News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

Would you support the River Valley becoming an Urban National Park?


  • Total voters
    44
With all due respect to golfers, there should be 1 publicly owned course in the central city, either Victoria or Riverside. That's it. Having four and two exclusive clubs is too much and is such an inefficient use of land that could serve various different and better purposes. Here's a few I can think of off the top of my head:

Expanded Parks: Parks don't generate direct revenue, sure, but there are plenty of knock-on benefits from having more capacity for people to meet in nature in a growing and densifying city.
Nature Reserves: One direction, you could create refuges and preserve wildlife and ecosystems in the river valley
Development: In the other direction, in a city-centre course (such as Victoria) a waterfront area with promenades, mixed-use (but ecologically conscious) development, and potentially a new funicular could be made to create an area which many people can access and experience.
 
I propose that the public golf courses in both Victoria and Riverside be closed and repurpose them into parks with multiple uses (pickle ball, basketball courts, skateboarding, off-leash dog parks, cycling, skating, beaches, promenades, food trucks, events, etc). The cricket pitch in Victoria needs to stay, and expanded if possible. This can be done before the feds take over the parks, and they can be responsible for maintenance and such.
 
The problem isn't with golf itself necessarily. But with the disproportionately large amount of land and resources dedicated to maintaining it on prime urban land. Especially when it is such an exclusive sporting option. As @northlands says there are plenty of golf courses in the Edmonton Area. Dedicating so much of what many people consider to be Edmonton's greatest civic treasure (The River Valley) to this one sport for only a small, wealthy subset of the population is a travesty.
 
Many would comment that these relatively low-cost, publicly accessible courses actually are supporting inclusivity, physical fitness, social gathering, allowing more to try out a global sport and that Edmonton is one of the few cities where this is possible.

But I get the counterargument here given their demand for water, land and perceived or real barriers of entry.

Curious to see how these lands evolve over the next 25 years.
 
Many would comment that these relatively low-cost, publicly accessible courses actually are supporting inclusivity, physical fitness, social gathering, allowing more to try out a global sport and that Edmonton is one of the few cities where this is possible.
This is why I'd be in favour of having one of them stay. Preferably, the one which is currently the most under-utilized, and that sits on the least impactful area (from a public realm perspective).

To be honest, my big beef is with the private ones, but this is a lost battle, unfortunately.
 
This is why I'd be in favour of having one of them stay. Preferably, the one which is currently the most under-utilized, and that sits on the least impactful area (from a public realm perspective).

To be honest, my big beef is with the private ones, but this is a lost battle, unfortunately.
An insane man would say that you could turn Riverside into Hawrelak Park v2 without a ton of work but I honestly don't know if RVA would even go for that given you'd probably have to move/remove a few trees and bring in some pavement...
 
Couldn't find the thread, But it looks like the Provincial Gov had tabled legislation that Edmonton cannot enter into negotiations to create an Urban National Park.
This should probably all be moved to the proper thread, but for the purposes of keeping the discussion here for now, a private members bill was proposed by Brandon Lunty of Leduc. Basically just more stupid victim-complex bs from the clowns in government. Per his address:

The primary purpose of this legislation is to minimize the influence and unnecessary overreach from the federal government in provincial matters in relation to our precious green spaces and river valleys. Specifically, this legislation seeks to protect the role of the province in any interaction between an Alberta municipal council and the federal government regarding any proposed development of a national urban park in Alberta
The proposed bill seeks to amend the Municipal Government Actunder division 8, limits on municipal powers, section 70, disposal of land, and would give cabinet the ability to create new regulations that would outline specific requirements before municipalities and the federal government could create a national urban park inAlberta
Albertans elected our United Conservative government with a majority mandate to, among other things, protect Albertans from federal overreach and intrusion. That’s exactly what this bill setsout to accomplish. Simply put, the federal government should not engage directly with municipal councils without an appropriate level of engagement and awareness by the provincial government when it comes to matters under provincial jurisdiction.

I know it's alot to ask the UCP to think with their heads, and I know cities are entirely a creation of the Province's jurisdiction, but I fail to see the argument. A city, which wholly owns the land in question, is talking to the federal government about turning said land around a federal waterway into a federal park. What role would Alberta have to play in the discussions? And why now of all moments? This has been discussed for what, the last three years? Just utterly desperate.


The whole thing can be found here:
 
Last edited:
I don't see this necessarily as being the death of a national urban park, but rather that the province wants to lay out conditions to what an agreement would potentially look like. Sure they could just say it's not possible at all, but the conditions could be as simple as retaining land ownership and operational decisions etc etc.

If passed and the conditions are severely limiting, I could see this going to the Supreme Court. They're doing basically what the Province accuses the Feds of doing with other legislation.
 
If passed and the conditions are severely limiting, I could see this going to the Supreme Court. They're doing basically what the Province accuses the Feds of doing with other legislation.
Can Albertan municipalities table legislation that protects them against provincial government overreach?
 
Can Albertan municipalities table legislation that protects them against provincial government overreach?

Hah! No. Municipalities exist at the pleasure of the Province; if they tried a stunt like that they could be fired en masse.

 

Back
Top