PDA

View Full Version : Proposal made to develop valley park



IanO
10-03-2007, 02:09 PM
Proposal made to develop valley park
Louise McKinney area would get restaurant, bike rental facility

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Saturday, March 10, 2007

EDMONTON - City planners are proposing to rezone Louise McKinney Riverfront Park so that a restaurant and bicycle rental shop can operate there.

The rezoning is part of a project to turn the park, located on the slope next to the Shaw Conference Centre, into a major city attraction.

Plans for the lower level of the park, called the Riverfront Plaza, include a restaurant and a shop to rent bikes or inline skates. Current zoning prohibits such commercial uses.

The new zoning will make the area similar to Fort Edmonton Park.

As part of the zoning change, a strip of city land just east of the park would be added to the park. The eight-lot parcel of land was zoned for housing, but the land is too steep for development.

Parks planner Gabriele Barry said washrooms and a multi-use building will be built on the park's lower level this summer.

The restaurant, which will operate out of a city-owned building, won't open for several years, she said.

A public meeting about the rezoning is set for Tuesday from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in Salon 3 of the Shaw Conference Centre.


© The Edmonton Journal 2007

DanC
10-03-2007, 02:14 PM
This should be a no brainer and be done ASAP!

I don't know how anyone could be against this.

IanO
10-03-2007, 02:16 PM
^oh i do...the sacred valley we can never touch, never open to more uses than walking.


That restaurant should be in there ASAP....muffins, coffee, mmm

DanC
10-03-2007, 02:20 PM
This is going to go ahead, and its going to be great...I'd put money on it.

I only hope it opens the doors for some more commercial additions in the Valley. I'm not talking about parceling out land to build power centers and strip malls. I'm talking one-off, sensitive and architecturally stunning locations that cater to the activities of the Valley.

IanO
10-03-2007, 02:37 PM
This is going to go ahead, and its going to be great...I'd put money on it.

I only hope it opens the doors for some more commercial additions in the Valley. I'm not talking about parceling out land to build power centers and strip malls. I'm talking one-off, sensitive and architecturally stunning locations that cater to the activities of the Valley.


bingo....

id like updated and expanded facilities at hawrelak and groat road park. Washrooms expanded, small permanent commercial, and rentals.

amanzano
10-03-2007, 05:28 PM
FINALLY! I love using these trails and often stop at McKinney Park and dream about how great it would be to have access to food and drinks! Dreams have come true....except that it's several years away. .. is there a reason why they can't speed up the process and have it built by next year?

travis
10-03-2007, 06:09 PM
This is going to go ahead, and its going to be great...I'd put money on it.

I only hope it opens the doors for some more commercial additions in the Valley. I'm not talking about parceling out land to build power centers and strip malls. I'm talking one-off, sensitive and architecturally stunning locations that cater to the activities of the Valley.


bingo....

id like updated and expanded facilities at hawrelak and groat road park. Washrooms expanded, small permanent commercial, and rentals.

Which should happen with the RAM expansion.

edmowl
10-03-2007, 07:18 PM
Proposal made to develop valley park
Louise McKinney area would get restaurant, bike rental facility
The Edmonton Journal
Published: Saturday, March 10, 2007


Parks planner Gabriele Barry said washrooms and a multi-use building will be built on the park's lower level this summer.

The restaurant, which will operate out of a city-owned building, won't open for several years, she said.

A public meeting about the rezoning is set for Tuesday from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in Salon 3 of the Shaw Conference Centre.



Why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??

Get it done now. There's plenty of demand already and that will grow instantly a restaurant is in place and makes LMP a place to go, which it isn't really right now

m0nkyman
10-03-2007, 08:42 PM
Restaurant, coffee shop, boat rental (paddle/canoe/kayak). Get people in the valley and out on the water, and do it now. Not next year, and definitely sooner than several years. :shock:

DebraW
10-03-2007, 08:48 PM
A public meeting about the rezoning is set for Tuesday from 7 to 9 p.m. in Salon 3 of the Shaw Conference Centre.

