News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 7.4K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 8K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 2.6K     0 

Urban National Park Option for the River Valley

Would you support the River Valley becoming an Urban National Park?

  • Total voters
    45
Gronk! said:
David Staples is an idiot and I take everything he writes with a grain of salt. I prefer to read an actual news article from Postmedia, CBC, CTV, Global or Taproot.
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't disagree, just posted it for discussion + it does have some interesting tidbits about various councilor's and resident's thoughts regarding this discussion.

CplKlinger said:
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society estimates that around 30 hectares of our river valley are lost to industrial development annually.
Click to expand...
I do wish they would contextualize that estimate with the economic benefit as well of losing that river valley land. Lets say IPL's Heartland Petrochemical Complex 75 hectare development was included in their calculation (I have no idea whether it was or not, but it was built right next to the river just NE of Fort Sask). The construction cost alone was over $4.3 bln. That's $57m per hectare before factoring in operational/production economics where the gravy is really made.

Does Parks Canada allow it to move forward?
 
I don't think getting a few people to sign a petition means that much, especially because it is not very many people.

At this point both proponents and those against the National Urban Park can portray it however they want as nothing is concrete is public yet.

I would like there to be more transparency, but there will be a concrete proposal at some point, that will will probably not correspond to the fearmongering and also may not be as great as what the proponents want.
 
I want to preface this post by saying that I'm not super familiar with this proposal and exactly what it means for it to become a national park but I think that fact that the proposal specifies that it is going to become an "urban" national park means that it isn't going to be given the same ecological protections and restrictions to development as say Banff or Jasper. The River Valley is already home to significantly more development than any regular national park and I highly doubt thing like mountain biking trails and boat launches would be removed. I personally think that this would be a great things for the city, and really give our river valley the attention it deserves as truly one of the best urban parks systems in the world.

That being said any impact to the ease of access and interconnectivity of the trail system would be a major drawback for me as someone who often bikes long distances through the River Valley (Strathcona Science Park to Downtown). I would hope that this measure would lead to further funding being put into the parks system and some of the older, more worn down parks (like Rundle, Capilano and others mostly in the northeast) would be brought up to a standard similar to the newer parks mostly in the southwest. I would also hope that this would lead to further naturalization (meaning returning certain areas to a more natural forested state) in certain areas of the parks. Not so much that it would disrupt the activities we all enjoy in the river valley but in order to enhance that experience with a more vibrant biosphere. Maybe, replacing non-native grasses with native ones and wildflowers, expanding and providing further protection to forested areas, etc.
 
Gronk! said:
How about fewer golf courses? I could almost swear there's more golf course space than actual park space.
Click to expand...
Agreed, golf courses are just about the worst possible use of any land, let alone urban land. I just wonder if it would be feasible to purchase and then convert those courses to park land, not sure how much it would cost but I'm assuming the land alone would be absurd. Victoria and the Royal Mayfair are the worst offenders, being located directly adjacent to dense city centre districts.
 
erudyk_29 said:
Agreed, golf courses are just about the worst possible use of any land, let alone urban land. I just wonder if it would be feasible to purchase and then convert those courses to park land, not sure how much it would cost but I'm assuming the land alone would be absurd. Victoria and the Royal Mayfair are the worst offenders, being located directly adjacent to dense city centre districts.
Click to expand...
I do think this will be a conversation being had more and more. I think Riverside and Rundle both lose the City money year over year, and I think Victoria is really only profitable due to the driving range, so any of the former could be on the chopping block in the next couple decades.

Good news is the only river valley golf course within the Henday limits that actually owns it's own land is Edmonton Country Club. Unfortunately, Mayfair was just granted an extension to their lease to 2068, and I have no idea what the lease situation looks like for Highlands.
 
While I don't disagree with better use, flexibility and options on said lands, these are enjoyed by many Edmontonians who enjoy golf, similar to other sports the City supports and subsidizes. These sites are also used for x-skiing in winter, tobogganing and the clubhouses for weddings, celebrations and other events.

How about looking instead of removing a sporting use on these sites, we instead look to expand how they are used.
 
IanO said:
While I don't disagree with better use, flexibility and options on said lands, these are enjoyed by many Edmontonians who enjoy golf, similar to other sports the City supports and subsidizes. These sites are also used for x-skiing in winter, tobogganing and the clubhouses for weddings, celebrations and other events.

How about looking instead of removing a sporting use on these sites, we instead look to expand how they are used.
Click to expand...
Because golf is inherently exclusive, with a high barrier to entry cost wise. It also is incredibly wasteful from a land, water and maintenance perspective. It's true that many of these courses are converted to ski areas, etc during the winter. But that doesn't change the fact that they become essentially gated parks that only those wealthy enough to afford a membership, clubs and/or a tee time, can use during the summer months when far more people generally use the parks. They're much better suited for out in the countryside where they aren't becoming a barrier for travel and reserving vast amounts of possible parkland for everyone, for a select few who can afford to and want to golf.
 
erudyk_29 said:
Agreed, golf courses are just about the worst possible use of any land, let alone urban land. I just wonder if it would be feasible to purchase and then convert those courses to park land, not sure how much it would cost but I'm assuming the land alone would be absurd. Victoria and the Royal Mayfair are the worst offenders, being located directly adjacent to dense city centre districts.
Click to expand...
Would I be incorrect if I believed that most private river valley courses are on leased city land? I remember some talk a few years ago about an extension to the Mayfair lease of 18 years coming at a cost of around 800,000.
 
Seamusmuldrew said:
Would I be incorrect if I believed that most private river valley courses are on leased city land? I remember some talk a few years ago about an extension to the Mayfair lease of 18 years coming at a cost of around 800,000.
Click to expand...
i believe the highlands, windermere and the mayfair are the only private clubs on land leased from the city. rundle, riverside, victoria and the pitch and putt are public courses owned and operated by the city.
 
If we are serious about promoting our urban park system as something unique and world class, we should be removing mediocre golf courses and return that space into natural park areas and build infrastructure that will enable the greatest access to those natural park areas...especially in the Central city.

Someone visiting Edmonton for the first time tries to explore the river valley from downtown only to find:

- poorly defined access points
- high speed car traffic
- uninviting fences and golf courses
- small slivers of land dedicated for trees and trails.

There are a few river valley parks in the Central city but again they are not that accessible and they do not have businesses or activities that will make enough people stay and hang out. This also ties into projects like touch the water.
 
Realistically, I don't think any of the long established golf courses are going away any time soon. I don't think the city has the money to remove or buy them out and I don't think they would be interested anyways.

However, Federal money and involvement could open up some new possibilities for better access and accessibility, which would be good.
 
Park system is generally fine. If you want to spend more money improving parks go for it, but we really don't need more parks.

Golf courses are well used, and shouldn't be going away any time soon to make for even more public parks. Have no idea what this push is to get rid of golf courses from people, seems like a pretty strange proposal. Probably the same cohort that wants more money spent on bike lines I assume.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top