Update on Adult Fitness Park

At the next Committee of the Whole Council meeting (on Monday October 4), the Agenda shows that Council will be asked to approve the award of a contract to supply and install Adult Fitness equipment – but the location would not be per the original request.  In Keith Oliver’s original requests in 2016 and then 2019, he suggested it be in Victoria Park and close to the boardwalk at its East end.  But the report from Staff states that at the Parks and Recreation Committee,  “the general consensus was that the Adult Fitness Park not be placed in Victoria Park”.  So they are suggesting that it “be placed at the Cobourg Community Centre, or at Peter Delanty Park”.  The cost would be less than $35K and covered by $10K approved for the 2021 budget and $25K from a grant already approved by the Federal Government.

Not all Councillors agree with the idea (at the last vote in February 2020, Nicole Beatty and Brian Darling voted against) – but the project was included in the Waterfront Master plan and this was approved by Council. I’d think that if it’s in the Waterfront Master Plan, that seems to preclude the CCC and Peter Delanty Park. And it’s not a surprise that Keith Oliver is not happy with the location change.

The winning bidder is Active Fit Playground Equipment – see Staff report for details.

Image below is of installation in Peterborough

Peterborough fitness

The “Fitness Park” was always intended to be for seniors who often walk along the path adjacent to Victoria Park so a location at the CCC or Peter Delanty Park would be contrary to this.  Keith tells me that a condition of the Federal Grant was that a majority of applicants must be seniors and the grant application specifically mentions the Victoria Park location (see excerpt from application below).   Staff are following direction given to them (that’s good) but the “direction” seems to have been misconstrued.  Maybe this time around, Council can provide fresh and crystal clear direction. Keith is hoping a discussion with Deputy Director Behan before the Council meeting will resolve his concerns.

Links

Reports in Cobourg News Blog

Addendum – Oct 4, 2021

At tonight’s Committee of the Whole (CoW) meeting, Council heard that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee favoured the Cobourg Community Centre as the location because it would be easier for CCC staff to provide programs.  Councillor Chorley also said that it was expected that there would be delegations at next Monday’s Regular Council meeting when this matter would be finally decided.  Councillor Darling said that he expected the novelty to wear off but that if it were to go ahead, the CCC location would be best.  He also speculated that Hockey players might use the equipment to warm up.  There was no discussion of the original intent that it was intended for seniors (and in fact a strong part of the grant application), nor of its original location in Victoria Park nor of its inclusion in the Waterfront master plan.  The vote was 6-1 with Councillor Beatty against.  Anyone objecting (or supporting) should now make their thoughts known to Councillors before next Monday.  Their contact emails and phone numbers are here.

Print Article: 

 

 

77 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Keith Oliver
12 October 2021 1:27 pm

For those who are still interested, I will be a Delegate to the Cobourg Regular Council Meeting tonight, Oct 12 on the subject of a recommendation by Dept of Community Services that the Town purchase 4 specific pieces of outdoor exercise equipment.

The gist of my remarks will be a) what’s the rush? since the Town has until March 30 to spend the Federal grant funds, for the equipment and b) regarding 3 of the 4 pirces, there are much better choices out there, some which are less expensive and safer to use.

Keith Oliver
6 October 2021 10:18 pm

The preceding comments present a missundersanding of the Adult Outdoor Fitness Park (AOFP) and the process to date.

It began in 2018 with a petition in favour signed by 1038 Cobourg citizens. An Advisory Committee forwarded the project to Council who directed Community Services to work with a volunteer Fitness Park Working Group (FPWG) and apply for Federal Funds.

An application for a 25,000 grant was put together in 11 days and was successful

The FPWG was made up of 5 individuals including a retired geriatric nurse; an old geezer (me) with arthritis, a bad knee and construction experience; a working physical trainer; a physiotherapist and a 70 year old active in local sports.