^ Anyone out there attending this public meeting?

Anyone...

ThomasH
10-03-2007, 11:43 PM
^ I'll see if I can.

ralph60
10-03-2007, 11:50 PM
I am usually in a hurry to see public projects get built and I am completely in favor of more development in the valley. I really hope they don't just stop at one restaurant.
In this case though, the city has to be extremely careful with what they build. It will possibly establish a precedent of sorts as to future valley development.
Political reality being what it is in Edmonton it will be absolutely essential to get the "protect the valley at all costs" crowd as close to onside as possible. It is probably prudent on the part of the city administration take their steps carefully and do it right, (perhaps a design competition?) instead of right away. This is an opportunity to do something extraordinary even if small scale.

IanO
11-03-2007, 11:03 AM
canoes kayaks paddle boats stat....hell how about jet skis :>

grish
11-03-2007, 02:07 PM
they should consider building something similar at government house park as part of the royal alberta museum reno's.

DebraW
11-03-2007, 02:11 PM
It is on the discussion table...

m0nkyman
11-03-2007, 03:58 PM
canoes kayaks paddle boats stat....hell how about jet skis :>

Why not.

murman
11-03-2007, 04:16 PM
Proposal made to develop valley park
Louise McKinney area would get restaurant, bike rental facility
The Edmonton Journal
Published: Saturday, March 10, 2007


Parks planner Gabriele Barry said washrooms and a multi-use building will be built on the park's lower level this summer.

The restaurant, which will operate out of a city-owned building, won't open for several years, she said.

A public meeting about the rezoning is set for Tuesday from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in Salon 3 of the Shaw Conference Centre.



Why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??

Get it done now. There's plenty of demand already and that will grow instantly a restaurant is in place and makes LMP a place to go, which it isn't really right now

Once again, Edmontonian planners make me believe that glaciers aren't receding in this day and age. Plain pathetic... someone needs a good firing.

Edmcowboy11
11-03-2007, 04:32 PM
I like the ideas, the only change I want to see is the projected timeframe to be sped up a to be ready by late this year or sometime next summer.

Further river valley devellopement would be great.

m0nkyman
11-03-2007, 07:17 PM
Almost forgot. Add a cross country ski rental place (in the same building as the kayak rental centre, so that the restaraunt can be where you have a hot toddy afterwards in the winter too.

edmowl
11-03-2007, 10:08 PM
^^^ all good ideas.

It's a bit ironic that the opportunity this affords for recreation and encourgaing peole to get involved is being symied by the Recreation Dept. :evil:

IanO
11-03-2007, 11:07 PM
Almost forgot. Add a cross country ski rental place (in the same building as the kayak rental centre, so that the restaraunt can be where you have a hot toddy afterwards in the winter too.


oh man yes...and snow shoe rental.

Edmcowboy11
12-03-2007, 01:06 AM
Well how about this idea too, in a few selected and secure locations that can even be monitored for security purposes, the could maybe be some coin operated lockers.

snakes on a blog
12-03-2007, 12:04 PM
While the addition proposed in the park would have a limited local impact, I am DEAD SET AGAINST the amount of development proposed by most on this forum.

The North Sask. River valley is one of a few major wildlife corridors left in alberta. large scale human activity has driven out most wildlife from traditional nesting and territorial grounds. One of the main benefits and attractions of the river valley is wildlife. If we are not careful, we will loose this alltogether.

The world is not just ours to exploit, but to share with all.

IanO
12-03-2007, 12:47 PM
While the addition proposed in the park would have a limited local impact, I am DEAD SET AGAINST the amount of development proposed by most on this forum.

The North Sask. River valley is one of a few major wildlife corridors left in alberta. large scale human activity has driven out most wildlife from traditional nesting and territorial grounds. One of the main benefits and attractions of the river valley is wildlife. If we are not careful, we will loose this alltogether.

