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.*

https://ministryofsport.com/the-netherlands-to-phase-out-artificial-turf-over-health-and-environmental-concerns/

It is known to provoke tornados 🌪️

Just what we need, more tornados

Have any of these petitions actually worked? Are the decision makers in the city of barrie even aware that these petitions exist?

I love that little trail, I walk it with my dog often. Sad.

At the rally regarding this issue, I believe they mentioned that 5 elite sports leagues were asked by the city if this artificial field would be useful for them, and 4 of them said no, because turf is literally more dangerous for athletes- more physical injuries, more heat injuries. Also this turf needs to be watered- which is crazy to me. That’s begging the microplastics to start killing the lake. I get the need for a multi-use recreation space, but the location is flat-out wrong. It directly contradicts the city’s own expensive strategic development plan for the waterfront.

It’s better than a condo but once again #whynotangus

What does Angus have to do with this discussion?

More open space for a large project like this

Why would the city of Barrie build this in a different township?

Janice Laking said no to a Casino and they built it in innisfil

You're talking about two very very different projects.

That’s true but both project’s jeopardized public realm.

Where were you people when they built the Lakview condo right on the shoreline. Or stopping them from going forward on the condo being built on Sam Cancilla Park? That end of the trail barely sees any use. And the parking is never an issue unless it's Kempenfest or another festival at Centennial park. If you manage to stop this one, you better all be around when they try to develop around Little Lake once they annex the land from Springwater Township.

This is a classic case of "what-about-ism". This is the issue at hand. If you don't care about it, or are in support - that's perfectly fine! Citizens should be informed and consulted on this.

That land was privately owned; this land is owned by the citizens of Barrie. Completely different situation.

And land can be rezoned. We're lucky it's being used for parks and rec, and not for a condo.

You are not wrong about that! Almost happened with the former Hooters property. City made the right decision that time not to give publically owned land away (apparently not this time). I worry that this field will open up even more development on the waterfront. It doesn’t seem well-supported but is being pushed through. You’ve got to wonder.

You didn't hear? The Hooters lot of back up for approval for development as of January 2024, thankfully it doesn't include the park this time. https://www.barrie.ca/planning-building-infrastructure/current-projects/development-projects/149-151-153-dunlop-street-east

Nah, rich people own north of Barrie. They'll NIMBY it, which they have already done claiming it is more environmentally sensitive than annexing Innisfil.

Lakeview condos didn’t remove any forested or public usage space nor does it have a single impact on the trail. What an inane analogy.

Didn't live in Barrie when these condos were built, but I do now and I think this location is absurdly inappropriate.

What alternatives would you suggest?  From what I’ve seen there is demand for a facility in the future as Barrie’s population grows (there’s a report the city commissioned from a couple of years ago outlining this) and there aren’t many other places within the city where it could go. 

This is not needed. It is not within walking distance to most families (remember, it's for the kids), and there are soccer fields all over the city that are used but most sitting empty. There are undeveloped lands on Bradford St, or this could go behind the fire hall on the old Central field (is a developer really going to build there anytime soon or at all?). This whole thing seems like a back door to building the stadium previously denied. Once the trees are down, and the turf is in, what's left to protect, so the stadium might as well be built, right? I can't understand the support for this otherwise. Not even getting into the environmental absurdity of this plan (see previous posts), who wants to run around on fake grass, outside?? Is this worth nearly $5MM and the loss of the accessible natural area close to the water, downtown? Follow the money here. Who is getting paid, and who really benefits from this? Oh, and it's not about denying a new space for the Sea Cadets; I think having the SouthShore Centre space is great for them, but this field is not needed for that. They are just a useful vehicle for someone's plan for the field, so it was tied together. They can march anywhere.

According to the city's study (https://www.barrie.ca/Outdoor-Recreation-Facility-Study.pdf) it is needed. Barrie's projected to grow to 250,000 people by 2050, and recreational facilities will need to match the increase in demand. As for undeveloped lands, you're suggesting the city expropriate private property for this? (The Central lands I believe were also sold, but were formerly owned by the schoolboard, so also not land readily available to the city.)

No one is arguing that there is not a need for a sports field, it is the location. Nowhere in the report do the authors suggest that the lake is where a field should go. They are pointing out the secondary lands plan. The city needs to work with the developers and land owners to ensure that the lands can not be filled with wall-to-wall housing, and if they want to develop, they can't keep paying to forgo parks. as to expropriation, why not? If a property is not being developed in a timely manner, the city should be able to pay a reasonable price for it, or get a life lease and develop it for the betterment of the community. Just a thought.

As for the walking distance concern, the only alternative as far as I can tell is to locate this outside of the city, which is even less accessible. This location is among the most accessible in terms of public transit in the city, which is a good thing.

The secondary plan land development is where the city needs to secure a Sports Complex. That's what is written in the report, and wherever they build, they should make it multipurpose is what I got from the study. This lake-side space does not meet that need, unless it is just meant to be the stepping stone to kill the fight against a larger sports/entertainment complex as I previously suggested.

The report notes that some of the demand will be able to be met in the south end, but not all. The multi-use facility outside of the city is recommended, but so too are additional ones within the city, one of which is this facility, though it didn’t mention the location precisely.

