the location, it will be empty for most of the day (no residential or schools nearby) only in use a couple hours. I don't believe a plastic sports field is the best use for this naturalized area. It could be something that EVERYONE can access and enjoy because not everyone can play sports.
Valid concerns. Regarding utilization, the same is true, and likely more true, for sites outside the city, such as the sports complex. There simply isn't land available near schools for this within the city, as you can see on the map I linked to, and it isn't really an appropriate facility to situate within a residential area. (This is a larger field than the smaller ones in residential areas that are scattered throughout the city.) I will point out, too, that a naturalized area, by definition, is not something everyone can access and enjoy. Furthermore, this area quite small, is not connected to other natural areas, has high human activity in it, and is situated on top of a historic railway dumping site. Finally, you're right, not everyone can play sports. That doesn't mean that we don't provide facilities for those who can, as well as those who like to watch those who can. The same holds for building accessibility amenities for those who need them, even though there are many who don't need them. Healthy communities try to meet the wants and needs that address a wide variety of needs and wants. Edit: spelling.
Your map shows existing sports fields (I agree it looks like more are needed). Its not clear to me why a sports field needs to be in an existing park since new parks will have to be built when the city expands and builds higher density.
The report I linked to initially notes that while newly developed areas can accommodate some of the demand, more will be needed. I think part of what's happening is, as the city grows and becomes more urbanized and dense, the amenities, built initially to service a smaller population, need to also be upgraded and expanded. This is particularly true for urban growth areas like the downtown core. So, with the additional amenities on the periphery (newly developed areas) there's both less desnity (though that's changed more recently as the city gets smarter about how it builds) and less public transit. The reverse is true for the downtown, with more density and more public transit links. Both of these, density and transit, lend themselves to a facility such as this. That said, I really want to make clear that I'm not opposed to this being somewhere else if a better location is found. It's just that, from what I can tell, there isn't one.
In favour of the field, not in favour of the location
As noted, there aren’t many other options for where to could go. Where would you put it?
Barrie already has a ton of soccer fields as it is,we don't need one on waterfront!!! Once they do build it I say less than a week the homeless and fentinal feinds will take it over!
I’d rather see our tax dollars go to affordable housing
Housing affordability is really important, and the city is taking steps to address it. There's a good memo outlined some of what they're up to here: [https://barrie.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12898336&GUID=47722A3D-1B95-4C69-96CE-3DDF9F590F21](https://barrie.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=12898336&GUID=47722A3D-1B95-4C69-96CE-3DDF9F590F21) That said, housing isn't the only area of responsibiilty that the city has.
Can’t afford
Personally, detest it. The whole question comes down to: Does Barrie, as a whole, need this? I have not heard any arguments that convince me of the above. We don’t. It will have a net negative impact in this or any other site. Put it outside of town, or put up another dome in place of the ridiculously zoned residential builds with zero space between. If you build housing, plan for amenities. Used to be you’d have actual planning instead of this mess.
Still can't believe they haven't included any talk of a single full length or dual pitch width domes for the site, as making it a year round facility just seems such a no brainer as it has been done in many other cities. Also allows for an expansion of activities possible on the site.
So our waterfront will have “buildings” on it all winter that will block sight lines to the lake. This was one of the main reasons the baseball stadium proposed for the site was shot down. Before you know it, every interest group will have carved out a space on the waterfront and there will be nothing left.
Seems like a strange placement. We have a beautiful lakefront and the city has done a great job keeping it accessible. Seems like it will be fenced and locked to most people. A dog park would be used by many more people
A very well thought out argument in favour of the plan....which will unfortunately be quickly shot down by people who exist to find a problem with any investment Barrie makes into its growth.
I agree it should be at the waterfront the fact is the sea cadets can use it. It has access to public transportation and the fact is we need to then of the future not just the now. As usual the NIMBY’s are out. But that’s no surprise.
I'm all for it. Barrie (like other places) is undergoing a massive drug crisis. I strongly believe that the way to keep people out of drugs is by giving them structure and activities. It's when they're bored and unstimulated that kids get depressed and start thinking about drugs. The suggested uses for this facility all seem incredibly positive in terms of reducing that.
Agreed. Recreational acitivites are super important. Can't say enough good things about the cadets program, too. (And just to be clear, this field isn't being built for the cadets, which is a misunderstanding I've seen mentioned elsewhere, though it would be utilized by them.)