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

I am all for ensuring fair market value is paid, not sure if there are other leases for non-golf course uses that could be used to compare. It's a very weird take suggesting the course be opened up for an event like this. Would indeed do some serious damage to the course.

Curious how city admin and the club came to this number. It looks like they were prepaid the full amount of the extension if I understand correctly? I have always thought we have more river valley space than the city itself can afford to manage/maintain but doesn't necessarily mean we should be giving it away for peanuts. Like said above there are factors like taxes, jobs, public use (cross country skiing), & events (golf tournaments) that all enter the equation I suppose.

I don't have enough knowledge to have a strong opinion on the matter. I think it's a lot about nothing because 1- we should be endeavoring not to be closing Hawrelak for the better part of 2-3 years and 2 - There are many other suitable alternatives for festivals like Heritage days.
 
I hope sidewalks are installed at the main entrance during this rehab

20220731_164620.jpg
 
So they want to artificially turn the man made lake into a slough that nobody will be able to enjoy except for bird watchers. This shouldn't cost us anything. Discontinue the triathlon and stop mowing the lawn near the waters edge will produce the same result.
 
Will the City still be able to host triathlons if this work goes ahead? The plantings are probably a good idea for increased water filtration but will there still be access to the lake somehow? The triathlons are one of Edmonton's premier summer athletic events. I assume we won't be hosting during construction either? Unless there are other suitable lakes to use? Summerside?
 
After attending Heritage Festival, listening to the symphony under a beautiful sunset and, last Sunday, utilizing site No. 1 for our annual Stollery pediatric intensive care unit staff picnic, I question city hall on why is there a need to close Hawrelak Park for a full three years to do renovations.

There is nothing really wrong with the facilities; second, the city can’t take away one of the city’s best summer facilities from the public at once for such a long time! The Heritage Festival will commemorate 50 years next year, and the celebration would be seriously hampered with such closure.

If renovations are indeed necessary, why not do it in phases? That would make much more sense, especially with the economic reality we are living in. Property taxes are already very high, and the new LRT line for one needs further money injection. It would be senseless and disrespectful to taxpayers to do this at once and at this time, when inflation is so high as well.

I hope council can seriously prioritize projects that are really urgent and reconsider the total closure of Hawrelak Park.

Daniel Garros, Edmonton
 
Going through the document, there's some math that doesn't work. They're adding parking spots, which seems to be a major goal of project (other than redoing places around the lake), but don't seem to be adding bike parking.

In fact, the documents say 40% of people using the park arrive by bike. But while there are more than 900 parking spots for vehicles, there are only 125 planned spots for bikes. Am I missing something?
 
Frankly, not a whole lot here has been making sense to me and I’m trying my best here. Adding more parking is an… interesting move in itself given everything that has been going on to curb focus on automotive use. The lack of new bike parking despite that 40% stat is shocking, but I guess maybe they figure most folks ride up to a site/area for their visit and then have their bike within their supervision, and for major events they can bring in temp bike racks? Not sure. Don’t get that either.

And like we’ve all noted, how on earth was the reasonable conclusion for construction full park closure for up to three years? I’m not a construction manager nor a project management consultant but it’s interesting that they came to that conclusion, especially given the openness of the park space verses what they’re doing that segmented phasing wasn’t the best option. It’s not a tight site and even if the whole area around the lake is under construction that there isn’t still ample green space a ways away that could easily still be used. This isn’t Confederation Park or Coronation Park (no disrespect to either, just examples of parks under construction) where you know, it sucks if you’re a more local resident but there are plenty of more equivalent parks nearby, whereas Hawrelak is really difficult to replace given the size, location, facilities, events that occur there, etc. Even from a political/PR perspective, four or five years of partial closures seems like a lot easier sell to the public (or even one year full closure, 3-4 partial) than three whole ass years of closure.

Lastly, the greatest fear I have is we have all seen large scale City infrastructure projects go badly awry and way over schedule. And we’re talking about infrastructure here that is 50+ years old in some areas, so who knows the amount of surprises that may be found. A phased approach from that standpoint alone seems worthwhile as a couple major setbacks and suddenly some of these stacked construction synergies go right out the window. Maybe this doesn’t mean full park closure for a fourth year, but likely means we’ll be seeing a segmented off construction activities requiring partial park closures regardless.

I just hope this is one of those rare circumstances in government where the choice that’s painful short term but best long term is chosen over the easy choice that’s better short term but worse long term.
 

Picnickers, festivals lament pending 3-year closure of Edmonton's Hawrelak Park​


Jesse Banford, the city's director for facility infrastructure delivery, said the majority of the underground utilities are at the end of their lifespan. With significant construction planned, the city will need to close the entire park for safety reasons.

The city had been considering a 10-year project in phases but Banford said the cost and schedule exponentially grow in that timeframe.

"Let's get it done, get it out, replace it, get back and enjoy it as soon as possible," Banford said.
 

Back
Top