[archited]

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.

 

[Barnaby]

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.

 

[IanO]

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.

History tells me that his might have been a good decision.

 

[Greenspace]

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.

 

[northlands]

PCL is the construction manager on this one. Should have figured, they seem to only like legacy projects in this city.

 

[Glenco]

Well at least it will be done on time

 

[Coprolite]

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.

I was really hoping for Paul Kane Park but bigger.

 

[archited]

History tells me that his might have been a good decision.

You must be reading different history books than those that are in my collection.

 

[Out of Towner]

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.

 

[Coprolite]

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.

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.

 

[TAS]

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.

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.

 

[Out of Towner]

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?