Battlefield Park: Its Present, Its Future

Yesterday I spent some time reading the 'Battlefield Park National Historic Site Master Plan' (2009 version). It's a 130-page document outlining the proposed changes to the area. Some have already been initiated (the removal of the houses that previously sat on King Street West, blocking the view), while others, from what I've gathered, are still under consideration.

Until I'm a little more comfortable with understanding the proposal, I'm going to reserve general comment. But there were a few elements that piqued my interest.

The first had to do with access to the Park from Battlefield Drive at about Robb Avenue. Which, I'll admit, I was entirely ignorant of. You can see it in the photo at the beginning of this post; it's the 'knuckle' that sticks out two-thirds the way up on the left of the segmented outline of Battlefield Park. Here:

I've never accessed the Park from this point. Here's what it looks like from the street (Be patient; this will eventually become a Google Street View moment):

View Larger Map

I've sent out an enquiry for clarification about this to the kind folks at Battlefield Park, but I have yet to hear back.

The second element was a passage in the Plan dealing with possible changes to access to the Bruce Trail via Battlefield Park.

"The issue of access across park land to the Bruce Trail is

something that is

to be further investigated since the informal

trail leads to private property and an unprotected rail crossing.

Directing visitors down a path and into this situation may not

be advisable from the City’s point of view unless the

Bruce Trail Association

has agreements with the adjacent

landowners."

Leaving aside the Pandora's Box of issues regarding just how much some of the fundamental features of the Park are -seemingly- going to be changing, I was scratching my head over two bits: first, the 'private property' in question, and second, how could this 'issue' be addressed.

Going back to this post's aerial map, there's only one piece of land labelled 'Private Property', it's not Mr. Al Merlo's. It's on the south side of the tracks, what I had assumed was Niagara Escarpment Commission land. Again, I've sent off an email to a member of the NEC (who is also affiliated with the Ministry of Natural Resources) whom I discussed Merlo's Clear-cut with almost a month ago, in the hopes that he can clarify.

As for 'How this potentially litigious situation could be made to go away (think of National Historic Site visitors, having paid to visit the Interpretive Centre, then wander up the connective path to the Bruce Trail, but have a 'mishap' at the railway tracks)...well, I suppose the easiest solution would be to remove the Bruce Trail designation entirely, thereby additionally any sanctioning of its safety by the governing bodies. Short of this, you'd have to entirely cordon off the extant trail...as well as find a way to prevent any passage from Battlefield Park through Merlo's Clear-cut to the TH&B tracks and the Bruce Trail beyond. Not likely, huh?

Naturally, the final element had to do with Merlo's Clear-cut.

I was a little astounded that, in light of just how much effort went into preparing this plan, in light of the gravity that infuses its various stages, the desire to preserve the historical integrity, to restore horticultural nuances, to generally raise up Battlefield Park's profile to something more stately, something more serious, something more befitting the cornerstone in Stoney Creek's heritage...

...considering the lengths that have already been visited to pretty-up the King Street presentation, the acquisition and demolition of hundreds of thousands of dollars of buildings, the wholesale re-design of the west side of the Park's features, an ambitious re-imagining that has its undeniably contentious elements (think 'those who see the re-enactment as paramount', as well as 'discouraging' the traditional picnickers)...

...it seems rather remarkable that the south section of the Park, where Merlo's Clear-cut has been ignored.

Take a look at the aerial photo map again. Considering you're going to be removing a huge chunk of currently-open land to create a 20,000+ sq/ft interpretive centre as well as the parking required to accommodate such a facility's staff and visitors, doesn't it seem like a 'given' that this other land should be procured? Land that could be seen to 'make up for' the loss to the building and concomitant parking? (In the Plan, a really big deal is made of the idea that the land obtained as a result of the two King Street houses being demolished should be 'compensation' for land taken away from the general area being lost to development. As I recall from reading it, this is almost presented as an acknowledgement that this was an incendiary subject...or at least one that some were willing to wrassle over; the phrase "Them's fightin' words!' came to mind.)

My understanding from the Plan is that there are underlying issues to be dealt with regarding neighbours on Battlefield Drive, property issues. And that the Centennial Parkway border will be buttressed with a berm, to further ensure as nice an experience noise-wise in the Park as is possible. (The King Street frontage is seemingly well in hand.) So why leave this vulnerability, this 'southern exposure, this abutment with Merlo's Clear-cut' unaddressed?

It was a mystery before, but now that I've read the 2009 'Battlefield Park National Historic Site Master Plan', it makes entirely no sense.

I get that Mr. Merlo's plans are his own, and that they seem far more Machiavellian from here than a simple negotiation-and-purchase process may have allowed for. But I've never actually been able to get an answer as to why, considering what's at stake, this wasn't possible. Nor have I seen anything about it covered in the Stoney Creek News.

Anyway, reading the Plan stirred things up, got me out exploring more of the Park; up next, a video and some snapshots taken on an excursion this morning.

Addendum: It seems that the land south of the TH&B railway tracks actually is 'private property'. (Thanks to my source for getting back to me.) Piquing my curiosity sufficiently to want to know a) who owns it, and b) who owns all the neighbouring land south of the tracks east past the Devil's Punch Bowl, and west past Greenhill. If I had the $$$, I'd find out.

Addendum 2: Actually, that 'knuckle' is not where Robb Avenue is...and I'm going to try to get clarification on just what the story is on that part of the map between #40 and #42 Battlefield Drive. As of this edit, I can't figure it out.