[KyleBlanchett]

 

[KyleBlanchett]

 

[KyleBlanchett]

 

[KyleBlanchett]

 

[jason403]

All this stuff looks neat, but are there also plans to introduce restaurants and cafes within the development? Otherwise this just appears to be a bunch of parks and trails. Maybe in the power plant?

 

[Platinum107]

@jason403 I agree, that's a feedback I would give in the Engaged Edmonton site, when I get around to doing it all these trail improvements are nice, but other draws to the river valley besides the beautiful nature wood be great to keep foot traffic up. I like what they did with Culina on the Lake in Hawrelak Park, now let's just build a few more of these sprinkled all throughout the north shore and make them not just on-the-weekend places, K?

Edit: Gave my feedback. Here's what I submitted under the name Luka Z.:

"I like the Threads concept because, if smart connectivity (wider and separated-by-use trails) and smart landscape design is done, what is essentially being made is a massive linear park stretching from Glenora to Rossdale. If, in the detailed design, aspects like public art, use of interesting materials in creating lookouts (like recycled metals, wood, plastics, etc.), thoughtful planting to maintain "year-round colour", and creative path design is undertaken (paving stones for the pedestrian walkway, winding cycling path, stairs down to the river bank etc.), then the true potential of this concept can be realized.

For my critiques, the city really has to consult with the public on what the vision for river valley road will be in relation to this project. At the moment, the road stands in a state of limbo between a slow-moving pedestrian-friendly road and a fast-moving thoroughfare separated from the pedestrian network. Having aspects of both mixed in with each other will create a complicated an unsafe environment for both pedestrians and vehicle users, and one direction needs to be clearly chosen (Threads leans more towards the latter with elevated pedestrian crossings and landscaping further separating the trails from the road).

Along with the improvements already proposed in the project, spaces for cafes and other small food options should be incorporated into the project. While I can appreciate the argument for preserving all of the pure natural beauty here, I would suggest for people who are concerned to understand that this is the most central part of our river valley and therefore it usually receives the highest amount of foot traffic compared to other areas, therefore further developing it (in balance with the surrounding environment) is important to keep the hub of our city-wide trial network vibrant and vital. it would suggest incorporating physical spaces for local companies to set of shop and place tables during at least the warmer months (maybe even through the winter if it's viable) and also building spaces for food trucks to park by the trail. Includes building bike racks and places for people to sit and rest. This, along with the existing beauty of the valley, will add a major incentive for people to utilize the trail here and solidify the economic case to make this project the best it can be.

My final advice: Don't cheap out here. I hope the planners and designers of this project understand the immense potential this has to improve the river valley and Edmonton as a whole.

Thanks for reading "

 

[thommyjo]

I wish we treated our river like other cities do their waterfronts. Where it's seen more as a place for leisure, tourism, and development. I'm all for protecting the natural beauty, but with the size of our river valley, I don't get why we can't develop some of it (thoughtfully of course!).

So few of my friends actually engage with the river valley outside of biking as kids or running as adults. And that usually doesn't include the water at all.

I'm not calling for towers on the water's edge, but man I'd love to have more "developed" parks, cafes, restaurants, etc. Seems like that would help more people engage with the beauty of the whole valley.

Here's some favourite developments from other water edges I love:

 

[DutchBoy]

One key difference between our river valley and other cities’ waterfronts is that we are prone to floods. I don’t think that’s an excuse to not actually “touch the water”, but could explain some of city engineers’ and planners’ thinking.

Personally, I like Threads but with Gateway’s plan for the Groat area. More ideally, the golf course and the road there can go – it doesn’t seem very high traffic relative to Edmonton’s other roads.

 

[Foolworm]

One key difference between our river valley and other cities’ waterfronts is that we are prone to floods. I don’t think that’s an excuse to not actually “touch the water”, but could explain some of city engineers’ and planners’ thinking.

You mean the opposite right?

