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

I would still like to hear the rationale behind canceling the design competition. Talking about community outreach in my mind is simply "ass covering" on the part of City Administration (and specifically Planning input) for a concept that is wholly unimaginative.
 
The lack of a coffee shop is probably not a big deal.

Since the park is designed to have activated back alleys, you'll probably see park facing restaurants/cafe(s) spring up as developments surround the park. This would be a much harder thing to anticipate if the area surrounding the park wasn't a barren wasteland in Edmonton's downtown :)

Maybe we can even convince a developer to build a fountain.
 
archited said:
I would still like to hear the rationale behind canceling the design competition. Talking about community outreach in my mind is simply "ass covering" on the part of City Administration (and specifically Planning input) for a concept that is wholly unimaginative.
Click to expand...

History tells me that his might have been a good decision.
 
Also Claude Cormier is one of the most talented Landscape Architects in Canada. While the City very much probably watered it down, they were clear from the begining what the expectations were for through the RFP process -- mostly greenspace with canopy trees, large open space, some amenities for area residents. It is a community park, not a district park.

That and this is likely Cormier's last project, since he passed away last year.
 
PCL is the construction manager on this one. Should have figured, they seem to only like legacy projects in this city.

IMG_6570.jpeg
 
Out of Towner said:
Warehouse Park is a legacy project for the City Of Edmonton and it's astonishing that a water feature has been deleted. Any legacy park worth its salt has a water feature. Evidently though, the Warehouse Park team capitulated to the interests of the City maintenance team and the Downtown Community League. The additional work load of maintaining a water feature was too much for the maintenance department, a bridge too far for them, and the Downtown Community League needed their programming space in the pavilion. No other location for programming was suitable for them. It's very unfortunate that City Council and its Warehouse Park team couldn't get a water feature over the finish line. City residents in 25, 50, 100 years from now will want to know who dropped the ball and how.
Click to expand...
I was really hoping for Paul Kane Park but bigger.
 
The absence of a fountain at Warehouse Park will be like going to a camp ground only to discover that the camp ground has no fire pit. The park will have no central attraction where visitors can relax on a warm afternoon and do nothing. No listening to splashing water, no feeding the birds that come around. Nope. This is about sports and programming. Considering all the city funding that has been dedicated to bike lanes and biking trails for young able bodied citizens, it disappointing that one fountain that elderly people could enjoy in the new park is too much for city officials to support and advance funding for.
 
Out of Towner said:
The absence of a fountain at Warehouse Park will be like going to a camp ground only to discover that the camp ground has no fire pit. The park will have no central attraction where visitors can relax on a warm afternoon and do nothing. No listening to splashing water, no feeding the birds that come around. Nope. This is about sports and programming. Considering all the city funding that has been dedicated to bike lanes and biking trails for young able bodied citizens, it disappointing that one fountain that elderly people could enjoy in the new park is too much for city officials to support and advance funding for.
Click to expand...
I've seen a lot more elderly folks bicycling ever since we got a proper bike grid to connect the gaps in the MUP network, and a water feature would also be nice for those of us who undertake modest levels of exercise as we get around (these things are actually really for those who aren't athletes because the lycra bros were always fine riding in the street). These are things which would compliment each other, not contradict.
 
Last edited:
Coprolite said:
I've seen a lot more elderly folks bicycling ever since we got a proper bike grid to connect the gaps in the MUP network, and a water feature would also be nice for those of us who undertake modest levels of exercise as we get around. These are things which would compliment each other, not contradict.
Click to expand...
Well said. Most of our active transportation infrastructure is shared use (walking and cycling) and given that walking is the #1 type of physical activity for people to practice wellness, especially for older adults, money spent in this area is invaluable in creating a more liveable and healthy city. It's also proving to be an important type of infrastructure (protected cycle lanes, too) for people who get around on mobility devices - specifically in terms of their wellness and independence.
I'm glad this park, as all parks should, will have good connections to it via active transportation.
 
Connectivity to the park should not be a problem as the City reportedly may spend up to $170M on bicycle lanes by 2026. So $170M for bicycle lanes by 2026 but one fountain in a legacy park is too much for the City to handle. How and who allowed this to happen?
 
Out of Towner said:
Connectivity to the park should not be a problem as the City reportedly may spend up to $170M on bicycle lanes by 2026. So $170M for bicycle lanes by 2026 but one fountain in a legacy park is too much for the City to handle. How and who allowed this to happen?
Click to expand...
bike lanes are great.
 
positive1 said:
If someone had asked me two weeks ago to write out a list of all the things downtown would benefit from, I'm not sure how long it would take me to think of a fountain. Would be fairly far down the list. One of those water parks that you see in children's playgrounds though, that would be cool.
Click to expand...
Sure, that's valid. But when the park is built and we're sitting in it enjoying a summer day, it will probably be near the top of the list of the things the park could benefit from. It's just another stupid unforced error by the city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top