The world is not just ours to exploit, but to share with all.

i am very much respectful of what it is and no condos or walmarts please, but cross country skiers, hiking, rollerblading etc. wont harm that. As for washrooms, a few snack shops, lockers, and a restaurant or 2 where the valley is already developed (groat park/LMP)....no problem.

our valley is the best asset in this city, but it is used by so few.

m0nkyman
12-03-2007, 02:14 PM
One of the main benefits and attractions of the river valley is wildlife. If we are not careful, we will loose this alltogether.

The world is not just ours to exploit, but to share with all.

So share it already. Preserving it as a nice place for those rich enough to afford the view to look at is pretty disgusting. Let people get down there and actually use the fricking place.

And seeing as I have wild hares wandering around my parking lot on 104th Ave, I'm not too worried about wildlife. If umpteen bridges and a power plant hasn't destroyed it, then I'm pretty sure that a restaraunt won't either.

Edmcowboy11
12-03-2007, 02:28 PM
Now if they started suggesting a home depot and a pit stop mcdonalds along the pathway and a seperate path for motorbikes and..... well then we may have a problem. Also I'm guessing that when they build some of the facilities they aren't intending to do a bunch of clear cutting of trees.

grish
12-03-2007, 03:25 PM
I agree with most of what is being proposed. we need to make the river valley accessible. cross country, biking (mountain in designated areas only!), hiking, etc.. a place to grab a bite, a washroom, a canoe rental, a locker.

i also agree with preserving. would there be any benefit to turning the river valley over to the province to be designated as a provincial park. fish creek in calgary is a provincial park, isn't it? the designation will gain access to some extra funding and will ensure that it is protected. at the same time, just like all provincial parks it will be open for recreation.

RichardS
12-03-2007, 03:32 PM
Why!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??

Get it done now. There's plenty of demand already and that will grow instantly a restaurant is in place and makes LMP a place to go, which it isn't really right now

Once again, Edmontonian planners make me believe that glaciers aren't receding in this day and age. Plain pathetic... someone needs a good firing.[/quote]

I agree. This is getting...er...has gone way past ridiculous.

RichardS
12-03-2007, 03:37 PM
The North Sask. River valley is one of a few major wildlife corridors left in alberta. large scale human activity has driven out most wildlife from traditional nesting and territorial grounds. One of the main benefits and attractions of the river valley is wildlife. If we are not careful, we will loose this alltogether.

The world is not just ours to exploit, but to share with all.

...are you serious that cross country ski trails and rental shops are a bad thing? I guess I should cocoon myself in my home and never ever ever set foot anywhere.....

This developement is in an area that is ALREADY developed, it is not like they are taking over Lauier Park. ...and seriously, how many people come here to look at wildlife in the valley when all you have to do is go 10 minutes in any direction from the city and find yourself playing chicken with a moose / deer / elk/ owl / brown bear / bison / cougar (the real one) / crow....you get the picture. A coffee shop in LM park is hardly encroaching on this strip of land.

Balance folks...balance...

DebraW
12-03-2007, 03:40 PM
Hum, the dinosaur show was in this river vally location, coincidence or not?

Glaciers/Dinosaurs…some city policies and planners both of these are the same as the other. :wink:

RichardS
12-03-2007, 03:46 PM
I almost forgot about that fiscal bomb!

Replacement
12-03-2007, 03:47 PM
One of the main benefits and attractions of the river valley is wildlife. If we are not careful, we will loose this alltogether.

The world is not just ours to exploit, but to share with all.

So share it already. Preserving it as a nice place for those rich enough to afford the view to look at is pretty disgusting. Let people get down there and actually use the fricking place.

And seeing as I have wild hares wandering around my parking lot on 104th Ave, I'm not too worried about wildlife. If umpteen bridges and a power plant hasn't destroyed it, then I'm pretty sure that a restaraunt won't either.It is shared. Anybody can go there and free of charge. Don't understand your issue with this.
Last thing I would want is for this river valley to have upscale restaurants like in Stanley park. IMO that makes the area feel MORE like its for the "rich enough"

DebraW
12-03-2007, 03:48 PM
I almost forgot about that fiscal bomb!

