News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.2K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 7.4K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.5K     0 

Miscellaneous

More than a bit of green washing going on here I think. "Farm" sounds so much nicer than power plant and giving it an aboriginal name is even better PR.

Too bad they had to chop 51 acres of a natural wild area to build it. Now would city council let any company do this, or just wholly owned utilities?
It was a field within a previously-disturbed area of a major city. It's not like they cut down 10 hectares of old growth forest in a national park for this...
 
1651865049230.png


Above is from here: https://www.epcor.com/products-serv...ges/expanded-habitat-and-public-parkland.aspx
 
It was a field within a previously-disturbed area of a major city. It's not like they cut down 10 hectares of old growth forest in a national park for this...

The council split on this issue was interesting - you had Knack and Nickel together on the No side, and Iveson and Caterina together on the yes side. I wonder how current council would have sided.

Screenshot_20220506-132748_Samsung Internet.jpg


“Next to the water treatment plant, on land that is reserved for its expansion, that’s previously disturbed, on a temporary basis to help us achieve our climate goals... Makes sense to me,” Mayor Don Iveson said.

When finished, the farm will consist of 45,000 solar panels on 54 acres of land south of the E.L. Smith Water Treatment Plant, which provides 65 per cent of the water used in the greater Edmonton region but is EPCOR’s second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. The solar farm will power 70% of the plant.
 
Unique downtown heritage building declared a historic resource​

May 9, 2022​
S.gif
The Canada Permanent Building, years ago, in an undated photo from the City of Edmonton Archives.
S.gif
S.gif
The Canada Permanent Building, a small but iconic downtown heritage structure, will experience new life after being declared a Municipal Historic Resource by City Council.

The Canada Permanent Building has stood on 101 Avenue and 100 Street since 1909. It was designed by early 20th century architect Roland W. Lines for the Canada Permanent Mortgage Company.

“Although it’s not a large structure, the elaborate detailing of the Canada Permanent Building’s primary facade makes it a memorable and much loved landmark in downtown Edmonton,” said Heritage Planner Scott Ashe.​
S.gif
A current-day picture of the Canada Permanent Building.
S.gif
S.gif
The building, which features Edwardian Baroque-style architecture, was built to convey strength and stability—an important message for a mortgage company. Canada Permanent provided mortgages for farms, residences and small businesses in Edmonton during a period of rapid growth. The building was advertised as Edmonton’s first “fireproof bank” because of its reinforced concrete structure.

Roland Lines had a short but significant career in Edmonton and is still known today for his architectural work on the Union Bank Building and the Norwood School, among others. Lines’ career was cut short when he died in the First World War.

The current owners of the Canada Permanent Building will receive a grant of $112,620 from the City’s Heritage Resources Reserve fund to assist in rehabilitation costs to the building. The building was designated as a Provincial Historic Resource in 1995.

The City’s Historic Resource Management Plan outlines the City’s mission to identify, protect and promote the preservation and use of historic resources. The Plan contains 24 policies and 88 action items that direct how Edmonton’s heritage should be preserved and celebrated. Since the plan was initiated in 1985, 169 properties have been designated, with more designations planned in the future.​

For more information:
Historic Resources

Media contact:
Mary-Ann Thurber
Communications Advisor
Communications and Engagement
780-619-3254​
 
The council split on this issue was interesting - you had Knack and Nickel together on the No side, and Iveson and Caterina together on the yes side. I wonder how current council would have sided.

View attachment 398714

“Next to the water treatment plant, on land that is reserved for its expansion, that’s previously disturbed, on a temporary basis to help us achieve our climate goals... Makes sense to me,” Mayor Don Iveson said.

When finished, the farm will consist of 45,000 solar panels on 54 acres of land south of the E.L. Smith Water Treatment Plant, which provides 65 per cent of the water used in the greater Edmonton region but is EPCOR’s second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. The solar farm will power 70% of the plant.
I don't think the birds and animals who use the river valley as a corridor or home distinguish between old growth forest or not as much as you do.

As for our previous mayor, I wish he would have stopped used the green washing term farm. He should have known better, but he was easily led around by city officials and not capable of much independent thought.

So now any company can build an industrial facility in the river valley?
 
I don't think the birds and animals who use the river valley as a corridor or home distinguish between old growth forest or not as much as you do.

As for our previous mayor, I wish he would have stopped used the green washing term farm. He should have known better, but he was easily led around by city officials and not capable of much independent thought.

So now any company can build an industrial facility in the river valley?
I don't think the birds and animals who use the river valley as a corridor or home distinguish between old growth forest or not as much as you do. - They probably do, just for cover from predators at a minimum. Pretty sure nobody has mentioned "old growth forest" anyway and don't think there's any in the river valley and not at this location where it was already cleared.

As for our previous mayor, I wish he would have stopped used the green washing term farm. He should have known better, but he was easily led around by city officials and not capable of much independent thought. - Green washing? Farmland is famously man made and not a natural habitat, especially when pesticides or other methods are used to suppress insects etc. To create farmland you have to clear natural flora and change drainage patterns - not entirely "green". Pretty sure the term farm is used because natural energy is being harnessed, not because something is being created that looks like a traditional agricultural farm. Solar Power Plant would be a better and more honest name though.

So now any company can build an industrial facility in the river valley? - I wouldn't think so. This seems an obviously specific case where the land was already previously cleared and zoned for use by the water treatment plant.
 
Actually the land was left to return to a more natural state for a number of years. Just because it was once disturbed doesn't mean it was or remained a dead zone for animals and plants. Yes it was zoned for potential future use only for a water treatment plant, if needed. However that need has not yet arisen and actually might not ever happen.

Whether accurate or not, the term farm conjures up images of idyllic pastoral scenes for many people. I'm sure the PR people for the City and EPCOR know that well. Of course, a solar power facility is nothing like a typical Alberta farm.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top