News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 8.3K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 9.5K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.1K     0 

Warehouse District Park

_urbanite said:
Are those really as effective as they're made out to be? Some vagrants will simply drown that out with their own music
Click to expand...
Fair but I’ll reiterate, a super central bathroom that’d be great to hang out in has been empty the dozen or so times I’ve used it, it is genuinely super irritating
 
_urbanite said:
I've been in a few gender neutral washrooms in Europe and have never seen any with urinals. All of them had stalls with toilets and full-length locking doors. I would expect the same here, though stalls with full-length locking doors could lead to the stalls being abused here by a certain type of clientele
Click to expand...
Most new restaurants in Vancouver have gender neutral bathrooms and that's literally all it is. Individual full length stalls with a shared space to wash your hands.

I don't think length of stalls really impacts whether people will use drugs in them or not lol.
 

3.6
Charter Bylaw 20503 - To allow development of the Downtown Warehouse Campus Park, Downtown​

Charter Bylaw 20503 and Bylaw 20502 will be dealt with together

3.7
Bylaw 20502 - To allow for portions of 107 Street NW and adjacent lanes to be closed to facilitate construction of the Downtown Warehouse Campus Park, Downtown​

Charter Bylaw 20503 and Bylaw 20502 will be dealt with together
 
@Stevey_G -- so you finally got to bump into 'O's posse of like-minded negatififiers (my newly minted word, but you can use it when you want). In general, however I do agree that the park is a colossal waste of money and extremely poorly designed. If you think the negative comments are flying now, wait until the thing gets built.
 
archited said:
@Stevey_G -- so you finally got to bump into 'O's posse of like-minded negatififiers (my newly minted word, but you can use it when you want). In general, however I do agree that the park is a colossal waste of money and extremely poorly designed. If you think the negative comments are flying now, wait until the thing gets built.
Click to expand...
I think the Park is functionally adequate and will service the community nicely. But I think an opportunity was missed in the design here. The park is trying to log jam too many little things into it and it's become the Landscaping equivalent of Homer Simpson's makeup shotgun.

Urban parks like this tend to be best employed having some grand centrepiece feature like a wading pool convertible to rink space, surrounded with 3-5 ancillary features bundled together and nice pathways meandering through the features towards a small restaurant/bistro/coffee shop.

For 40 million dollars, I hope they can do more, but I don't personally consider it a bad design.
 
Stevey_G said:
I think the Park is functionally adequate and will service the community nicely. But I think an opportunity was missed in the design here. The park is trying to log jam too many little things into it and it's become the Landscaping equivalent of Homer Simpson's makeup shotgun.

Urban parks like this tend to be best employed having some grand centrepiece feature like a wading pool convertible to rink space, surrounded with 3-5 ancillary features bundled together and nice pathways meandering through the features towards a small restaurant/bistro/coffee shop.

For 40 million dollars, I hope they can do more, but I don't personally consider it a bad design.
Click to expand...
I think you have summarized it fairly well. The space is a good size, but really not big enough for such a grab bag of things and even it it was, it loses focus.

However, given this is such a prominent location and probably the only such opportunity we will have, I think we need to try and set our aspirations a bit higher than functionally adequate.

Or perhaps that should become the new motto for our city - Edmonton: Functionally Adequate.
 
Current state:
20230512_202412.jpg
 
Stevey_G said:
I think the Park is functionally adequate and will service the community nicely. But I think an opportunity was missed in the design here. The park is trying to log jam too many little things into it and it's become the Landscaping equivalent of Homer Simpson's makeup shotgun.

Urban parks like this tend to be best employed having some grand centrepiece feature like a wading pool convertible to rink space, surrounded with 3-5 ancillary features bundled together and nice pathways meandering through the features towards a small restaurant/bistro/coffee shop.

For 40 million dollars, I hope they can do more, but I don't personally consider it a bad design.
Click to expand...
I agree that the park would benefit from being bigger and the design is not perfect. However, given the constraints and objectives for the site, I like the current iteration of design for the park. Time will tell how it turns out.

When this all started we were talking about a need to make the park activated and less passive, so while there are numerous features, it's better than sterile Greenspace. And we have a wading pool and rink and coffee and paths at Churchill already.

As for grandeur, I think our priorities should lie in the central river valley where there is enough space but it is chopped up by high traffic roads and golf courses making the experience less accessible and less pleasant. A well done park in the river valley may be our only comparison to places like assiniboine, Stanley, fish creek park, etc.
 
Edmcowboy11 said:
Well at least the biggest benefit of the park is that it will help eliminate a ton of ugly parking lots much sooner than later. Could you imagine how long it would be if we had to wait for all that to be developed into highrises.
Click to expand...

Twenty-ish years got us the Legacy, Century, Icons, and Fox towers. And that's just 104th st.

Assuming the demand for units was consistently where it was between 2000-2015, it would take like 50-60 years for the area to be properly developed without a catalyst.

Even WITH the park there's no guarantees that the Edgars and Westrich get off the ground right away if at all. But one can assume it'll incentivize and expedite things.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top