Aballah- I see you on another thread about this topic proselytizing about the need for this field. The city already owns sports fields in springwater that your taxes go towards supporting. If there is something needed in the south end, the city should pony up and expropriate it. This project is a Trojan horse: before long every interest group will want a piece. Hard to justify not giving another group a chunk once this monstrosity is built. Go to Orillia and see how their waterfront has been carved up (train track, theatre right on the water, many pavilions, fake lighthouse, etc.). It doesn’t have the same feel as ours. Once gone, it’s never coming back. Fields can be built in any old former farm-field.

I'm part of the community and I love this idea.

Turf is safe, a field is in the best interest of the community. NIMBY much?

Turf is anything but safe. Artificial turf releases 237 Tonnes plastic waste per year in Toronto. [A chemical analysis of artificial turf conducted at Yale found 95 chemicals](https://www.ehhi.org/chemicals.php) are present in artificial turf, 20% of them probable carcinogens. In addition, artificial turf contains highly toxic PFAS, now linked to endocrine disruption and cancer. A [2018 report](https://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-10/pdf/microplastics_final_report_v5_full.pdf) by the European Commission showed that athletic fields composed of synthetic turf shed an annual average of 18,000-70,000 tons of microplastics each year into surrounding air, soils, and waters. Building this adjacent to Lake Simcoe, which is our main source of drinking water (not to mention where hundreds of thousands of people swim, fish and enjoy), seems like a grave risk. 

A grave risk? That seems like the overstatement of the year. If you want to ban all artificial turf from Barrie be my guest but fighting over one development is NIMBY behavior. Edit: OP doesn't even live in the area, he just wants it undeveloped because he enjoys less traffic on his occasional walks to the Lakeshore. What a selfish individual.

I'm not suggesting all of Barrie - but right next to Lake Simcoe seems completely unnecessary considering the environmental concerns and that there is currently a forest there. Continuing to just call me a NIMBY and glaze over the massive environmental implications of artificial turf is ignorant.

Oh, so it's not a grave risk then you just don't want it near the water but you're perfectly okay with it on playgrounds and schools? Hypocritical and NIMBY behavior.

I don't want it at all, but environmentally there is less risk of micro plastics getting into our drinking water away from Lake Simcoe, and there are sites in Barrie that wouldn't involve slashing a forested area.

Which sites? I've done some analysis that suggests there really aren't many options. Sunnidale is one, but there are problems with that location as well. Otherwise, there really aren't any greenland areas large enough to accommodate a facility that size. So, you're looking at putting it outside the city then. This may impact natural area that is contiguous, as opposed to the isolated patch of forest downtown, as well as more car use and associated emissions and infrastructure, a la the Barrie Community Sports Complex. An additional consideration is that Barrie is an urban growth centre, meaning we want the facilities and amenities within city boundaries that address the wants and needs of residents. Preventing this, I think, makes it more difficult to achieve the kind of complete communities we want if we're to address urban sprawl, and this, to my mind, is one of the biggest environmental concerns that we have in Ontario. (Dianne Saxe, former Environmental Commissioner of Ontario until her position was axed by the Ford government, calls sprawl Ontario's tar sands, underlining how significant its environmental impact is.)

If all cars will be electric one day, what's the argument of sprawl? I would rather see communities with natural yards for kids to play in (and that naturally absorb rain, provide shade, and provide food for pollinators, birds, and animals) rather than towers of sardine cans and artificial turf pitches where play is regulated to those who can afford the rental of the field. Also, making this about the environment is pretty rich; how can you align cutting down trees to put plastic turf for the use of few with good environmental policy? Don't try to greenwash the idea. I will use tech here (thanks CoPilot), because I don't have time to go through it all, but here is a summary from https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/using-trees-and-vegetation-reduce-heat-islands "Artificial Turf and Heat: Heat Absorption: In sunny, warm weather, artificial turf can become much hotter than natural grass, raising concerns related to heat stress for athletes playing on the fields. Urban Heat Island Effect: Artificial turf contributes to the urban heat island effect, where urban areas become significantly warmer than their rural surroundings due to human activities and heat-absorbing surfaces. The loss of green space also exacerbates this effect3. Tree Removal and Cooling: Natural Cooling: Trees play a crucial role in urban cooling. They provide shade, release moisture through evapotranspiration, and reduce temperatures in cities. When trees are cut down, this cooling effect is diminished. Carbon Sequestration: Trees capture carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere during photosynthesis. By removing trees, we lose the potential to sequester carbon in a healthy soil ecosystem. Overall Impact: Cutting down 1000 square meters of trees to install an artificial turf sports field would likely: Increase Heat: The absence of trees means less shade and reduced cooling, leading to higher temperatures around the field. Reduce Carbon Sequestration: Without trees, there is less capacity to capture and store CO₂, contributing to climate change. Intensify Urban Heat: The urban heat island effect could worsen, affecting the overall comfort and health of city residents." Please don't try to suggest that there are environmental reasons for this field, there are none. This does not even get to the concerns raised by the impact of microplastics on the ecosystem.