We visited 11 parks from Tweed to Guelph to Niagra-on-the Lake, tried out 5 different makes of equipment, interviewed 7 parks managers and wrote a 95 page report. We were convinced that with proper promotion, location and a majority of the cost from private sources, an AOFP would be of great benefit to all of Cobourg. Cobourg has a well earned reputation for doing things right.

In addition to the 35,000 dollars we have a 25,000 dollar conditional donation from private sources toward purchasing more challenging equipment. This would constitute a second phase in the final development of the park. A retractable sun roof to be used during the summer is part of the final concept.

There is much more!

The FPWG s convinced that an AOFP at the proper location along with its proper promotion, will be a success to the benefit of all in Cobourg.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
7 October 2021 8:47 am

It began in 2018 with a petition in favour signed by 1038 Cobourg citizens.

It was my understanding that you solicited signatures downtown on weekends and at the Farmer’s Market. Keith, is that correct? How do you know that they were Cobourg residents? How many were seniors? How many said that they would actually use the proposed fitness centre? How often? Were they given information regarding expected construction and maintenance costs prior to signing your petition?

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
8 October 2021 7:51 am

Ken

My post said “Cobourg citizens”! How much more do you need to know in that regard? Several from out of town said they were not surprised that this project might happen in Cobourg, referring to Cobourg’s reputation for doing things well. The signatures represented all age groups and physical conditions.

You often criticize costs without any acknowledgement of associated benefits. I believe you’ve done so in the past with regard to the 26 million dollar Community Centre which has produced huge benefits for Cobourg dispite it’s deficit which is declining as it expands its programs.

Working toward real progress in improving the quality-of-life for all involves encouraging new habits, routines, becoming more physically active. That is what the Fitness Park is all about. Our recommendation is based on informed research by people who have experience, including 2 physiotherapists and 7 parks managers.

I have offered before and do so again to show you or anyone else our 95+ page Report on the value of a well designed Fitness Park in Cobourg.

Your post, to which I am replying, reminds me of the definition of nit-picking which is “… Looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily.”

Have a good day!

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
8 October 2021 2:33 pm

Keith, thank you for confirming that your petition did not distinguish between Cobourg residents and others and that your supporters were not informed of the estimated full-life costs of the fitness centre, were not asked about their frequency of usage nor were they asked other pertinent questions.

I criticized the costs because you have only cited benefits without disclosure of most of the costs. Based on the numerous postings here, a miniscule fraction of our residents will ever use the proposed fitness centre and will get no benefit whatsoever. Several mentioned that the Port Hope and other similar facilities are little used. Cobourg’s previous outdoor exercise centre was little used and was eventually dismantled. These observations seem at odds with the opinions of your 9 experts and 95+ page report. Why the difference?

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
8 October 2021 7:21 pm

Ken

This exchange between us s the reason that so few who appreciate and read John’s posts read this comment section.

I said the petition involved Cobourg “citizens,” you questioned whether “residents” were involved. Really?

If you or anyone else truly wants to know the facts behind the proposal to create a popular and successful Adult Outdoor Fitness Park at Victoria Beach based on the work and experience of the Fitness Park Working Group (FPWG), and as recorded in the Group’s Oct 15, 2019 95+ page Report … call me a 905-375-8540. Wear a mask, meet together on my outdoor patio, I’ll supply a beer or two, and hopefully we can have a productive conversation.

Otherwise I’m out of here!

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
8 October 2021 8:03 pm

Keith, I have absolutely no interest in wading through 95+ pages of marketing material. Why not succinctly justify your enthusiasm versus the lack of any apparent interest in your outdoor fitness boondoggle?

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
9 October 2021 8:55 am

Ken

I have offered you two versions of the Adult Outdoor Fitness Park’s Working Group Report issued October 2019. The first is the Executive Summary I posted here on Oct 6 at 10:18 pm. The second is the full Report itself.

As my wonderful mother, a real Prairie Girl used to say … “Ignorance is bliss.”

Be happy! …Take care!