 

[thommyjo]

Has the section they are looking at ever flooded? (I know some other sections have before though) I'm pretty young, but don't think I've ever heard of that. The river does rise and fall a lot, but not much more than tides for coastal cities. I'd imagine they could create the "right on the edge" infrastructure to be adaptable. But would anything over the bank really be at risk? Like river valley road towards groat, has that ever flooded?

 

[IanO]

I would worry about ice jams/buildups more than flooding in most areas.

See Edmonton Queen.

 

[cliffapotamus]

Has the section they are looking at ever flooded? (I know some other sections have before though) I'm pretty young, but don't think I've ever heard of that. The river does rise and fall a lot, but not much more than tides for coastal cities. I'd imagine they could create the "right on the edge" infrastructure to be adaptable. But would anything over the bank really be at risk? Like river valley road towards groat, has that ever flooded?

the river rose from 3.5m to 8m over the course of a few days this year, around May Long weekend. (for perspective, Calgary's disastrous 1-100 year flood in 2013 was smaller than this) shifts of several feet in a couple days is common throughout the year.
we don't have floods damaging property often entirely because we have avoided devloping in the lower river flats for a century. (ie 1915 flood and subsequent emptying out of walterdale) the most recent major flood was in 1986, which almost reached the same level as 1915. these floods were 25'-30' feet higher than normal water levels, you can see them marked on the Walterdale Bridge abutments. More recently, the path along the river in Government House Park flooded over in 2013, and almost did so again this year. that's twice in less than a decade that a path normally about 15' above the water has flooded. the Louise Mickinney Seawall thingamajig was almost underwater this year as well, only a couple feet above the water at times. lower trails in Emily Murphy Park and Hawrelak had to close this summer too, although these are just gravel right now, so they don't get much attention when they close. as for River Valley Road, it's actually really high off the river, as high as Rossdale. so it probably isn't much of a risk, but anything actually trying to touch the water is gonna involve a loooot of stairs and ramps (there's some trails that do this, connecting to seasonal islands. it's surprising how much of a hill there is there)
We actually get close to flooding a lot, and the river water and ice are constantly damaging things. we don't see that now because the valley has been left mostly natural, and anything permanent is kept well out of the way of the water.
As lovely as some of the proposals look, they would probably end up underwater at some point. or be much to high to actually 'touch the water' in normal times. I love the Walterdale Bridge Beach, and perhaps some more developed paths in areas of the valley that are already heavily developed; but I'd say anything closer than about 15' from the river is a liability. and do we really need cement steps and patios and swathes of pavement everywhere in the valley? maybe this is just a special little feature for Rossdale.

 

[DutchBoy]

You mean the opposite right?

I‘m not sure what you mean. I stand by my original statement.

Regarding river floodIng, projects like the Groat creek restoration have a small individual potential to mitigate flooding too! Flood prevention isn’t only about building barriers or moving houses. Creating “room for the river”, like the Dutch have done recently, is a great example of working with nature. There’s definitely AB relevance too des (e.g. https://albertawater.com/how-is-water-governed/what-is-room-for-the-river).

I’m not a water engineer, so take this with a grain of salt, but the City of Edmonton’s flood impact map shows that Whitemud and Mill Creek ravines will rise quite significantly, acting as a buffer to store water. https://data.edmonton.ca/stories/s/City-Wide-Flood-Mitigation-Strategy/suej-ppxq/

 

[cliffapotamus]

Was in the Valley again today, thought i'd share what it looks like right now, I know not everyone can make it down there frequently. These photos are from about an hour ago. This is the ice buildup along the riverbank directly beneath U of A. this is the low dip at the east end of the path along the edge, right where the path swerves to meet the river directly. normally this spot in the summer is about 4'-6' above the water.
The river ice was collecting at this point a bit, it extended for another couple hundred feet before falling away from the path entirely; but all along the path you could see trees either loosing branches or being dragged in their entirety by the water.
Anyways, here's a couple photos, just showing what the water movement looks like right now.

 

[Kaizen]

That's amazing, the ice is up that high. I have never been at that section of the path before. Those pics inspire me to go check it out soon while the weather is so good and the ice shares the SUP