CplKlinger
Senior Member
Sounds good! Cheers
|
|
|
- Thread starter archited
- Start date
CplKlinger
Senior Member
That's a cool idea, I like the idea of compromising so that we can get the best of both worlds: The historic aspect in the summer, and use of the ROW in the winter. It's such a good route, I truly hope that something like this can be arranged. I love the ERRS, but it still kills me to see the line dead during half of the year. And whatever comes of the High Level - whether it be a "living bridge", or being repurposed with the more minimalist proposal of a trail and linear park (the name is escaping me), having a rail connection is a very important part of it. And there's obviously few people willing to base their regular commutes around a service that's unavailable during the winter.
archited
Senior Member
In essence -- when there is a "will" there is a "way".
CplKlinger
Senior Member
Ah ok, that makes sense. I thought you were throwing shade at me, so that makes me feel better
archited
Senior Member
I would never throw shade at you. I have the utmost respect for the way you present yourself -- studied, reasoned, fair -- no hint of impassioned self-servitude. You are all As in my book!
CplKlinger
Senior Member
Someone must be cutting onions in my house... That means a great deal coming from you, I'm glad that I can contribute to discussions here in a meaningful way even though a lot of the regulars here are far more accomplished in these areas than I.
archited
Senior Member
The following are just "thought clouds".
* I could see the ERR with respect to transit corridors benefiting from a hybrid solution that engages private enterprise, ETS, and ERRS. I am a big believer in removing fares for service altogether, replacing them instead with a tri-level government grant structure, revenue from holographic & XR advertising, and subsidy taxes paid by adjacent retail and hospitality that gain benefit from the transit corridor, obviating the need for parking (for example).
* A similar kind of construct could also sustain the High Level Bridge once it has been repurposed with the added revenue streams of lease-able portions. I think there is too much emphasis placed on retaining the Bridge exactly as it was designed. Certainly the metal structure should be retained as a visible historical entity. The auto deck is not necessary if a new bridge replaces its vehicular function. The upper deck -- slightly expanded width-wise -- makes a beautiful platform for a linear park that could easily run in its current boundaries from Jasper Avenue to Whyte Avenue with provision for extension to 105th Avenue on the North Side and to the CPR roundhouse on the south side (the CPR corridor still exists South of Whyte and an extension would make economical sense once Beljan Development completes its planned for Gateway Blvd. project)
* The High Level portion of the linear park could see two mid-span Rail stops developed, allowing passengers to embark/disembark. A bike path and pedestrian trails could meander through an intensely landscaped linear garden. I would propose enclosing this portion of the park in some glass-enclosed architectonic structure -- not necessarily to heat the space but to reduce wind elements and protect against precipitation build-up in winter. From a horticultural standpoint Edmonton currently sits in a 4a zone (I say "currently" because it used to be a 3a zone but climate change and the heat-island effect have upgraded that rating to 4a with the prospect in the near term of that rating going even higher). Enclosing the space in glass without adding heating elements and by making some of the glass elements operable would allow the enclosed mini-climate to increase to approximately a 6a zone (roughly equivalent to Kamloops BC). A vast palette of ornamental shrubs and trees becomes available.
* There are two enclose-able levels below the rail deck -- 1. the transformed Auto-deck, and 2. a heretofore unenclosed structural deck that would sit atop the concrete piers of the High Level. These, too, should be enclosed in glass and air conditioned (H,V, & AC). The lower deck so-created allows for tremendously exciting possibilities with huge vertical volumes set against intermediate mezzanines. Glass-enclosed circular-form elevators could connect all four levels -- 1. the rail/linear park deck with 2. the repurposed auto deck with 3. the new base deck and 4. mezzanines. Done properly, the High Level Bridge could rival the Eiffel Tower in mid-city prominence with a much higher level of functionality -- and that before even considering the wonder and awe of a new living bridge.
* I could see the ERR with respect to transit corridors benefiting from a hybrid solution that engages private enterprise, ETS, and ERRS. I am a big believer in removing fares for service altogether, replacing them instead with a tri-level government grant structure, revenue from holographic & XR advertising, and subsidy taxes paid by adjacent retail and hospitality that gain benefit from the transit corridor, obviating the need for parking (for example).
* A similar kind of construct could also sustain the High Level Bridge once it has been repurposed with the added revenue streams of lease-able portions. I think there is too much emphasis placed on retaining the Bridge exactly as it was designed. Certainly the metal structure should be retained as a visible historical entity. The auto deck is not necessary if a new bridge replaces its vehicular function. The upper deck -- slightly expanded width-wise -- makes a beautiful platform for a linear park that could easily run in its current boundaries from Jasper Avenue to Whyte Avenue with provision for extension to 105th Avenue on the North Side and to the CPR roundhouse on the south side (the CPR corridor still exists South of Whyte and an extension would make economical sense once Beljan Development completes its planned for Gateway Blvd. project)
* The High Level portion of the linear park could see two mid-span Rail stops developed, allowing passengers to embark/disembark. A bike path and pedestrian trails could meander through an intensely landscaped linear garden. I would propose enclosing this portion of the park in some glass-enclosed architectonic structure -- not necessarily to heat the space but to reduce wind elements and protect against precipitation build-up in winter. From a horticultural standpoint Edmonton currently sits in a 4a zone (I say "currently" because it used to be a 3a zone but climate change and the heat-island effect have upgraded that rating to 4a with the prospect in the near term of that rating going even higher). Enclosing the space in glass without adding heating elements and by making some of the glass elements operable would allow the enclosed mini-climate to increase to approximately a 6a zone (roughly equivalent to Kamloops BC). A vast palette of ornamental shrubs and trees becomes available.
* There are two enclose-able levels below the rail deck -- 1. the transformed Auto-deck, and 2. a heretofore unenclosed structural deck that would sit atop the concrete piers of the High Level. These, too, should be enclosed in glass and air conditioned (H,V, & AC). The lower deck so-created allows for tremendously exciting possibilities with huge vertical volumes set against intermediate mezzanines. Glass-enclosed circular-form elevators could connect all four levels -- 1. the rail/linear park deck with 2. the repurposed auto deck with 3. the new base deck and 4. mezzanines. Done properly, the High Level Bridge could rival the Eiffel Tower in mid-city prominence with a much higher level of functionality -- and that before even considering the wonder and awe of a new living bridge.
Last edited:
CplKlinger
Senior Member
I don't know if this is accurate, but someone on Reddit gave a pretty reasonable-sounding explanation for why it was shut off for good.
"I believe the problem was that the treated water used in the waterfall was a major violation of DFO regulations about release of deleterious substances in fishbearing waters. The limit for chlorine is 2 parts per billion, while tap water is usually around 1 part per million (500 times the limit). So the only way to reactivate the system would be to use untreated water. Which would bring potential public health risks from the atomized spray for anyone on or near the bridge."
EDIT: They were right to an extent, but apparently the river water could be safe enough to use now.
Here's an article from 2012 when some people tried to get it back up and running using river water.
Here's an article from 2014 when council rejected using public money to restore it.
Give these two articles a read for more context.
Last edited:
McEdmonton
New Member
They definitely had a strong reason for closing it. I just would love to see it back in action someday, but I would understand if they couldn't make it happen.
archited
Senior Member
Easy problem to solve.
God
Active Member
Well this forum worked its magic with 102 Ave so why not this. Someone call someone and come back with good news!!! That’s what always seems to happen…
OverheardatYEG
Active Member
God
Active Member
Maybe I’m the one they call…