Edmonton's River Valley Development Phobia

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

You sound like one of those greedy airport not for sale people who likes having their own private airport for their hobby plan minutes from downtown.

That's not the same at all. The river valley is open and accessible to all Edmontonians, whether they are willing to use it or not. The same cannot be said of the city centre airport, which is not accessible to all Edmontonians.

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Very few Edmontonians use the valley.

I find this claim dubious. I suspect that most Edmontonians use the valley in one form or another and at one time or another, be it a picnic at Laurier, visiting Heritage Days at Hawrelak, taking the dogs for a run at Terwilligar, or an occasional bike ride, jog, rollerblading excursion, and what have you. And then there's the fairly numerous regular users of the valley, who bike, walk, jog, run, or just visit and sit daily.

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Anything that opens in up and makes it more user friendly is a good thing. Im not suggesting we pave trails and build a boardwalk all the way from the Fort to Devon, but anything within the city limits that already has development encroaching the river (Rossdale, Convention Center, Kinsmen, Fort Edmonton, Zoo etc) should be fair game.

This part I agree with; areas that have already seen development should see it though - Rossdale, LMP, and even a Shaw expansion that better connects all three I definitely support for example.

I do not, however, support any of what has been proposed by the OP.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

You sound like one of those greedy airport not for sale people who likes having their own private airport for their hobby plan minutes from downtown.

Very few Edmontonians use the valley. Anything that opens in up and makes it more user friendly is a good thing. Im not suggesting we pave trails and build a boardwalk all the way from the Fort to Devon, but anything within the city limits that already has development encroaching the river (Rossdale, Convention Center, Kinsmen, Fort Edmonton, Zoo etc) should be fair game.

Don't be stupid. Maybe if you spent some time in the valley you'd see how well it is utilized. It's too bad for you if princess can't handle being more than two blocks from a Starbucks, but that's not my issue.

[Cleisthenis]

Originally Posted by RTA

I suspect that most Edmontonians use the valley in one form or another and at one time or another, be it a picnic at Laurier, visiting Heritage Days at Hawrelak, taking the dogs for a run at Terwilligar, or an occasional bike ride, jog, rollerblading excursion, and what have you. And then there's the fairly numerous regular users of the valley, who bike, walk, jog, run, or just visit and sit daily.

This part I agree with; areas that have already seen development should see it though - Rossdale, LMP, and even a Shaw expansion that better connects all three I definitely support for example.

I do not, however, support any of what has been proposed by the OP.

Um, RTA, that's exactly what I've been proposing. If you do agree with me on that, then I suppose what we've been arguing over is the definition of existing "development". I would include the Equine Centre in that. You don't. Fine.

As far as the access and number of Edmontonians using the Valley, I think you have to seriously ask yourself the percentage of people in Castle Downs, Mill Woods, Londonderry or Jasper Place that use it on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.

I think it's a fair assumption to make that the intensity of resident use goes up in direct proportion to proximity.

[240glt]

As far as the access and number of Edmontonians using the Valley, I think you have to seriously ask yourself the percentage of people in Castle Downs, Mill Woods, Londonderry or Jasper Place that use it on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.

Since when did anyone on this site (or C2E) give a damn about Mill Woods or Londonderry ? Seriously, we antagonize these places until it suits our needs & interests to care about them, as is this case.

All you have to do is look at all the high density residential along the top of the river valley to see how many people use it. I use it on average three times a week, and a lot of other people do too. By yours & SHOFEAR's logic, we should can the arena because only a fraction of the city will use it.

And why such an axe to grind with the equestrian centre ? I can't stand horses myself, but that's not exactly prime redevelopment land I wouldn't think

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by Cleisthenis

Um, RTA, that's exactly what I've been proposing. If you do agree with me on that, then I suppose what we've been arguing over is the definition of existing "development". I would include the Equine Centre in that. You don't. Fine.

You're right, I don't. The level of existing development and potential for further development at Rossdale is not even close to the same level as the Equine Centre. The access and nearby amenities can't even be compared. If the equine centre is shut down, it would be better served as additional public space, not private ownership and development. It's simply not an appropriate location for it, no more than Laurier Park.

Originally Posted by Cleisthenis

As far as the access and number of Edmontonians using the Valley, I think you have to seriously ask yourself the percentage of people in Castle Downs, Mill Woods, Londonderry or Jasper Place that use it on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.

As I pointed out earlier, the public parks of the river valley are accessible to those living in Castle Downs, Mill Woods, Londonderry, and Jasper Place. They are free to use it or not as they choose.

Sell it off an development, and even less Edmontonians are free to enjoy those spaces, under the guise of making it more accessible to a select (and arguably - given the value of the land - rich) few.

