[TAS]

However this park turns out, and I hope it's good, we're already on the list of the 15 most impressive parks in the world - and in some good company.

The 15 Most Impressive City Parks In The World

From the small to the large, garden filled to recreational, here are 15 of the most impressive city parks in the world.

www.google.com

Balboa Park, San Diego
Central Park, New York
Forest Park, St. Louis
Hong Kong Park, Hong Kong
Hyde Park, London
Ibirapuera Park, Sao Paulo
Kings Park, Perth
Lincoln Park, Chicago
Lumpini Park, Bangkok
Luxembourg Garden, Paris
River Valley, Edmonton
Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria, Melbourne
Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Mumbai
Stanley Park, Vancouver
Yoyogi Park, Tokyo

River Valley Park in Edmonton is the largest urban park in Canada. It is situated along the edge of the North Saskatchewan River, and contains a large expanse of river front and green space. The park is popular for various outdoor activities, and has 160 kilometers of pathways for walking, jogging, cycling or mountain biking. Additionally, visitors can canoe in the river, or enjoy snowshoeing and cross-country skiing in the winter months.Attractions in the park include the historical Fort Edmonton Park, the Edmonton Valley Zoo which is home to over 300 animals, the Muttart Conservatory, and the John Janzen Nature Centre.

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Not meaning to laugh but that dysfunction sounds very much like a video I just came across I’m sure you’ll appreciate:

Honestly if that is the case in Edmonton, perhaps a more passive form of public engagement would be valuable. Maybe sending out mail to surrounding residences showing where they can show their support and commentary online. Doing things this way would ensure an equal decibel level for each opinion and you might get a better scatter of information.

Oh can we have a public forum meeting please. I always find it so entertaining. The opinions of so many that barely have a clue what is actually being discussed are fun to hear. Then those who are convinced that the city is going to hell in a hand basket and the development of topic is how we are getting there. Also love comments " Someone said..." or "it said somewhere that...and I will suffer because of"

Personally I want to hear from the property owner of the lot on the northeast corner of Jasper and 107. Last time I heard his arguments was at a forum discussing Valley Line and the possible central circulator line that could have gone by his property. He kept on insisting he was ready to build and that would negatively affect his building for some reason. I'd love to hear his opinion on the park idea in general, is this good for his would be building or a bad thing?

 

[archited]

Too difficult to watch -- it brings back the nightmares of past experiences. Here is the question -- when has any public engagement in Edmonton ever made a positive outcome on any project -- EVER!!? Every project that I have ever witnessed where the outcome had even a modicum of public engagement has led to ho-hum solutions, watered down to the point of visual boredom and way off the mark in terms of functionality. Mostly it just gives cover for Planners as they march along the route to mediocrity -- "well, that's what the public wanted!" they say or maybe "the budget didn't allow for anything more" -- that last comment is truly rich with economic upside-down-ism -- most capital projects that get watered down from a budget perspective end up costing way more (by a factor of 3 to 4 X) in terms of Maintenance budgets set in place to provide upkeep for the weaker solutions. In the extreme -- why have design professionals engaged in a civic project at all -- just let the public design it (I think we all know how that will turn out).

 

[Stevey_G]

Again, the Downtown Community League will need to make their needs for the park known (i.e. basketball courts, playgrounds, etc.) through the planned public engagement, otherwise the landscape architects will just be guessing what the community wants.

Why don't they actively reach out by mail out pamphlets showing people where to direct their comments to online? I think they would receive a more cohesive idea of what the community wants in general than they would from a special interest group of passionate community members. I say this with respect to DECL.

 

[Stevey_G]

Too difficult to watch -- it brings back the nightmares of past experiences. Here is the question -- when has any public engagement in Edmonton ever made a positive outcome on any project -- EVER!!? Every project that I have ever witnessed where the outcome had even a modicum of public engagement has led to ho-hum solutions, watered down to the point of visual boredom and way off the mark in terms of functionality. Mostly it just gives cover for Planners as they march along the route to mediocrity -- "well, that's what the public wanted!" they say or maybe "the budget didn't allow for anything more" -- that last comment is truly rich with economic upside-down-ism -- most capital projects that get watered down from a budget perspective end up costing way more (by a factor of 3 to 4 X) in terms of Maintenance budgets set in place to provide upkeep for the weaker solutions. In the extreme -- why have design professionals engaged in a civic project at all -- just let the public design it (I think we all know how that will turn out).

