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

Touch the Water Promenade / River Valley "Seawall"

^^^^ That may be true, but I have to imagine that their property values would soar if the adjacent community had markets, restaurants, event-spaces, etc. and they would feel greatly enhanced from a safety perspective if there were people in the final solution. Their complaints about a next-door minor-league ball-park have not been very vocal (to say the least). If a festival atmosphere reigned the power-plant "scape" wouldn't it be better than what exists there now -- a water treatment plant, a power substation, and a scarred landscape. Again, I refer to Jane Jacob's tome -- "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" that purports that the existence of many eyes on the street leads to a "safe" community. Currently, the City has no measure of this in their underwhelming "feels-like there-is-a-river-closeby" solution.
 
I actually like the proposals. They dialed back the ridiculous overpasses and raised walkways and are proposing a much lighter touch along the riverbank. I don't want a seawall like Vancouver with concrete and pavers right up against the water. I am more a fan of leaving it as natural as possible, while improving access and allowing people to approach the river.

I doubt there is a proposal that will make everyone happy, but if the City actually builds this I will be pleased.
 
^

my concern with “this” is that it doesn’t allow or include any real ability to “touch the water”, its stated objective as codified in the very name of the project.

this project stretches for kilometres on end and would be fine as shown for most of it if it also met its stated objective.

eliminate the silly cantilevered “outlooks” (the entire project is an outlook from one end to the other) and instead allow actual access to the river at regular intervals along that length. add some concessions at those locations - even if it’s just servicing to pads for food trucks - along with some lay by and/or parking spaces for handicap access.

it’s not so much that what’s here is “bad”, it’s what’s missing from what’s here.
 
Too much concrete - it is as if progress is measured in the amount spent, not on good interaction with nature or the river.
 
^

my concern with “this” is that it doesn’t allow or include any real ability to “touch the water”, its stated objective as codified in the very name of the project.

this project stretches for kilometres on end and would be fine as shown for most of it if it also met its stated objective.

eliminate the silly cantilevered “outlooks” (the entire project is an outlook from one end to the other) and instead allow actual access to the river at regular intervals along that length. add some concessions at those locations - even if it’s just servicing to pads for food trucks - along with some lay by and/or parking spaces for handicap access.

it’s not so much that what’s here is “bad”, it’s what’s missing from what’s here.
If you expected and value the ability to physically touch or bathe in the North Saskatchewan, I can see why you'd be disappointed in the proposal. For me, I think it is unlikely that I will ever want to have direct contact with the water, other than maybe dropping in with a boat.

If your point is that you like the proposals, but are unhappy with the project name or how it is characterized, then hopefully once it is built you can focus on the positives of having new and more accessible infrastructure than what exists presently.
 
I'm not sure how there is too much concrete. Do we want a nature trail for walking or an urban riverfront for tourism, leisure, and entertainment?

We have a few thousand kms of trails to walk. I dont think we need more. We desperately need an urban waterfront that is attractive, exciting, enjoyable. Why do so many of us visit them in other cities and not just some random stretch of woods? Cause they are awesome.

This plan is just adding some mobility improvements basically. Slightly better paths for biking and walking. Its not a transformative project, but thats what we need instead. This is one of the only areas in the city it can happen, so we need to do it right the first time.

If you don't like river valley development, go protest the private golf courses, not public parks and trails that could become major destinations for locals and tourists and boost our city's image/enjoyment
 
I'm not sure how there is too much concrete. Do we want a nature trail for walking or an urban riverfront for tourism, leisure, and entertainment?

We have a few thousand kms of trails to walk. I dont think we need more. We desperately need an urban waterfront that is attractive, exciting, enjoyable. Why do so many of us visit them in other cities and not just some random stretch of woods? Cause they are awesome.

This plan is just adding some mobility improvements basically. Slightly better paths for biking and walking. Its not a transformative project, but that's what we need instead. This is one of the only areas in the city it can happen, so we need to do it right the first time.

If you don't like river valley development, go protest the private golf courses, not public parks and trails that could become major destinations for locals and tourists and boost our city's image/enjoyment
Couldn't have said it better myself. The part of the valley this project will transform is right in the center of the city, an area which is already very developed with buildings, paths, roads, and golf courses (why do we have 4 golf courses in the middle of the city, you ask? Beats me).

Anyway, the vast, vast majority of the river valley will remain "natural" indefinitely, and will still have plenty of opportunities for escapism for those who want it. What we're missing that this project is trying (key word: trying) to address is a waterfront hub to the entire network where the city meets this natural space. A space where residents and tourists alike can meet and enjoy an up-close experience with the city's best natural resource yet not be too far in the forest for comfort. A space here people can stop at a café or a shop on their journey, having a reason to come back again with friends. A space where interesting landscape design unites Edmonton's natural flora and fauna with a functional and accessible urban setting.

The concept of this project is good for our city, but by all means it has to be all in on what it's supposed to be, not something 35% the way there like the latest depictions show.
 
More Canmore (planetware.com)

canada-alberta-canmore-things-to-do-policemans-creek-trail.jpg


Less Los Angeles (losangeles.cbslocal.com)

shutterstock_234541271.jpg
 
@tkoe_ Replace the Los Angeles picture with any of these below and maybe your point will make more sense. Then try asking yourself "Why can't we have both in balanced and measured amounts?".
I shared these before, but I will again. We need higher expectations.

I know our large banks, fast water, and ice add challenges many other waterfronts don't have...but still...let's get creative! View attachment 335683View attachment 335684View attachment 335685View attachment 335686View attachment 335687View attachment 335688View attachment 335689View attachment 335690
 
Agreed on all points.

An urban interface with the river is what we need, not big swoopy cantilevered pathways. This is meant to allow a connection to the river for the non-runners, non-path walkers out there, something that is comfortable, clean, well-serviced, urban and fine-grain.
This reminds me of the car is king approach I have seen in some US cities, where you have to climb stairs and take huge overpasses just to cross the street.

Maybe there are good intentions here, but a cross walk or two and/or flashing lights is all that is needed. Of course swoopy cantilevered paths and lots of concrete also inflate the budget and provide plenty of work for those involved. I suppose it gives the appearance of a great deal of activity as well without really accomplishing that much which might appeal to some politically.
 
Sorta.

Cantilevered paths are mush less intrusive and will achieve a similar experience to the riverwalk at Louise McKinney Park and add another unique element to that part of the valley. I for one love being out/over the river in other cities and feel that this would accomplish that aspect of this plan.
 

Back
Top