You?!?!?! :wink:

Replacement
12-03-2007, 03:52 PM
The North Sask. River valley is one of a few major wildlife corridors left in alberta. large scale human activity has driven out most wildlife from traditional nesting and territorial grounds. One of the main benefits and attractions of the river valley is wildlife. If we are not careful, we will loose this alltogether.

The world is not just ours to exploit, but to share with all.

...are you serious that cross country ski trails and rental shops are a bad thing? I guess I should cocoon myself in my home and never ever ever set foot anywhere.....

This developement is in an area that is ALREADY developed, it is not like they are taking over Lauier Park. ...and seriously, how many people come here to look at wildlife in the valley when all you have to do is go 10 minutes in any direction from the city and find yourself playing chicken with a moose / deer / elk/ owl / brown bear / bison / cougar (the real one) / crow....you get the picture. A coffee shop in LM park is hardly encroaching on this strip of land.

Balance folks...balance...Its fine to state "balance" but as we know once an area is rezoned for commercial interest it has then set a precedent. Many would be concerned that this precedent would then effect other similar rezonings. I don't think its at all unrealistic for people to be ardently concerned about the onset of habitat encroachment for commercial use.

Once it starts it never stops.

Does it?

IanO
12-03-2007, 04:23 PM
One of the main benefits and attractions of the river valley is wildlife. If we are not careful, we will loose this alltogether.

The world is not just ours to exploit, but to share with all.

So share it already. Preserving it as a nice place for those rich enough to afford the view to look at is pretty disgusting. Let people get down there and actually use the fricking place.

And seeing as I have wild hares wandering around my parking lot on 104th Ave, I'm not too worried about wildlife. If umpteen bridges and a power plant hasn't destroyed it, then I'm pretty sure that a restaraunt won't either.It is shared. Anybody can go there and free of charge. Don't understand your issue with this.
Last thing I would want is for this river valley to have upscale restaurants like in Stanley park. IMO that makes the area feel MORE like its for the "rich enough"

is stanley park for the rich?

DebraW
12-03-2007, 04:39 PM
is stanley park for the rich?

Not IMO, it is for the joggers, the homeless, the nature lovers, the tourists, the residents, the school students, the day trippers, the film makers...

In other words, in my experience Stanley Park is for everyone and is used by everyone (except when wind storms close it down).

Replacement
12-03-2007, 04:46 PM
One of the main benefits and attractions of the river valley is wildlife. If we are not careful, we will loose this alltogether.

The world is not just ours to exploit, but to share with all.

So share it already. Preserving it as a nice place for those rich enough to afford the view to look at is pretty disgusting. Let people get down there and actually use the fricking place.

And seeing as I have wild hares wandering around my parking lot on 104th Ave, I'm not too worried about wildlife. If umpteen bridges and a power plant hasn't destroyed it, then I'm pretty sure that a restaraunt won't either.It is shared. Anybody can go there and free of charge. Don't understand your issue with this.
Last thing I would want is for this river valley to have upscale restaurants like in Stanley park. IMO that makes the area feel MORE like its for the "rich enough"

is stanley park for the rich?Between the few highscale restaurants, polo and cricket matches, large deluxe yacht harbors, private, yes private, tennis courts, 3bucks for 30minute parking strictly enforced, expensive sea world(whatever its called)Prestigious private "rowing " club, nonstop limos, etc it has had that feel to me.

I must be an ardent proletariat.

Nice park still though. :wink:

travis
12-03-2007, 04:56 PM
A little off topic, but have you ever wondered how much stanley Park would sell for. What about Central Park in New York?

murman
12-03-2007, 05:05 PM
One of the main benefits and attractions of the river valley is wildlife. If we are not careful, we will loose this alltogether.

The world is not just ours to exploit, but to share with all.

So share it already. Preserving it as a nice place for those rich enough to afford the view to look at is pretty disgusting. Let people get down there and actually use the fricking place.

