JuliallThat
Active Member
I really love that bridge concept, I hope it doesn't get too value-engineered in the distant future. It's cool as heck!
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
_urbanite
Senior Member
Back on topic... the new design for the "Touch The Water Promenade" is such a let down.
You did warn us @archited this was going to disappoint.
The only part I like this the path going through the pump house, however what will that pump house actually be used for? Looks like it's just an enclosed space with a viewing platform. 100% it will be tagged up in graffiti in no time if this is the case. It should be used as restaurant/cafe space.
Very disappointing. No one wanted this. Administration definitely dropped the ball on this again
You did warn us @archited this was going to disappoint.
The only part I like this the path going through the pump house, however what will that pump house actually be used for? Looks like it's just an enclosed space with a viewing platform. 100% it will be tagged up in graffiti in no time if this is the case. It should be used as restaurant/cafe space.
Very disappointing. No one wanted this. Administration definitely dropped the ball on this again
davcocom
Active Member
why do you think this happens? is it mainly budgeting issues or just bad taste / lack of vision? a combo of both?
David A
Senior Member
As usual the city administration is missing the big picture here. The old power plant area is the perfect site to develop with more amenities to draw in people (think Eau Claire in Calgary or Granville Island in Vancouver for an idea of what it could be).
If you don't want to spend a lot of money on the old building initially, start first with something new, smaller on the adjacent already paved area to the west - something like a restaurant, coffee shop, gift shop, washroom facility combo would fit in easily.
It would both draw people in and give them something to do once they were there. The facilities could be owned by the city and rented out (source of revenue to fund the rehabilitation the larger building in stages).
I suspect this could be done for less than the cost proposed for touch the water, although it would be good to have more access to the water, what is proposed manages oddly to be both excessive and unsatisfying.
If you don't want to spend a lot of money on the old building initially, start first with something new, smaller on the adjacent already paved area to the west - something like a restaurant, coffee shop, gift shop, washroom facility combo would fit in easily.
It would both draw people in and give them something to do once they were there. The facilities could be owned by the city and rented out (source of revenue to fund the rehabilitation the larger building in stages).
I suspect this could be done for less than the cost proposed for touch the water, although it would be good to have more access to the water, what is proposed manages oddly to be both excessive and unsatisfying.
JuliallThat
Active Member
There seems to be this deep fear of developing anything more than trails and paths near the river - whenever the topic comes up on a public forum a huge portion of people are livid at the idea of building anything in around or near the river.
So naturally the team developing the touch the river project, receiving all this feedback, is reeling away from committing to anything significant.
It really is a shame, a project like this needs true visionaries, and they need to look beyond the fearmongering. One project like this doesn't mean the whole valley will be developed, we all know that, but the fear persists and many act like it's a slippery slope to losing all of our parkland.
So naturally the team developing the touch the river project, receiving all this feedback, is reeling away from committing to anything significant.
It really is a shame, a project like this needs true visionaries, and they need to look beyond the fearmongering. One project like this doesn't mean the whole valley will be developed, we all know that, but the fear persists and many act like it's a slippery slope to losing all of our parkland.
David A
Senior Member
That is a good point. For the most part, I also agree with not building new things in the river valley, however the power plant site is not a natural area. I actually think many people would be ok with something here as long as it does not encroach into natural areas.
On a related note, I recently went by the Royal Glenora and notice they are completing their expansion, which I believe is on their existing site and did not encroach into natural areas. I don't think it generated much opposition.
On a related note, I recently went by the Royal Glenora and notice they are completing their expansion, which I believe is on their existing site and did not encroach into natural areas. I don't think it generated much opposition.
TAS
Senior Member
Not sure we need a new building, but maybe.
This area (but on east side of the Plant) will be the primary stop for the Gondola where something new will already be built featuring some of the things mentioned above including public washrooms.
This gondola hub plus developing the power plant and the other two existing buildings is my preference at this point.
_urbanite
Senior Member
Both.
I think city planners put forward 2 options that both underwhelmed the masses, so in order to try and save face, they amended one of their uninspiring options in the name of "public input" (which gets them off the hook I guess) to try and please as many people as possible, which inevitably (as usually is the case) ended up pleasing nobody. The budget also isn't big enough to really hit this one out of the park, so we're probably stuck with something close to the new renderings, or nothing at all. I'm thinking the latter might actually be the best way to go at this point. We only get one chance to get this right, so why not pause, rethink this, and start over? Also, it does seem like no consideration is being given whatsoever to how this will interact with a possible Prarie Sky Gondola station. Perhaps another reason to pause this until we have more clarity on if that's going ahead or not.
BASE
Active Member
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
Are you trying to say our touch the water should actually touch the water? That makes no sense
, why have water access for a project that claims to have water access, isn't the name good enough? 
Most coastal cities do; something called a beach.
JuliallThat
Active Member
Water touching the city? Sounds like a beach to maintain, we better not.
itom987
Active Member
9 CITIES MAKING POLLUTED WATERWAYS INTO SWIMMING HOTSPOTS
Some of the world’s busiest and largest cities have long had a water problem. Historically a lifeline for trade, production, and travel, city rivers have also suffered from devastating pollution.However, cities around the world are now working to make once-polluted rivers safe for swimming. That might seem shocking to urbanites who grew up seeing—and smelling—everything from raw sewage to trash in the waterways, but it’s no longer a pie-in-the-sky future plan. It’s actually happening.
Continue reading the article over here:
https://thecharles.org/uncategorized/9-cities-making-polluted-waterways-into-swimming-hotspots/
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/56035395/shutterstock_680234458.0.jpg)
Avenuer
Senior Member
^Cool to see but none of those cities experience a harsh winter like us, which really shortens the usabilit of our river for a potential swimming facility. I wish we would've moved on that Hawrelak Park swimming beach project a few years back though.