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
9 October 2021 10:13 am

Keith, the consensus is that an outdoor fitness park is useless yet you persist in claiming that it is needed. Why?

I would be happier if the adult fitness park had been rejected as soon as suggested rather than hanging around like a bad smell.

Last edited 17 days ago by Ken Strauss
Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
9 October 2021 8:22 pm

Ken

You referred to a consensus … what “consensus” are you talking about? The nit-pickers (see my definition in my post of Oct 8 at 7:52 am) who inhabit this site and degrade it by continually criticizing every thing without offering an alternative?

Within four week ends myself and my 79 year old frirnd, produced a petition signed by 1038 Cobourg residents in favour.
In your mind does that not count?

The problems that this Cobourg of ours faces is critical to it’s future. The very least you and I and others can do to help is to have a frank, informed and respectful conversation about important issues.

Want to give it a try?

Last edited 17 days ago by Keith Oliver
Rationale
Reply to  Keith Oliver
9 October 2021 8:40 pm

Mr. Oliver In your Oct 8th post you said “I’m out of here” – direct quote. Yet you are still here. ??

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Rationale
10 October 2021 8:18 am

Rationale

Good question! I’m involved with 3 other projects but it’s important since a number on this site are so negative and missinformed.

By the count this blog.is still being read and I think it’s still important that the good and informed work of the Adult Outdoor Fitness Park Working Group be known.

Yesterday, Oct 9, we revisited the fitness parks at Tweed and Peterborough to see how some of the best equipment we recommend purchasing are holding up after three years of use.

We had to wait while three middle-aged women finished using some of the pieces. Every thing was fine. Tweed had built a roof over its 2,580 sq ft.installation and by the foot prints and mud in some places it was being well used. Tweed has a population of 6,000.

Thanks for the question!

Last edited 16 days ago by Keith Oliver
Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
9 October 2021 10:38 pm

The “consensus” is based on comments here plus conversations with a number of friends. Few here and no friend said that they would use your proposed equipment.

I doubt that your “1068 Cobourg residents” were aware of the proposed ugliness and disruption to Victoria Park nor the ongoing maintenance costs.

The main problems facing Cobourg are growth plus deteriorating infrastructure and the attendant tax increases required. The problem is exacerbated by our Council’s willingness to accede to unjustified requests such as for an outdoor fitness centre.

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
10 October 2021 8:36 am

Ken

Not sure if you clearly understand but action to date indicates that Council will pay only 10 to 15 percent of the total cost of what will become a valuable asset and add to the many interesting experiences one can have at the beach.

Experience by others indicates annual maintenance will be close to zero and Parks Department will have less grass to cut.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
10 October 2021 9:15 am

Experience by others indicates annual maintenance will be close to zero and Parks Department will have less grass to cut.

Really? There are no plans for snow removal? There are no plans for training/assistance in using the equipment? There will never be injuries and resulting lawsuits? There is no need to remove weeds from beneath the equipment? There is no need to maintain any of the equipment?

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
10 October 2021 9:21 pm

Ken

All aspects of having an Adult Outdoor Fitness Park at Victoria Beach have been covered in the 95+ page citizen based FPWG report of mid-October 2019 which you have declined my offer to see but which, I’m embaroused to say, does not include the cost of removing weeds off a concrete base. Thank you!

The FPWG had not considered the great shame it might have been subjected to had it not brought up the issue of how to deal with and.include the expense of dealing with the growth of weeds on the concrete base that it and others have recommended for a Fitness Park in Cobourg.

Again … thank-you!

Please watch or phone in to my delegation of to Town Council on Tuesday the 12th

Take care!

Wally Keeler
Reply to  Keith Oliver
10 October 2021 9:26 pm

embaroused”

embarrassed? or aroused? or?

Dubious
Reply to  Wally Keeler
10 October 2021 10:50 pm

Not at Keith’s age.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
10 October 2021 9:58 pm

Great sarcasm, Keith! Thanks for the correction. I thought that you had planned an environmentally responsible permeable surface that could be easily removed with the rest of the unused equipment rather than a concrete pad with its attendant CO2 production. You completely ignored my questions regarding the cost of snow removal, training and assistance in using the equipment, injuries and resulting lawsuits, equipment maintenance, etc.