And seeing as I have wild hares wandering around my parking lot on 104th Ave, I'm not too worried about wildlife. If umpteen bridges and a power plant hasn't destroyed it, then I'm pretty sure that a restaraunt won't either.It is shared. Anybody can go there and free of charge. Don't understand your issue with this.
Last thing I would want is for this river valley to have upscale restaurants like in Stanley park. IMO that makes the area feel MORE like its for the "rich enough"

is stanley park for the rich?Between the few highscale restaurants, polo and cricket matches, large deluxe yacht harbors, private, yes private, tennis courts, 3bucks for 30minute parking strictly enforced, expensive sea world(whatever its called)Prestigious private "rowing " club, nonstop limos, etc it has had that feel to me.

I must be an ardent proletariat.

Nice park still though. :wink:

Wow... someone's just channeled Jan Reimer....

Spencer
12-03-2007, 05:09 PM
Wow... someone's just channeled Jan Reimer....

If that's the case you can have her Murman... :lol:

murman
12-03-2007, 05:47 PM
Wow... someone's just channeled Jan Reimer....

If that's the case you can have her Murman... :lol:

:smt100

Replacement
12-03-2007, 07:25 PM
Wow... someone's just channeled Jan Reimer....

If that's the case you can have her Murman... :lol:

:smt100

Agree or disagree the above responses are hardly necessary and I'd think not the way to attract lurkers to post here more often.

Kind of dismissive don't ya think? I thought so.

Is that the atmosphere wanted on these boards?

DanC
12-03-2007, 07:39 PM
All those activities your mentioned in Stanley Park have nothing to do with the park. They are leisure activities, which liked or not usually require some form of disposable income.
Stanley park is there, the river valley is there, it is barricade free and anyone can go there...and that will always be.
By your logic, because the Edmonton Queen isn't free and open to everyone they should already be hauling that out of the river.
Is it possible that offering these ammenities actual attracts a different type or person to the valley or perhaps caters to the tourist dollar?
There is a positive side to having a high end restaurant and a coffee shop and rental center.

Replacement
12-03-2007, 07:51 PM
All those activities your mentioned in Stanley Park have nothing to do with the park. They are leisure activities, which liked or not usually require some form of disposable income.
Stanley park is there, the river valley is there, it is barricade free and anyone can go there...and that will always be.
By your logic, because the Edmonton Queen isn't free and open to everyone they should already be hauling that out of the river.
Is it possible that offering these ammenities actual attracts a different type or person to the valley or perhaps caters to the tourist dollar?
There is a positive side to having a high end restaurant and a coffee shop and rental center.Stanley Park and the River Valley are public properties that have been put aside to protect what was once there. Free enterprize can exist anywhere but does it need to proliferate in publicly preserved park settings?

I don't agree that commercial development in the river valley would be a one-off thing. I also don't understand the thinking that commercial ventures have to be located everywhere "to get people into the river valley."

Seems like people that love the river valley are already into the river valley.

Seems like theres enough to do. Do we need fancy restaurants there with big parking lots?

Its not consistent with the natural setting.

travis
12-03-2007, 07:54 PM
Believe it or not, the river valley facing downtown ceased to be a natural setting some time ago. Get over it.

Replacement
12-03-2007, 08:06 PM
Believe it or not, the river valley facing downtown ceased to be a natural setting some time ago. Get over it.

So by that logic we should just pave it over?

When you're in the river valley it feels very much like a natural setting despite some of the urban vantage points.

While introducing commercial developments apparently improves the river valley experience for some it may detract from the experience for other regular users.

It is a trade off and should be considered prudently as is occurring.

Just because people strongly feel is should or shouldn't be developed does not immediatley sway the course.

Theres lots of passion on both sides of the issue.

This decision will take time, and is important enough for it to take time.

