Greenspace
Senior Member
^City Council and Downtown orgs have been very supportive of seeing development here as soon as possible.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
David A
Senior Member
There is almost a whole block of empty lots there, sorry parking lots. The easiest thing to do would be to develop something on them, but perhaps tearing down the only remaining building on the block that actually adds a little bit of life to the area is the Edmonton way ... and yet we wonder how our downtown has got to its current state.
IanO
Senior Member
|
|
|
CplKlinger
Senior Member
archited
Senior Member
@CplKlinger I have several thoughts and some fall on the negative side of the ledger. First the positive -- gh3 is an extremely capable firm and they have already made a significant impact on the City of Edmonton with built work, particularly in Borden Park where they have won awards for both the Natural Swimming Pool and for the Pavilion building and the creative design for park restrooms (recently re-emerged with @Kaizen's re-posting of those two projects). The park project has a nice scale to it and replacing surface parking is always a plus. Another positive is the book-ending of the Park by significant building projects which will "help" with monitoring use of the Park by people (eyes on the street). I like that 107th street will be terminated at the Park boundaries (I hope that there is no left-over sentiment about making it an unnecessary transit corridor and I hope that it will be fully incorporated into the park). "The Parks" project (Hariri Pontarini Architects -- again a very skilled group with the Ice District's Marriott Hotel tower to their credit) will be a significant two-tower structure on the west end of the project and "The Shift" (MCM Partners, Architects out of Vancouver) plus the as-yet-un-named tower designed by Arc Studios (the Edmonton firm after-group left when Brad Kennedy died a few years back) will provide three towers on the east end of the project. What would have been useful to the Warehouse District Park would have been discussions with the three architectural groups aligned with these projects brought in to discuss ways of connecting these projects in a more definitive way to the Park itself (a blurring of borders if you like).
The opportunities that are almost certain to have been missed will be the potential for sub-surface park development that could have included a world class aquarium -- see https://www.aquaticbiosphere.ca/ (as important to the fulfillment of the promise of downtown as the Ice District), perhaps an in-Park eatery of two, and monitored restrooms and administration functions.
On the surface level I am reading over and over again the "need" for a large open space -- here I tend to think "Plaza", grass or no grass. I then look at the work of the landscape firm brought on as consultants -- Claude Cormier + Associés and they have nothing to their credit in their work except ornamental arrangement of trees and water ponds around paved footpaths, project after project.
What I am sensing as an end result -- and I hope with every fiber of my being that I am wrong here -- is a directive from Edmonton City Planning to create an open-area Park in the downtown that (minus the river) will end up looking ever so much like their "touch the water" design failure. They should have learned from their Kinistinâw Park, another failure that had barely opened when 3 people were found dead there from drug overdoses.
This City Centre Park should be vibrant with activity (and I don't mean people tossing frisbees about or playing "catch" with baseballs and footballs -- there are way too many places in Edmonton to do that if one is so inclined) -- it should have court games, children play areas, BBQ areas, etc. -- all of this broken up with paths, viewing stands and ornamental gardens.
The other thing that is totally off-base is the need for public consultation. The "public" are not designers and they should not be consulted as such -- this is more of a "cover-your-ass" concept that Planners have perfected to a fine art (e.g. "well 63.5% of the people liked the scheme so it must be good" -- garbage!!! -- leads to mindless pap that neither challenges the imagination nor serves the City well).
It is very difficult to prognosticate results in advance of a presented scheme -- my thoughts are only derived from what seems to be coming.
The opportunities that are almost certain to have been missed will be the potential for sub-surface park development that could have included a world class aquarium -- see https://www.aquaticbiosphere.ca/ (as important to the fulfillment of the promise of downtown as the Ice District), perhaps an in-Park eatery of two, and monitored restrooms and administration functions.
On the surface level I am reading over and over again the "need" for a large open space -- here I tend to think "Plaza", grass or no grass. I then look at the work of the landscape firm brought on as consultants -- Claude Cormier + Associés and they have nothing to their credit in their work except ornamental arrangement of trees and water ponds around paved footpaths, project after project.
What I am sensing as an end result -- and I hope with every fiber of my being that I am wrong here -- is a directive from Edmonton City Planning to create an open-area Park in the downtown that (minus the river) will end up looking ever so much like their "touch the water" design failure. They should have learned from their Kinistinâw Park, another failure that had barely opened when 3 people were found dead there from drug overdoses.
This City Centre Park should be vibrant with activity (and I don't mean people tossing frisbees about or playing "catch" with baseballs and footballs -- there are way too many places in Edmonton to do that if one is so inclined) -- it should have court games, children play areas, BBQ areas, etc. -- all of this broken up with paths, viewing stands and ornamental gardens.
The other thing that is totally off-base is the need for public consultation. The "public" are not designers and they should not be consulted as such -- this is more of a "cover-your-ass" concept that Planners have perfected to a fine art (e.g. "well 63.5% of the people liked the scheme so it must be good" -- garbage!!! -- leads to mindless pap that neither challenges the imagination nor serves the City well).