Originally Posted by Cleisthenis

I think it's a fair assumption to make that the intensity of resident use goes up in direct proportion to proximity.

And there's lots of proximity available for redevelopment and infill without ever having to go down the slope into the valley itself.

[Cleisthenis]

Originally Posted by RTA

The access and nearby amenities can't even be compared. If the equine centre is shut down, it would be better served as additional public space, not private ownership and development. It's simply not an appropriate location for it, no more than Laurier Park.

In your opinion. I've already addressed the issues of access and amenities at Keillor Park.

To summarize for you, I'm proposing these re-developments be mixed use, a good number of professional and commercial zoning could be sprinkled in like local market/grocers, dentist/doctors offices, banking etc. With the LRT connections, Keillor Park would be minutes from Kinsmen, Hawrelak, Downtown, plus the North & South U of A campuses.

Not to mention that Grandview and Laurier Heights both have Jr High and elementary schools really close as well.

Originally Posted by RTA

As I pointed out earlier, the public parks of the river valley are accessible to those living in Castle Downs, Mill Woods, Londonderry, and Jasper Place. They are free to use it or not as they choose.

They are also accessible to everyone living in China. They can easily fly to YEG and drive into the city, right? Lol.

I think the point remains that while the River Valley is accessible to EVERYONE by definition because it's park spaces are public, people are more likely to use them if they can walk, bike, or drive a short distance.

Putting more developments near the river valley to increase convenient access is what we're after, I think.

Originally Posted by RTA

Sell it off an development, and even less Edmontonians are free to enjoy those spaces, under the guise of making it more accessible to a select (and arguably - given the value of the land - rich) few.

You're missing that in my proposals, the existing Laurier Park would remain public and even be expanded - tripled in size!

At Keillor Park, a public park would be built, where none existed prior!

Originally Posted by RTA

And there's lots of proximity available for redevelopment and infill without ever having to go down the slope into the valley itself.

You'll remember that I've said repeatedly that these areas should only be densified after we've exhausted other options like the ECCA and The Quarters.

So. Aside from The Quarters, where is all this excess space for large-scale re-development and community building along the edge of the river valley?

[240glt]

^ The better question might be: where is the demand for all this large scale redevelopment on the edge of the river valley ?

[Cleisthenis]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ The better question might be: where is the demand for all this large scale redevelopment on the edge of the river valley ?

There's none now of course, but have you looked at population growth projections in the Capital Region? Think +1.7 million in Greater Edmonton within 30 years for starters. There are going to be huge pressures on the City. Council has already realized we can't continue the status quo of sub-urban sprawl.

[240glt]

^ Well the city needs to figure out a way to convince people to live more centrally, but they certainly aren't doing it now.

I know quite a few people living in east Jasper between 93 & 82 streets, & all of them bought for the proximity to the valley. There's a tonne more land available for redevelopment in that area and six condo/ apt. towers either proposed or approved, yet I haven't seen any huge movement in the area. I can appreciate that it would be nice to have a Granville-esque type strip on the river (ideally in Rossdale where development already exists) but if we can barely fill the areas that already have ammenities and infrastructure I don't think we should be in an alll fired up rush to develop new areas.

[Cleisthenis]

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ Well the city needs to figure out a way to convince people to live more centrally, but they certainly aren't doing it now.

I know quite a few people living in east Jasper between 93 & 82 streets, & all of them bought for the proximity to the valley. There's a tonne more land available for redevelopment in that area and six condo/ apt. towers either proposed or approved, yet I haven't seen any huge movement in the area. I can appreciate that it would be nice to have a Granville-esque type strip on the river (ideally in Rossdale where development already exists) but if we can barely fill the areas that already have ammenities and infrastructure I don't think we should be in an alll fired up rush to develop new areas.

You're absolutely right about that.

For more on the Municipal Development Plan, here's an article I wrote on it in VUE: http://www.vueweekly.com/article.php?id=14385

[espalorius]

i love the emotions in this thread! obviously the river valley is a heated subject

i for one would love to keep it as wild as possible
future generations, imo, will be thanking us: can you image a city of 2million with a wild & continious park in the middle of it...

im not totally anti development either

[Edmonchuck]

Originally Posted by naidoo

This seems like a C2E style thread.

Originally Posted by Cleisthenis

What with all the closed-mindedness and bashing of ideas? What's the style for skyscraper page?

Originally Posted by 240glt

^ developing the river valley is a bad idea. Period.


The style around here ? Well lets just say that the smart kids play in this sandbox.