DanC
12-03-2007, 08:12 PM
Inserting commercial developments in certain key locations might break the "natural" fabric of the River Valley for what, perhaps 500 m?
If you are looking for the true natural experience of the Valley, you don't go to Louise McKinney, you don't go to Hawrelak, you don't go the the major park nodes. You hit the trails and the ravines and the smaller parks. Adding amenities does not undo the 100s of kms of trails that pass through untouched natural settings.
The valley can be pretty much everything to everyone, because it is soooooo large.
No one is saying pave McKinney or Hawrelak, but having a snack shop or a restaurant will certainly cater and entice new users and cater to tourists.
If you really think that this development at McKinney is going to set up the destruction of the River Valley, I really don't think you have a clue and I don't say that lightly.
Having worked with the park rangers and other groups I know that the River Valley is so closely guarded to preserve what it is, but I know that it is underutilized and has not come close to reaching its full potential.

Sonic Death Monkey
12-03-2007, 08:24 PM
Inserting commercial developments in certain key locations might break the "natural" fabric of the River Valley for what, perhaps 500 m?
If you are looking for the true natural experience of the Valley, you don't go to Louise McKinney, you don't go to Hawrelak, you don't go the the major park nodes. You hit the trails and the ravines and the smaller parks. Adding amenities does not undo the 100s of kms of trails that pass through untouched natural settings.
The valley can be pretty much everything to everyone, because it is soooooo large.
No one is saying pave McKinney or Hawrelak, but having a snack shop or a restaurant will certainly cater and entice new users and cater to tourists.
If you really think that this development at McKinney is going to set up the destruction of the River Valley, I really don't think you have a clue and I don't say that lightly.
Having worked with the park rangers and other groups I know that the River Valley is so closely guarded to preserve what it is, but I know that it is underutilized and has not come close to reaching its full potential.
Exactly.
Any small-scale commercial development in McKinney Park is going to meet strict standards.

Replacement
12-03-2007, 08:30 PM
Inserting commercial developments in certain key locations might break the "natural" fabric of the River Valley for what, perhaps 500 m?
If you are looking for the true natural experience of the Valley, you don't go to Louise McKinney, you don't go to Hawrelak, you don't go the the major park nodes. You hit the trails and the ravines and the smaller parks. Adding amenities does not undo the 100s of kms of trails that pass through untouched natural settings.
The valley can be pretty much everything to everyone, because it is soooooo large.
No one is saying pave McKinney or Hawrelak, but having a snack shop or a restaurant will certainly cater and entice new users and cater to tourists.
If you really think that this development at McKinney is going to set up the destruction of the River Valley, I really don't think you have a clue and I don't say that lightly.
Having worked with the park rangers and other groups I know that the River Valley is so closely guarded to preserve what it is, but I know that it is underutilized and has not come close to reaching its full potential.I don't think one developed area in isolation is going to have a profound effect and never stated that. I do however worry about commercial enterprize then being slowly unleashed on the river valley. You yourself said this:


I only hope it opens the doors for some more commercial additions in the Valley. I'm not talking about parceling out land to build power centers and strip malls. I'm talking one-off, sensitive and architecturally stunning locations that cater to the activities of the Valley.

What, I ask, can be more stunning in a relatively pristine river valley setting than unspoiled wilderness? Your "architecturally stunning" is your own view of beauty and not shared by all.

Finally why is nature alway held to this exploitive view?:


"but I know that it is underutilized and has not come close to reaching its full potential"

An age old mistake repeated time and again and in almost every municipality and we want to do it here too? Why?

Sometimes its better to realize what we have here than want something else.

DanC
12-03-2007, 08:44 PM
Who is going to put a commercial center in the undevelopped part of the River Valley? No one, because there is no access.

It doesn't make rational or economic sense. Where they would be put in would places like Hawrelak, Fort Edmonton, major parks.

You aren't going have to worry about the actual part of the park that is all natural.

Replacement
12-03-2007, 08:55 PM
Who is going to put a commercial center in the undevelopped part of the River Valley? No one, because there is no access.

It doesn't make rational or economic sense. Where they would be put in would places like Hawrelak, Fort Edmonton, major parks.

