[Seamusmuldrew]

Without a fountain, people will go to the park once or twice and then say that there's nothing there and quit going.

Who let 'Big Fountain' into the forum?

 

[Coprolite]

Who let 'Big Fountain' into the forum?

The fountain lobby is a pernicious lot.

 

[Out of Towner]

Cann't deny that the light looks good but how many times will people actually go to a park to watch a light. People will go a few times to see it and then get bored with it. A fountain is a much higher profile attraction because unlike a light, for lack of a better description, it creates an ambience "continuous motion." It's the same basic reason why people will go camping and sit around a campfire for hours on end but wouldn't give a yard light 5 minutes of their time. Have to wonder if anybody at the City has a background with at least some marketing experience.

 

[Stevey_G]

The fountain lobby is a pernicious lot.

If that's the case do I have large slabs of marble to sell you.

 

[Coprolite]

Reading back, I feel compelled to clarify that while I was pro water feature, I definitely am not pro fountain. We have those in abundance at the Legislature and Churchill Square. I was thinking more of a pond with vegetation to attract ducks and other birds, especially geese to recruit to my chaotic schemes.

 

[northlands]

I feel compelled to clarify that while I was pro water feature, I definitely am not pro fountain.

I am also not pro fountain, or pro any water feature.

Spoiler: Disclosure

The post paid for by the Concerned Citizens for Greenspaces Without Flowing Liquids Coalition (CCGWFLC).

 

[Coprolite]

I am also not pro fountain, or pro any water feature.

Spoiler: Disclosure

The post paid for by the Concerned Citizens for Greenspaces Without Flowing Liquids Coalition (CCGWFLC).

This is probably for the best, lest I transform downtown into a goose infested bedlam.

 

[Out of Towner]

I'm pro business and development. Summons the food trucks so the maintenance department can be served coffee and sandwiches at coffee time.

 

[thommyjo]

While we discuss about the cost of bike infrastructure vs. fountain maintenance - I'd like to say that I think this will be pretty hype and become something uniquely Edmonton: View attachment 581366

Fascinated to see how this turns out. Either going to be a huge success or a swing and a miss. But I respect the willingness to go for it!

Take a risk…

 

[David A]

I'm pro business and development. Summons the food trucks so the maintenance department can be served coffee and sandwiches at coffee time.

I'm anti mediocrity, but it still often seems like the most Edmonton thing to do. It would be nice if this park was spectacular, not just good enough.

 

[Out of Towner]

I'm anti mediocrity, but it still often seems like the most Edmonton thing to do. It would be nice if this park was spectacular, not just good enough.

 

[Out of Towner]

Media reporting shows that there are some young progressive people at "the City" who share the anti mediocrity sentiment. Not everybody at "the City" is an obstructionist with an entrenched self interest. There are many there who want the city to put its best foot forward for the citizenry. Privatizing the maintenance of city parks could be a solution to the space problem that has arisen at the soon to be constructed Warehouse Park. Maintenance equipment can be stored off site and privatization has shown that its a viable alternative for rate payers. A win-win. The city maintenance department wouldn't need to take on an additional work load with its constrained budget and there would space for a mechanical system to service a water feature.

 

[TAS]

The city maintenance department wouldn't need to take on an additional work load with its constrained budget and there would space for a mechanical system to service a water feature.

I'm not fully following. Wouldn't the city maintenance department receive funding to take on Warehouse Park - the same funding that would be used to pay a private company to do it?

 

[Out of Towner]

I'm not fully following. Wouldn't the city maintenance department receive funding to take on Warehouse Park - the same funding that would be used to pay a private company to do it?

My thinking is that personal from parks maintenance could be transferred to other departments and that one of stipulations in a city RFP to the private sector is that they need to store their equipment remotely and not in the pavilion.

 

[Out of Towner]

The things you mention are all important considerations and anybody that the City hired to maintain a park would need to have the proper credentials but there are numerous private contractors that work for the City so we're not talking about anything new and revolutionary.

As for city maintenance staff - there would be some attrition. Some staff that would be happy to take early retirement, some would take retraining, and some would move on. Again, nothing different than what private sector employees are confronted with all the time.

I don't doubt you that the parks with water features are absolutely jumping today but there's is a budget problem at the Warehouse Park and its being addressed by omitting a water feature. My opinion is that it's not the best option, so I presented one alternative. It's not necessarily the option that I personally would choose because it would be disruptive to some, but it is an option.