The Battlefield Park Master Plan, Part Three: Arcana

1) From the 'Battlefield Park National Historic Site Master Plan':

"There are three access points from the park to the adjacent subdivision street. One of them is at the ravine at the north end. The second one is a third of the way along at Robb Street and then a final access point at the very southeast corner of the park.

Even though there is public land that reaches out to the subdivision, the woods and the topography of the park site restrict the feasibility to develop formal walkway entrances into the site.

Creating new entrances at these locations would require significant grading to make the access points barrier free. It would also involve a great amount of impact on the forest collection as well as requiring new bridges to cross over Battlefield Creek.

OK, I'll bite: Why would anyone want to add any access points onto a residential street?

I can't fathom why this was ever brought up, all things considered. (Never mind the fact that Robb Avenue is more than halfway along, and I can't for the life of me identify the north access point.)

2) The proposed 'gateway' entrance at the north-west corner seems to me, according to the Plan, to be designated as the primary pedestrian entrance.

Um...who walks to Battlefield Park from that direction?

Seriously.

Has anyone ever done a study as to how foot traffic approaches Battlefield Park? (Never mind the fact that I'm guessing that the ratio of local foot-traffic to car arrivals -here I'm including the shuttle service during the reenactment- must be almost infinitesimal.)

And the foot-traffic that does arrive? I bet you a kajillion dollars that it doesn't come from the west. Maybe up Centennial. Some. But from King Street East (in Hamilton)? What, people walking from Greenhill? Doubt it. They're going to drive.

So what we get -from my jaundiced point-of-view- is a 'gateway' from Hamilton.

Effectively prioritizing...Hamilton.

Right. Qu'elle surprise.

I'm not taking issue with the notion of a Park 'welcome' being at the at corner. I just find the notion that such a priority is being put on this entrance...to the extent that trees are recommended cut down in order to improve 'the view'.

Of...?

Of Grandview.

Huh?

A feature that's not actually endemic to Battlefield Park is so important that it's effectively mandating how this 'gateway' is going to end up being constructed, sightlines-wise.

I was just there this evening, on my daily trek, and I was trying to figure out the basic precepts of visibility and awareness, etc.

And I have to say that the idea that you have to shine a light, have a stationary 'show' in place for a National Historic Site seems to be a case of placing the emphasis where it need not be put. Um...overkill, anyone?

Locals know where it is, what it is.

People making a special trip, a 'day out', they know where it is.

So there's going to be this wonderful gateway, this open vista to 'Grandview'...and a pedestrian pathway that the majority of foot-traffic won't actually be using.

Okaaaaaay...

3) I am curious as to how the Stoney Creek Cemetery is going to be incorporated into the overall picture, seeing as it's considered as being as important an element of the area as the Park itself and Smith's Knoll. (It was where the initial engagement took place.) Right now, it's got a decidedly nondescript profile, very much a forgotten entity. (There's a photo album here for your viewing pleasure.) Considering there's a wealth of subdivision development in the offing to the south of the Cemetery, and that vacant lot next to it on the south-west corner of Centennial and King, I suppose just about anything might possibly unfold.

4) I did have a good laugh when the Plan referred to the Devil's Punch Bowl as the 'Devil's Pulpit'. I felt I was in Montana or thereabouts.