You aren't going have to worry about the actual part of the park that is all natural.I do agree with this Dan and enjoy those areas much more. In actuality theres already huge amounts of development in the river valley. Its the ravines I enjoy the most. Many of those would be gone if the "Just one more freeway" thinking really took hold.

In anycase when it comes to preserving nature caution is always prudent. Otherwise it always becomes another Oahu, Brazil, Canmore,.. :(

I hope you can see my view here isn't specific to this issue and has been world jaded if you will.

snakes on a blog
12-03-2007, 09:34 PM
One of the main benefits and attractions of the river valley is wildlife. If we are not careful, we will loose this alltogether.

The world is not just ours to exploit, but to share with all.

So share it already. Preserving it as a nice place for those rich enough to afford the view to look at is pretty disgusting. Let people get down there and actually use the fricking place.

And seeing as I have wild hares wandering around my parking lot on 104th Ave, I'm not too worried about wildlife. If umpteen bridges and a power plant hasn't destroyed it, then I'm pretty sure that a restaraunt won't either.

You must never visit the valley then. Thousands of Thousands of people use the valley on a regular basis. And all WITHOUT starbucks!

The impact of edmontonians is HUGE. Most people don't realize the grizzley and black bears used river valley corridors all the way up to winnipeg. human activity has driven them from a plains species to their last refuge in small pockets of the rockies. They are only one of many that have been driven out by human activity. I have cycled along groat/river road and seen deer struck down by passing vehicles. Meaning that the dear are no longer able to pass through. Blocked by our activity. The only reason you see jack rabbits (hares don't live in the city) in your back yard is that they no longer have preditors - lynx, fox, coyotes. all driven away by our activity.

I would not propose to restrict access to the valley any more than it is. I believe the amount of current activity in the valley is appropriate for a city this size. More activity (ski/skate/bike rentals, coffee shops, souvenier shops...etc) would most certainly be disasterous. perhaps not immediately, but definately in the long run.

When do we say enough is enough? Do we pave/develop every square inch? When does it stop? The valley is, without question, Edmonton's greatest asset. Let's not be over zealous and foolish for the sake of convience.

DanC
12-03-2007, 09:39 PM
Its fine and I do see your side. In honesty I have to appreciate how zealous alot of people are for mainting the Valley and Ravines, it counteracts the people who are zealous to build a stripmall with and icecream shop and a starbucks and quiznos to service people...but in all I think the latter are very few and far between.

I think the Valley is Edmonton's greatest asset, its our key feature that no downturn or bust can take away. That being said, when someone comes here to enjoy it, there just is not enough amenities for the person who wants to partake in rec activities in the Valley.
Not everyone is a nature lover, but everyone wants to do something in a beautiful location and this is ours...so lets open it up where its already lost its natural state and get those people to use it to.
That way you can sit under a tree in Whitemud and listen to the birds and buddy from where-ever can grab a nice meal or a pair of rollerblades and enjoy those other areas.

We can have it all, if we do it right.

DanC
12-03-2007, 09:44 PM
One of the main benefits and attractions of the river valley is wildlife. If we are not careful, we will loose this alltogether.

The world is not just ours to exploit, but to share with all.

So share it already. Preserving it as a nice place for those rich enough to afford the view to look at is pretty disgusting. Let people get down there and actually use the fricking place.

And seeing as I have wild hares wandering around my parking lot on 104th Ave, I'm not too worried about wildlife. If umpteen bridges and a power plant hasn't destroyed it, then I'm pretty sure that a restaraunt won't either.

You must never visit the valley then. Thousands of Thousands of people use the valley on a regular basis. And all WITHOUT starbucks!

The impact of edmontonians is HUGE. Most people don't realize the grizzley and black bears used river valley corridors all the way up to winnipeg. human activity has driven them from a plains species to their last refuge in small pockets of the rockies. They are only one of many that have been driven out by human activity. I have cycled along groat/river road and seen deer struck down by passing vehicles. Meaning that the dear are no longer able to pass through. Blocked by our activity. The only reason you see jack rabbits (hares don't live in the city) in your back yard is that they no longer have preditors - lynx, fox, coyotes. all driven away by our activity.