It is very difficult to prognosticate results in advance of a presented scheme -- my thoughts are only derived from what seems to be coming.
archited
Senior Member
Oh, and the end results are going to get sold to Edmontonians by way of beautifully manicured renderings that are next to meaningless in terms of concept viability.
BASE
Active Member
My biggest concern is the lack of mention for sport and activity. The wording uses keywords like "reflect" "explore" "celebrate" "socialize". Maybe reading into it too much but I think courts of some sort for things like basketball, futsal, pickleball are absolute must haves for this park in my opinion.
archited
Senior Member
@BASE you have absolutely picked up on the catchwords of Planners "in-the-know" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) and you are 100% right that this Park should have the sports courts that you mention. This Park should be loaded with activities that reach all ages and genres from Toddler to Senior, from single to married, from actives to passives, and from morning 'til well into the evening. There should be a loud roar of disapproval from all voices Edmontonian if this Park misses the mark. Is this going to be another "needle Park" or a Park that is needed? We'll have to wait and see. Otherwise, I will fill my pen with the blackest of ink and lend some strongly pointed critiques by way of the Edmonton Journal vehicle.
Stevey_G
Active Member
That’s a bit subjective. Personally I’m hoping for a large water feature, trees, and open spaces to hang out, kids run around, and chill. Log jamming a green space can make a park feel fractured and discontinuous.
I definitely want to see a playground, convertible green space to a rink, wall murals outlining the past businesses that stood where the park is, maybe an amphitheatre, etc.
We should also maintain access to a small portion of 107th st to operate as parking for food trucks.
David A
Senior Member
I am impressed by all the thorough and thoughtful comments here. If the city wants good public consultation, well it is right here!
There is a some cynicism here, but I would like to be cautiously optimistic and hope the city maybe has learned something from past attempts that have not been stellar. This could be a real showcase because of its prime location.
While there is a long wish list of what people here want in this park, I think one fairly strong message here is it should have active recreational components as well and certainly much more than just nice landscaping and grass.
I get how this vision really makes sense. With all the towers to be developed nearby, it can serve as great outdoor space that people living in the area need and use. We really do not want a pleasant, but big sterile empty space.
Given how parking in the area is already limited and will be reduced by the closure of 107 St and the LRT line, I think some sub surface parking makes sense and lets not forget about that aquarium, public washrooms and places for eateries and food trucks to draw people here throughout much the year.
There will probably be no other large central parcel like this available again, so really we only have this chance to get it right.
There is a some cynicism here, but I would like to be cautiously optimistic and hope the city maybe has learned something from past attempts that have not been stellar. This could be a real showcase because of its prime location.
While there is a long wish list of what people here want in this park, I think one fairly strong message here is it should have active recreational components as well and certainly much more than just nice landscaping and grass.
I get how this vision really makes sense. With all the towers to be developed nearby, it can serve as great outdoor space that people living in the area need and use. We really do not want a pleasant, but big sterile empty space.
Given how parking in the area is already limited and will be reduced by the closure of 107 St and the LRT line, I think some sub surface parking makes sense and lets not forget about that aquarium, public washrooms and places for eateries and food trucks to draw people here throughout much the year.
There will probably be no other large central parcel like this available again, so really we only have this chance to get it right.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Why would we want an aquarium? Especially with the shift away from larger mammals (a very good thing) they are pretty boring touristy or 1 time visit things. Id think pickle ball, basketball, and a sweet Cafe would do better to activate the space.
TAS
Senior Member
Did I actually read above that parking in downtown Edmonton, in any area of downtown Edmonton, is limited?
Definitely active options like the courts mentioned above + playground. I've seen some great water fountains, but I wonder if a spray area for kids would be a better activator/draw of people. But I guess we do have city hall and leg for that.
I am not a fan of allocating space for parking based on ample parking nearby within a few block radius. But that's coming from a guy who believes we need to remove curbside parking space from some of our streets throughout Edmonton moving forward with a focus on better active and public transportation options.
We need to get strategic about reducing dependency and frequency of use of individual vehicles in our city.
Definitely active options like the courts mentioned above + playground. I've seen some great water fountains, but I wonder if a spray area for kids would be a better activator/draw of people. But I guess we do have city hall and leg for that.
I am not a fan of allocating space for parking based on ample parking nearby within a few block radius. But that's coming from a guy who believes we need to remove curbside parking space from some of our streets throughout Edmonton moving forward with a focus on better active and public transportation options.
We need to get strategic about reducing dependency and frequency of use of individual vehicles in our city.
MacLac
Senior Member
Fancy park…..do most of our city parks have “architects, and engineers” involved? Guess it has to withstand constant onslaughts of homeless, vandals, vagrants, protestors, rioters and overall ne’er-do-wellers
IanO
Senior Member
Typically Landscape Architects (L.A.s) and often Alberta Association of Architects (AAA) or Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) are involved, but for most urban Neighbourhood Parks (NPs) or District Parks (DPs) they are relatively straightforward versus this complex beast.
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
Showpiece parks can be nice but here we need to have spaces that will allow guests of the park do more than just walk around.