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 October 2021 3:21 am

Ken

All of your questions have been dealt with in the 96+ page FPWG “State of the Project Report” which you have declined my offer to see.

This conversation is getting rediculous.

Take care!

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 October 2021 3:20 am

Ken

Most parks including the many in Toronto (approximately 30 with more being added each year) and Montreal (about 20) shut down in the winter despite the fact that some of the best functioning are designed and manufactured in Minisota.

The Town training and offering assistance to those using the equipment brings up the issue of liability if things go wrong.

Signage as to how to use the equipment is where a brand called PlayWorld excells and can be seen and tried at Beavermead Park on the South West corner of Peterborough.

There is virtually no maintenance. Equipment tried out by our fitness trainer at Quidi Vidi, a district of St John’s Newfoundland, was 15 years old. Only problem was that the colour had faded.

Any more questions?

Last edited 15 days ago by Keith Oliver
Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
11 October 2021 9:03 am

So, Keith, you believe that the town can avoid liability issues by providing no support or training and that everyone can figure out the best usage without help? Is that the approach with the equipment in private gyms? Can you guess why not?

It may be instructive to carefully read the discussion at https://solowaywright.com/news/playground-accident-lawsuit/

The fact that 15-year old equipment is still functional indicates nothing about the cost of maintenance that had been required over the years.

Keith Oliver
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 October 2021 10:53 am

Ken

Thanks for the referrnce to the paper on liability by Soloway Wright in Kingston. While it only refers to children’s play areas it explains “negligence” and “duty of care” and actions our town can take, and appears to be taking, to limit liability.

Our Parks Dept examines all playground equipment once a month. Our early enquiries about Cobourg Liabity Insurance indicated that the premium would not be increased because of an Adult Outdoor Fitness Park.

With the concern you have expressed about risk and the fact that 28,000 children are injured each year in Canadian play parks, I expect you get on your white horse and lead a campaign to have all children’s play parks in Cobourg shut down, equipment sold for scrap, a possible source of much needed income for the Town.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
11 October 2021 12:42 pm

I expect you get on your white horse and lead a campaign to have all children’s play parks in Cobourg shut down, equipment sold for scrap, a possible source of much needed income for the Town.

That is an excellent suggestion, Keith. I believe that the town did scrap fully serviceable playground equipment a few years ago in order to comply with the Canadian Playground Safety Standard CAN/CSA-Z614-14.

More seriously, you didn’t respond to how the fact that 15-year old equipment is still functional proves that there is no cost for maintenance.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Keith Oliver
11 October 2021 1:40 pm

Keith, you may want to reconsider your assertion that there would be no costs for maintenance. According to https://ownplayground.com/how-often-should-playground-equipment-be-replaced/

Typically, you should consider replacing your playground equipment every eight to ten years after the installation date. Most playground equipment that are inspected regularly and maintained properly can last for up to a decade without any issues. However, poorly maintained equipment cannot go past five years.

Bill Arthur
6 October 2021 10:12 pm

Agree with you about ongoing costs. Apart from all the cost aspects I have to say that it looks pretty ugly and spoils the sight lines to the lake from within the park. How does something like that fit in with the park being in a heritage area which I assume it is?

Bill Arthur
Reply to  Bill Arthur
6 October 2021 10:14 pm

Apologies but that was meant to be a reply to Bryan and not a new post

Bill Arthur
6 October 2021 12:46 pm

I never understood how this got the go ahead in the first place and why the Town supported it with $10,000. I understand that the $25,000 grant came from New Horizons for Seniors program. I have experience of that program and it will be interesting to see how any change of scope or even cancellation squares with the program objectives. I guess the Town (I assume it was the Town who made the grant application) already has the money and it probably has to be spent by March next year. By the way, has anybody noticed the excellent facility that is already in the park which provides healthy outdoor exercise. It’s called the Cobourg Lawn Bowling club.

