Skip to content

LETTER: Concerned about potential costs for landscaping near intersection

Editor: I read, with interest the letters published in the June 30 edition of the Outlook that described concerns about Canmore’s new intersection. I agree with Roger Warren’s opinion that “rarely has so much poor planning, conducted by so few,

Editor:

I read, with interest the letters published in the June 30 edition of the Outlook that described concerns about Canmore’s new intersection.  I agree with Roger Warren’s opinion that “rarely has so much poor planning, conducted by so few, negatively affected so many.” My concern is the method chosen for covering the bare ground along the new sidewalks.

I suggest there are much better options than finishing the project by placing bluegrass sod. My experience with landscape maintenance has taught me that sod is the worst choice for covering bare ground, unless, of course, you are building a golf course.

Sod requires at least three-centimetres of water every week throughout the growing season. During the first weeks after installation, it requires even more water.

This does not change in subsequent growing seasons, which is why landscapers recommend installing underground sprinklers before installing sod and there are no underground sprinklers along the sidewalks.

However, the best landscapers would recommend installing mulch – wood chips or gravel – to unpaved areas to minimize maintenance. A few native plants could also be added for variety and interest and the result would not require watering, fertilizing, and mowing. Oh, and don’t forget about the application of herbicide that will be required to keep dandelions in check.

I ask why the commitment to maintaining hectares of bluegrass sod, around the new intersection, was undertaken by the town, when at the same time, Canmore claims to be striving for sustainability. This is not a sustainable choice. Who will pay for the required maintenance?

David Belitsky,

Canmore