I struggle to engage with either concept for the proposed Cedar-Isles master plan, because in many ways it seems that we are putting the cart before the horse—engaging a consultant and drawing up designs before reaching community consensus about the non-negotiable wear and tear thresholds for these lakes as development intensifies around them.
Given the projected number of nearby residents and visitors over the next 20 years—which must be available directly or indirectly through the City’s 2040 plan— we should be able to figure out the wear and tear that this will inevitably bring to the parks and, importantly, establish non-negotiable wear and tear thresholds that we are willing to let the land, flora and fauna, and water take. Defining and articulating those environmental thresholds first, through community consensus, is perhaps the greatest community engagement opportunity embedded in the master plan project. It will engage younger audiences who care especially about environmental health and climate change resilience; allow us to consciously live by our values; create a foundation for the decision-making to follow; and make the overall execution of the master plan clear, efficient and stewardship driven. By contrast, the current process feels consumerist, asking us to pick and choose amenities.
Moreover, there’s no need to rush. This City has borne tragic costs from willful and foolhardy urban planning, such as SWLRT and 1990s plans for Lake of the
Isles. We must go slowly and with great care, given the intricacy of the original park design, the increasing evidence of health and wellness benefits from being in unprogrammed and unstructured natural environments as referenced in Johann Hari’s book, Stolen Focus, and his recent interview with Ezra Klein, and the fact that nearby Kenwood Park is already slated to be zoned for particular uses and activities. As development intensifies around the lakes, we will increasingly need restful places for what Hari calls “meandering time,” and both lakes are, and always have been, designed for that.
To be responsible and stewardship-driven, we need to work with existing facilities and infrastructure, like the nearby Kenwood Park and Recreation Center and activity zones in Kenwood Park itself, for several years before assessing whether to also build permanent structures on the parkway. Temporary structures can always be brought in as needed.
My personal priority will always be for large trees, sweeping vistas and uninterrupted views. This is at the heart of the City Beautiful aesthetic, which is the foundation for both parks. Large trees anchor the original design and express the majesty of nature; they also sequester the most carbon. Dr. Diana Beresford-Kroeger in Canada is restoring woods and forests with rare and native tree specimens that are climate change resilient. I hold out the possibility that large trees can be brought to Isles and Cedar to enhance this original vision, just as the addition of shoreline grasses in various colors, rhythms and textures around Isles has added continuous visual interest from the water, while also serving a functional purpose.
(Conversely, the dozens of wispy trees planted recently around Isles in an imposed and mechanistic pattern, remain embarrassingly small and out of place.)
To do that, we need to halt the momentum of the existing master plan effort and come together intergenerationally and communitywide to articulate non-negotiable “wear and tear” thresholds for Cedar and Isles. We must insist that all master plan decision-making follow accordingly and that the Park Board engage designers and engineers with proven understanding of the intrinsic nature of the City Beautiful aesthetic. Then, and only then, can we match the scale of the original design for these parks with an equally grand and civic view of environmental stewardship. Experiencing grandeur through nature can be environmentally sound and a community gift, available to all.