After that rather ironic statement, this degrades into an overly emotional, multi-quoted, you said this but here is where my intellect is superior you dork, allegedly C2E style opinion bashing thread. The best irony, most of the players here are also the same players back on C2E. I guess C2E has the smart kids in their sandbox too!

oooh, I see the difference, more emoticons!

I love the internet.

To the OP, river valley development will always be a hot topic. While I agree with the convention center ideas, and I sympathize with the dearth of things to actually DO in the river valley, I do not think Edmonton has it figured out that there can be a balance in areas like Rossdale. Even Central Park has amenities within it, but our zoo is a joke (I know, tangent).

The short point, there are plenty of development and urbanizing opportunities without hitting the river valley, but a cafe/bistro, a place to get parts for your rollerblades or other equipment, and a couple neat gathering spots wouldn't hurt.

[240glt]

You need to look up the definition of irony, Mr smart guy.

God forbid this forum should ever become anything like C2E. A quick perusal of that site clearly shows how far into the gutter it has descended.

People on SSP at least tend to have some idea what they are talking about, or learn quickly. Many C2E'ers appear to be so dense that nothing sinks in, or are deliberately obtuse.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by 240glt

You need to look up the definition of irony, Mr smart guy.

God forbid this forum should ever become anything like C2E. A quick perusal of that site clearly shows how far into the gutter it has descended.

People on SSP at least tend to have some idea what they are talking about, or learn quickly. Many C2E'ers appear to be so dense that nothing sinks in, or are deliberately obtuse.

Enough C2E bashing - isn't that in the gutter so to speak? I'm disgusted. There should be a rule against bashing other forums in this one, it makes no sense and serves no purpose.

Threads way off topic

[240glt]

oh spare us your faux indignation

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Edmonchuck

After that rather ironic statement, this degrades into an overly emotional, multi-quoted, you said this but here is where my intellect is superior you dork, allegedly C2E style opinion bashing thread. The best irony, most of the players here are also the same players back on C2E. I guess C2E has the smart kids in their sandbox too!

oooh, I see the difference, more emoticons!

I love the internet.

To the OP, river valley development will always be a hot topic. While I agree with the convention center ideas, and I sympathize with the dearth of things to actually DO in the river valley, I do not think Edmonton has it figured out that there can be a balance in areas like Rossdale. Even Central Park has amenities within it, but our zoo is a joke (I know, tangent).

The short point, there are plenty of development and urbanizing opportunities without hitting the river valley, but a cafe/bistro, a place to get parts for your rollerblades or other equipment, and a couple neat gathering spots wouldn't hurt.

I agree, however I don't want to see the development we see in Calgary or the Lake Front in TO but as a user of the river almost everyday during the past 30 summers I welcome some development like cafes and bistros.

[240glt]

If anything, I'd want to see more stands along the way. Something that can be parked for the summer, that can maybe put a couple of chairs or a picnic table out but nothing permanent, kiosk style food & drink that can be removed at the end of the season. There's already a bit of that & it is non-intrusive, I like stopping at the North end of the Groat bridge for a refreshment while I am out riding, for instance.

I'll come right out & say it.. what I am really against is this sense of entitlement that so many urbanites seen to have and their desire to develop the valley into a little urban utopia. It already is a utopia, jsut one you need to not be so lazy to explore.

EDIT: & I'll give an example... when I lived in C-town we used to go biking in Kananaskis all the time. It became obvious that most people who went out there: 1) never ventured beyond about 300 feet from their cars and 2) they were slobs. I am not against food or drink, what I am against is providing greater access to the valley and giving people more opportunities to screw it up. The Kananaskis example could occur in the river valley, and I would hate to have to roll through densified, yuppified areas just so that the people who only think the valley is good if it has some sort of commercial aspect could have their part of it too.

[Coldrsx]

Council beaches $60 million vision for Hawrelak swimming

Keep cost of project combining lake with spray park under $5 million, Mandel tells city staff

BY ELISE STOLTE, EDMONTONJOURNAL.COM OCTOBER 17, 2011 12:05 PM

2

STORYPHOTOS ( 1 )



A Canada goose swims through a multi-coloured autumn reflection in Hawrelak Park.
Photograph by: John Lucas, The Journal, The Journal
EDMONTON - City staff promised to cost out a simple beach and spray park in Hawrelak Park after council reacted against a $60-million plan for swimming in the park’s lake.

“I don’t want to spend fortunes on this thing,” said Mayor Stephen Mandel, who originally brought the idea to administration.

“This isn’t for swimming laps,” he told Monday’s community services committee meeting. “This is about little kids — three, four, five years of age. Just something for kids to enjoy.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...324/story.html

[Hallsy's Toupee]

$60 million is bloody ridiculous. I can't help but wonder if the administration jacks up these prices just to kill these ideas.