Bryan
Reply to  Bill Arthur
6 October 2021 1:13 pm

Bill A.

I too have concerns with this project and understanding how it it is up for approval. The comments on this site, while biased perhaps, give a reasonable representation that the project will not be used and is not needed.
The cost is said to be $35K, of which $25K is funded by a grant. Based on JD’s “picture” I have difficulty believing that the units can be purchased and installed for this price. I would believe $35K just to purchase the units. Further, there is no indication of the ongoing annual costs of this project, maintenance, insurance, snow clearing. Staff is also proposing having (hiring??) fitness staff to help people use the facilities. Once again, no cost information.
Council needs to say NO.

Gerinator
Reply to  Bryan
6 October 2021 8:45 pm

Agreed. Typical with this Staff, their financial proposals often lack life-cycle costing as Bryan highlights. FYI – in reviewing the new proposed org and recommendations there is a position ‘Program Support Financial Analyst’ that will develop business case analysis of specific initiatives. Hopefully this individual can get it right.

Gerald Childs
Reply to  Bill Arthur
8 October 2021 8:49 am

The LBC mentioned above will be used during the season far more than this exercise area for seniors.

Audrey
5 October 2021 2:19 pm

In all the years that I have lived in Cobourg, this is the most useless idea I have ever seen proposed by the town.

Informed
Reply to  Audrey
6 October 2021 1:41 pm

How long have you lived here?🙂

Audrey
Reply to  Informed
6 October 2021 7:55 pm

For many years.

Active senior
4 October 2021 10:55 pm

Another stupid waste of taxpayer dollars. Most active seniors that care about exercise have already figured out how to do it. We join local facilities or take a brisk walk or bike ride along our beautiful waterfront.
Spend that 35k on something more worthwhile. Maybe a few benches and flowers on our sad pier, more garbage cans, perhaps fix the boardwalk that has nails popping, waiting for some senior to trip on while they take that brisk walk!

JimT
Reply to  Active senior
5 October 2021 12:42 am

Yeah, really. I should ride my mountain bike to the park
in order to take in some exercise? Seriously?

Geo
Reply to  Active senior
5 October 2021 8:47 am

I agree. The gazebo down on the boardwalk should be repaired in spots and painted. It is such an eyesore. Maybe plant some trees in Victoria Park for the next generation of families.

Matt
4 October 2021 8:18 pm

I’m not opposed to the idea of an adult fitness park and I don’t really have a preference where it’s located.

I’m just trying to figure out how something comparable to the park depicted in the photo gets built for $35K.

marilyn
4 October 2021 5:52 pm

I think this is a waste of money and I also feel the CCC location is a bad idea. I am not going to drive to the CCC so I can use it.

Pamela Jackson
4 October 2021 12:47 pm

I remember the original equipment in James Cockburn Park, every time I drove past I noticed no one ever used it, it sat there forlorn, unused, until it seemed to rot away and become dangerous. We have one here in Sidney in a green space next to the library and opposite the busy senior centre. Again, in the many many times I have been passed the site there has only been one occasion where I saw it in use. I predict the one proposed for Cobourg will be as lonely and unused as the two I have mentioned. Save the money and add a useful feature for seniors at the current centre. Ask them what they want. Has there been much consultation with the local seniors, I remember them as being a vocal, informed group when I worked with them in the early 2000’s.

Jackie Tinson
4 October 2021 8:10 am

The adult fitness equipment in Port Hope on Cavan Street is only ever used by children who use it as a jungle gym. I have never seen it used by adults.

Christine
Reply to  Jackie Tinson
4 October 2021 8:33 am

I must say I enjoy using it whenever I walk by the equipment in Port Hope.