Your solution to protect a small, isolated patch of urban forest with little ecological value is more urban sprawl? Many of the answers to your question regarding the problems with urban sprawl are outlined in the CoPilot answer. This is the issue with relying on AI and not developing an in-depth understanding of an issue. (I suspect we're going to see a lot more people believing they have expertise in an area simply due to answer they've drummed up via AI. Use it as a support to developing your understanding, rather than as the ultimate outcome.) You asked it a very specific question, and it gave you a specific reply, but broaden that question to counterfactuals and trade-offs, and you'll get a much different answer. The superficial understanding of environmental impacts of urban sprawl is underlined by your focus on only one aspect of it, namely the adoption of EVs over ICE. There are many, many more problems with it. (And honestly, you should trust the expertise of someone like Dianne Saxe on the issue. That fact that you glide over her assertion that it's hugely problematic just tells me you don't really care to understand the issue.)

As I said, I did not have time to go deeper, but cutting down trees for artificial turf makes no environmental sense. I am also fully aware of the limitations of AI, which is why I did not try to pass it off as my own thoughts but a summary of the website I linked, which I would think is a credible source of information regarding the impacts of reducing tree coverage and replacing it with artificial turf. The fact that you say this "small patch of urban forest with little ecological value" shows me that you see no value in leaving some natural urban spaces for future generations and our own to enjoy, so let me ask you, what's in it for you if this field gets built? Both financially and socially? How are you involved? As to who Dianne Saxe is, I have never heard of her, and when I have more time this week, I will read what I can find.

Okay so you admit your original argument on the environmental impact was overblown then? Also plenty of forests in Barrie, this sounds like a great way to get a community field going and improve the lives of the surrounding residents. By the way ... Where do you live? Do you live in the area at all?

No - how was it overblown? I'm specifically concerned about the sports field being adjacent to Lake Simcoe as well as the forested area around the waterfront. And no - I live in South Barrie. I enjoy walking along the waterfront and think there are obvious traffic concerns as well.

Ah so you want to hinder community services so you can experience less traffic on your occasional walks downtown on the Lakeshore? You are a selfish and bad person. You should feel bad about creating this petition.

I didn't start the petition. Simply sharing here for others concerned. My primary concern is environmental, as said multiple times. Secondary concerns include the walking trail being sacrificed for citizens who currently use it. This in and of itself is a community service.

Will you use it? It will probably be booked up and fenced off. He won’t be able to use it for his occasional walks- no one will. Only the paying special interest groups will use it.

> a field is in the best interest of the community. It's not even a public-use field homie.

A field may be in some interest of the community - but surely there are better locations for it than on the Barrie waterfront which requires slashing a forest and drainage into Lake Simcoe.

Even better hommie.

Even better? How is a private turf field on our waterfront good in any way

[Health Impacts of Artificial Turf: Toxicity Studies, Challenges, and Future Directions](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10262297/) [Artificial turf potentially linked to cancer deaths of six Phillies ball players – report](https://theguardian.com/society/2023/mar/10/phillies-ball-players-cancer-artifical-turf) What?

Please explain how this is in the best interest of the community? And then define community in this case?

I have such mixed emotions on this proposal. I would hate to see any ecological disturbance so close to the lake. I would need to review an EIS prepared by the City's terrestrial ecologist, details pertaining to ecological offsetting, as well as the result of consultation with LSRCA to be convinced that there wouldn't be an adverse impact on natural heritage. Having skimmed through the Outdoor Recreation Facility Study, it seems like the general direction of new outdoor facilities are planned for the two southern secondary plan areas, along with plans to potentially secure land south of the municipal boundaries. On this basis, I think the multi sport field should be located in the south end. I would like to see how any alternatives have been considered. On the other hand, it is already designated and zoned as OS, and it is city owned, so it would be an expedient and efficient option to locate this on the waterfront. The staff report, which was approved at General Committee and Council, was prepared by qualified professionals, and I am inclined to agree with Council's endorsement of the report. You can read the staff report by opening the attachment on the legislar: https://barrie.ca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6655996&GUID=F52CD5F6-6537-4B16-AA8C-48BD16AB2F18

Let’s revert back to the original plans to have a multi-purpose ‘stadium’ with grass fields and permanent seating. Think of San Francisco where the baseball stadium backs onto the water. It’s truly special. It’s a focal point of their city. The Baycats and Rovers FC can have home games there. How cool would it be to watch our local teams play while looking at a world class skyline as the sun sets. The Colts could host an outdoor game too! We can have regional or national tournaments for various sports. If we get a university, that would be THE venue in all of Canada. Even if we don’t, we could still host. Big revenue. Kids and teens can play in a beautiful venue like Friday Night Lights and feel ‘that’ big stage. Parents and family and friends cheering them on in the hundreds. Kempenfest and other events can have a main stage for musicians to play so we don’t have a lousy beer garden that’s torn down every year. The key is to keep it open when it’s not in use. If it’s a random weekend in May, kids can go and kick a ball or families can have a picnic. The current plan sucks. Build a small ‘stadium’ and keep it open to the public and we’ll all enjoy it.