[kcantor]

^

sorta.

although you probably could have stopped your post after "cantilevered paths are mush"...

particularly given the actual dimensions of what's shown here. these are the "world's exterior design feature of the day" in the same way as round windows in the '70's, cantilevered shadow boxes and asymetrical design elements in the '10's etc. look, we have one too!

 

[IanO]

Whoops.

It's a reasonable design approach given the constraints in some areas.

 

[kcantor]

Whoops.

It's a reasonable design approach given the constraints in some areas.

given the constraints, perhaps it's an element that then shouldn't be part of the design?

this will be just another example of edmonton's "good enough for edmonton" approach to things that i thought you hated?

if it can't be done right, don't do it and reallocate those monies to executing other pieces or elements of the project that don't have constraints on the ability to execute them properly.

 

[IanO]

I'm fine with the outlooks over the river. They are accessible, fun and will be great additions to a more complete and comprehensive plan IF they can provide other opportunities as well.

 

[kcantor]

I'm fine with the outlooks over the river. They are accessible, fun and will be great additions to a more complete and comprehensive plan IF they can provide other opportunities as well.

i'm not sure i understand... are you acknowledging with "IF they can provide other opportunities as well" that the rest of the plan doesn't provide much other than good enough for edmonton as well?

 

[TAS]

I certainly want to see a hub where people can gather, have a meal, be entertained while also exploring the river and trails.
I thought the Power Plant was going to act as that Hub and then possibly utilizing some of those adjacent buildings as well for additional venues.
Wouldn't that be enough of a draw and opportunity along with this proposed plan to create that district in Rossdale? With the gondola and the power plant being a major stop, I can't imagine there wouldn't be something profitable to develop within this space.

 

[occidentalcapital]

I think it is not so much that the cantilievered pathways are bad, it is that they seem to be a (poor) attempted substitute for actually touching the water.

 

[thommyjo]

I'm less caught up on the water touching part. Just a nice name that somewhat misrepresented the realistic goal of the project.

I'm more concerned that this is just a nice path and not an urban park, leisure, and entertainment area. This isn't creating enough sense of space, just a people mover. It's not a destination.

"Hey friends, want to go walk on the path inbetween the glenora and walterdale?" - said no one in the future.

Vs.

Look at new Yorks latest park, little island. And I know it was crazy expensive and privately funded, but it has a draw and appeal. It's a place to go, a thing to do! We can build more in that direction. Open air theaters, coffee shops, music spots, photo areas, seating, lounging. A natural park for kids with wood based climbing areas, sand and digging spots, water contraptions, learning zones. (This would be best on the west side as close to walterdale you have kinsmen obviously).

 

[archited]

^^^^ Or the 11th Street Bridge Project in D.C. by architects OMA and landscape architects olin

 

[archited]

Poor Edmonton, coming in last place again on the design front.

 

[CaptainBL]

Anyone attend the engagement session this afternoon? Curious to get others' thoughts as I found the engagement presentation and Q&A to be about as bland and uninspiring as the idea itself. To put it lightly, I needed to be sold on this idea given how meek it is and I am no closer to changing my mind.

 

[TAS]

Anyone attend the engagement session this afternoon? Curious to get others' thoughts as I found the engagement presentation and Q&A to be about as bland and uninspiring as the idea itself. To put it lightly, I needed to be sold on this idea given how meek it is and I am no closer to changing my mind.

Did you get a sense of what other people were thinking in terms of this proposal?

 

[CaptainBL]

Did you get a sense of what other people were thinking in terms of this proposal?

Unfortunately no, given that it was over Zoom and they locked out people's mics. There were the panel speakers then for Q&A viewers could submit their written questions privately and one of the panel members would read the question out to be answered. Most questions were along the lines of what are the capital costs, how have Indigenous groups been consulted, will benches have arm rests, will there be water fountains, etc. Questions that don't really hold feet to the fire on the design. But there is the second session today and an online link somewhere to provide written feedback on the design which I encourage everyone to do given how much of a missed opportunity this concept is.

 

[David A]

I think it is not so much that the cantilievered pathways are bad, it is that they seem to be a (poor) attempted substitute for actually touching the water.

Yeah , I think it misses on the touch the water part too. I think another good point is it needs to be more about destinations - places to go, things to do, than just nicer pathways.

We actually seem to have at least one perfect spot already staring at us, daring us to take it on - the old Rossdale power plant, but seem to be overwhelmed by it. How about instead of trying to redevelop it all at once, one step at a time?

 

[DutchBoy]

If you expected and value the ability to physically touch or bathe in the North Saskatchewan, I can see why you'd be disappointed in the proposal. For me, I think it is unlikely that I will ever want to have direct contact with the water, other than maybe dropping in with a boat.

If your point is that you like the proposals, but are unhappy with the project name or how it is characterized, then hopefully once it is built you can focus on the positives of having new and more accessible infrastructure than what exists presently.

I somewhat agree here. A beach or more riverfront would be nice, but our river is quite dynamic in height and flow rate. I'm ok with it as-is, but would love to see either the Victoria or Mayfair Golf Courses be turned more into a lake-like area that's more developed like in the examples @thommyjo shared (note: those are all on lake or ocean fronts somewhat protected by wave breaks). If it could connect to the river, even better! Our own version of Calgary's Prince's Park. There's honestly enough space to make a new version of Hawrelak that could let people swim in it. How are we such a massive province with so many lakes, but few are safe to enjoy actually in the water?

Someone mentioned that this project doesn't do much to enable accessibility into the river valley. I disagree - the wider lanes make a massive difference for separating slower and faster moving pedestrians/strollers/wheelchairs/bikes/rollerbladers/longboarders, which makes a huge difference for how comfortable the space is. The new ramp coming down from Ezio Farone park is a huge improvement. The current slopes down are quite steep. Granted, there's no new funicular or elevator.

Regarding actually touching the water, there is also a small spot left of the Walterdale. It's not much, but it's there. Also, in many of their concept drawings, they show people down on little sand bars in below project areas. I think that implies they expect areas of the project to enable access to those too.

I do wish the Groat area would build in a little cafe with a bigger gathering space.