Wendy
Reply to  Jackie Tinson
4 October 2021 8:49 am

I used the equipment last week while giving my son a tour of Port Hope

Ahewson
3 October 2021 4:43 pm

There was adult fitness equipment located in James Cockburn Park/Cobourg Conservation Area and it all sat unused and eventually removed. We aren’t talking all that long ago either. I’m thinking it was still there in the early 2000s.

JimT
Reply to  Ahewson
4 October 2021 6:47 am

What good is a “fitness park” if you have to drive in your car to get to it?

Informed
Reply to  JimT
4 October 2021 1:35 pm

I guess you havent seen people drive around the parking lot numerous times at the Ymca parking lot looking for a spot close to the front doors lol

Geo
Reply to  JimT
4 October 2021 2:57 pm

Waste of money. CCC is too far from downtown. Who will use it in the winter for almost 5 months. If they are used in winter town employees will have to shovel the snow to keep them operational. What happens if a machine breaks and a senior falls off and gets hurt. Do they sue the town. Many questions to be answered. Agree with Jim T and Ahewson on this issue.

Matt
Reply to  Geo
5 October 2021 7:54 am

I have some of the same questions. Every piece of that equipment appears to require a billboard-sized set of instructions to properly use it with nobody there to instruct or spot. I’m not sure a “use at own risk” sign would cut it if and when someone hurts themselves on it.

Geo
Reply to  Matt
5 October 2021 8:51 am

Matt, we may have to hire an instructor to show the seniors how to use the machines.

Beth
Reply to  JimT
5 October 2021 12:47 pm

No matter where the fitness park is located, some people will be able to walk but others will have to drive. It can’t be walkable for everyone.

JimT
Reply to  Beth
6 October 2021 5:37 pm

…which would imply that it should be put only in a high-traffic spot where there are lots of passers-by to make use of it, if it must be built at all.

Audrey
Reply to  JimT
5 October 2021 2:21 pm

Exactly.

Wally Keeler
3 October 2021 4:10 pm

Peace Park might be an ideal situation. It’s part of the waterfront. A creek runs through it. It is along the Waterfront Trail. The number of residents are currently increasing in that hood and Peace Park is expected to reach up to King Street. There is plenty of room for such a pad. It is quiet and serene, whereas, in Victoria Park it will be in the midst of frolicking screaming children bloated with excitement, teens and young people doing the volleyball scene, and lots of day trippers. Placing it in Peace Park will provide the quietude and very natural environment to be able to concentrate on the exercise without distractions. It also has the advantage of being sheltered from blustery weather.

Last edited 23 days ago by Wally Keeler
JimT
Reply to  Wally Keeler
4 October 2021 6:48 am

Seniors want to avoid being where the action and activity are? Really?

Wally Keeler
Reply to  JimT
4 October 2021 9:12 am

I never made that assertion Jimmy T.

ben
3 October 2021 3:08 pm

Well that’s the way to kill a project like this, put it purposely in an area where it will be underused!. Wait a couple of years and then get plaudits for donating it to charity.

The grant specifically states location and use, this new location fulfils neither. Talk about Staff not following directions – or maybe the unseen hands told them to do it this way.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  ben
3 October 2021 3:37 pm

Ben, regardless of location I suspect that it would be very little used. How many want to exercise in public, holding cold metal bars while standing in snow? Would you use it?

It is far better to have an unused eyesore, awaiting demolition, at the CCC than in a downtown park. Even better, don’t build it anywhere!

Last edited 23 days ago by Ken Strauss
Informed
Reply to  Ken Strauss
3 October 2021 5:51 pm

You could add at least another 30 to 60 days of hot and humid weather that no one would be using it either.

JimT
Reply to  Informed
4 October 2021 6:52 am

Too true, really. I had lots of “activity” I needed to get done this summer right here in the yard and gardens, but it was just too damn hot, so it didn’t get done.

Nancy
Reply to  Ken Strauss
4 October 2021 12:36 pm

I would use it and know of others who would too. Seniors who walk everyday along the boardwalk.