Ice District didn't go ahead without one of the biggest efforts in public consultation that I've seen with 30,000 citizens giving their opinions on what the proposal lacked and what people approved of. And if you want to focus specifically on parks design and architecture, there's way more examples of successfully integrated park spaces in the urban fabric of which almost all had consultation than non-successful. Do you think re-imagining Louis Mckinney happened in a vacuum for example?

At the end of the day, it's not like the public is holding a gun to the city's head and forcing suggestions upon the designers. As a former planning and design tech, I always felt it was nice to consult with contractors, in-house experts, and people moving into the communities on what their needs were for the infrastructure I built so that I didn't over build in some places and underbuild in others. The planning role is basically at the centre of a million different opinions, taking in that knowledge, disseminating what is important and what is not, is probably the most IMPORTANT skill of being a successful planner. Discarding information based off one's own biases or ego however, is a recipe for errors and omissions.

 

[IanO]

This soon to be new park for Downtown Vancouver is a really good example of poor execution based on over consultation and trying to be everything to everyone.

sθәqәlxenәm ts'exwts'áxwi7

We’ve opened Rainbow Park in the downtown core at Smithe and Richards streets.

vancouver.ca

 

[Stevey_G]

This soon to be new park for Downtown Vancouver is a really good example of poor execution based on over consultation and trying to be everything to everyone.

sθәqәlxenәm ts'exwts'áxwi7

We’ve opened Rainbow Park in the downtown core at Smithe and Richards streets.

vancouver.ca

I was gonna share this today. I was inspecting utility work right beside it yesterday. Looks better in person than the rendering.

 

[EdmTrekker]

Why don't they actively reach out by mail out pamphlets showing people where to direct their comments to online? I think they would receive a more cohesive idea of what the community wants in general than they would from a special interest group of passionate community members. I say this with respect to DECL.

The majority of people living Downtown are not members of DECL, have no interest in DECL and expect to be consulted by the City not by DECL who does not represent them. I am one of those people.

 

[IanO]

Community Leagues (supported by EFCL) across the city should be helping lead the process and work to ensure that residents have a voice at a variety of tables.

 

[EdmTrekker]

Community Leagues (supported by EFCL) across the city should be helping lead the process and work to ensure that residents have a voice at a variety of tables.

Community Leagues lead the planning process? No thank you. They are literally self serving to its members and do not represent the majority of people living in any community. The City has the exclusive role to lead any consultative process - and engage with the public. That community leagues may wish to advocate on behalf of its members is perfectly acceptable, just like businesses, non-profits, every Joe Blow and other interested parties advocate.

 

[Gronk!]

DECL should lead the way - after all, the new park is on their turf.

 

[EdmTrekker]

DECL should lead the way - after all, the new park is on their turf.

Not "their" turf. Belongs to EVERYONE in the City. On the flip side the members of DECL could buy a vacant lot and build their own members only park. Or the City could gift DECL the park for peanuts for use by DECL members only - you know like the deal the Mayfair Golf and Country Club get from the City.

 

[IanO]

Huh? That's ridiculous.

While this park should serve anyone coming Downtown, visiting, exploring, it should first and foremost be there to support the livability of those residents closest to it ie. Downtown, Oliver, Central McD even.

 

[archited]

^^^^ This is beginning to support my argument why there should be NO public engagement -- all the wrangling on this site alone proves my point.

 

[Avenuer]

Too difficult to watch -- it brings back the nightmares of past experiences. Here is the question -- when has any public engagement in Edmonton ever made a positive outcome on any project -- EVER!!? Every project that I have ever witnessed where the outcome had even a modicum of public engagement has led to ho-hum solutions, watered down to the point of visual boredom and way off the mark in terms of functionality. Mostly it just gives cover for Planners as they march along the route to mediocrity -- "well, that's what the public wanted!" they say or maybe "the budget didn't allow for anything more" -- that last comment is truly rich with economic upside-down-ism -- most capital projects that get watered down from a budget perspective end up costing way more (by a factor of 3 to 4 X) in terms of Maintenance budgets set in place to provide upkeep for the weaker solutions. In the extreme -- why have design professionals engaged in a civic project at all -- just let the public design it (I think we all know how that will turn out).

Well, the vast majority of Neighbourhood Renewal projects involve considerable public engagement and I'd say they all have better outcomes for it (i.e. Garneau, Strathcona, Alberta Avenue renewal plans come to mind that were shaped heavily from community feedback).