Geo
Reply to  Nancy
4 October 2021 10:53 pm

How many seniors who walk along the boardwalk would really use the equipment. Who will use it on hot days and working on equipment in direct sunlight will tire people out. Is there any shade over the equipment?

Concerned
Reply to  ben
7 October 2021 10:01 am

Regardless of staff recommendation council can direct them to change the location in the end it’s their decision. Seems to be a lot of issues out of Parks and Rec, maybe it’s time for a qualified director. Hopefully council finally allows the position to be funded instead of putting off the hiring.

Informed
3 October 2021 2:11 pm

This has been a bad idea from the beginning. It will never be utilized to warrant the money.
I would rather subsidize fitness programs for seniors at locations that already exist such as the ccc and ymca

Kathleen
Reply to  Informed
4 October 2021 8:47 am

Excellent suggestion!

Informed
Reply to  Kathleen
4 October 2021 10:39 am

I fully support all types of execise,especially for seniors. I also applaud Keith for all the work done to to get a project that he believes in off the ground. I just dont agree with it and dont believe it will be utilized. That being said, I wonder what other ideas are out there to keep seniors active? I think the goal is to improves ones health and longevity so maybe something else makes more sense?

Wally Keeler
Reply to  Informed
4 October 2021 10:51 am

A long walk the length of the beach in the loose sand, but only during the hours allowed by municipal by-law. Does wonders for the legs. Free admission. Organically air-conditioned.

Informed
Reply to  Wally Keeler
4 October 2021 11:04 am

There are running groups so a seniors walking group including a beach walk sounds like a good idea.Could also have a stretch workout at the end of walk to help increase mobility. This could be done at the park.

Last edited 22 days ago by Informed
Wally Keeler
Reply to  Informed
4 October 2021 12:07 pm

Sure can. Start at the Darcy Street end, walk to the harbour, have a stretch workout, then walk two blocks to Kelly’s to hydrate with a cold one. Repeat as as required.

Geo
Reply to  Wally Keeler
4 October 2021 10:58 pm

Wally agreed. Have 2 or 3 beers. Repeat the next day.

JimT
Reply to  Geo
5 October 2021 12:51 am

The way I used to ride my mountain bike down in the Don Valley when I lived in TO. Burn 1,000s of calories, bike up Bayview to McSorley’s and put it all right back on again in the same trip.
The good old days.

Wally Keeler
Reply to  JimT
5 October 2021 1:00 am

The Bayview cutoff at 6am on a long weekend Monday. Virtually no traffic and I could lean well into the curves descending into the valley, crossing the lanes hoping no oncoming. Exhilarating.

JimT
Reply to  Wally Keeler
6 October 2021 5:42 pm

…and lived to tell about it!

Ken Strauss
3 October 2021 1:45 pm

If the grant requires that the fitness park be in Victoria Park and staff plus the Parks and Recreation Committee are opposed to that location for a variety of excellent reasons then perhaps the whole plan should be scuttled. I’m certain that there are other uses for the $10K budgeted.

Greg H
Reply to  Ken Strauss
4 October 2021 12:58 pm

Who are the unseen hands that are now suggesting placement at the CCC or in Cottesmore Park?   These are the two places least likely to attract users for this equipment.
I am in favour of exercise.  I am in my eighth decade and go regularly to a fitness studio, and enjoy bicycling in good weather.  But I have seen these adult exercise  installations around the world from Malta to Ontario, and the one common element is that  they are rarely  used.
I agree that the Town’s $10,000 commitment could find many better uses.

Mike J
Reply to  John Draper
11 October 2021 9:35 am

How about a proper weight room at the CCC? something one can use in February.

Informed
Reply to  Mike J
11 October 2021 6:02 pm

I could get behind something like that possibly. Im not yet a senior but it would be nice to have it built with seniors in mind. It would be nice to see strength training classes for seniors as well. This make more sense to at least explore the idea. No sense creating an artificial need and spend taxdollars if there isnt a legitimate need and demand.