I would not propose to restrict access to the valley any more than it is. I believe the amount of current activity in the valley is appropriate for a city this size. More activity (ski/skate/bike rentals, coffee shops, souvenier shops...etc) would most certainly be disasterous. perhaps not immediately, but definately in the long run.

When do we say enough is enough? Do we pave/develop every square inch? When does it stop? The valley is, without question, Edmonton's greatest asset. Let's not be over zealous and foolish for the sake of convience.
You are delving into hyperbole, McKinney Park, Gov House park, Hawrelak haven't been natural areas in 100 years.
McKinney was a coal mine, and dumping ground, Gov House was a golf course and flattened, graded and drained to make way for a never was freeway and Hawrelak was a gravel pit and I believe a dump...that is just 3 examples regarding out major park spaces. These areas are already open. No one is talking about plowing Millcreek or Whitemud to make way for anything...amenities can be done right, heck even Mill Creek pool with its parking lots in no way effects the natural beauty that can be found through out the other 5kms of untouched area.

snakes on a blog
12-03-2007, 10:06 PM
You are delving into hyperbole, McKinney Park, Gov House park, Hawrelak haven't been natural areas in 100 years.
McKinney was a coal mine, and dumping ground, Gov House was a golf course and flattened, graded and drained to make way for a never was freeway and Hawrelak was a gravel pit and I believe a dump...that is just 3 examples regarding out major park spaces. These areas are already open. No one is talking about plowing Millcreek or Whitemud to make way for anything...amenities can be done right, heck even Mill Creek pool with its parking lots in no way effects the natural beauty that can be found through out the other 5kms of untouched area.

And before the coal mines and dumping grounds it was a settlement for natives and fur traders. before that it was relatively untouched (save for a few natives living lightly on the land). just a matter of the time frame you choose to define 'natural'. And because the valley was developed in the past does not mean that it has not been successfully reclaimed, as it has, somewhat depending on your reclamation goals.

To all the coffee shop cheerleaders: the valley has lots of amenities and development. We have hundreds of kilometers of trails, washrooms, even swiming pools and a major recreation centre. It has a major tourist attraction with Ft Edmonton, it acts as a sewage system corridor, and even treats raw sewage before dumping it back into the river. We have littered the valley with our roads along with the trash we throw out the window and the salt that seeps into the soils and, eventually, the river. It has a major power plant complete with several pumping stations that release hot water into an already stressed system. It receives both agricultural and human waste from well over 1 million residents, both up and down stream. The waters are now being used by many boaters powered by both leaky hydrocarbon engines and humans. It has two major refineries just up the banks of it's slopes, along with many other heavy industrial and chemical industries just down stream of Edmonton.

No, the river valley is definately not 'natural' in my opinion. But it is already heavily developed. I must ask again.... how much is enough? When does it stop?

murman
12-03-2007, 10:07 PM
Wow... someone's just channeled Jan Reimer....

If that's the case you can have her Murman... :lol:

:smt100

Agree or disagree the above responses are hardly necessary and I'd think not the way to attract lurkers to post here more often.

Kind of dismissive don't ya think? I thought so.

Is that the atmosphere wanted on these boards?

It's called a sense of humour; I see that you passed on the test-drive.

grish
12-03-2007, 10:26 PM
Believe it or not, the river valley facing downtown ceased to be a natural setting some time ago. Get over it.

one thing i like about edmonton is that you can be in the river valley in the middle of the city and feel like you are out in the conuntryside somewhere.

so, it needs to be protected.

all those Jan Reimer haters--at least she spoke and stood up for what she believed in. that is something to admire. just because you disagree does not mean she was bad.

back to river valley. we want to protect it and we want to make to used more for recreation and general enjoyment. there are areas of the river valley that already have some development. lets make these areas great and inviting. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a small restaurant, ice-cream or hot coco stand. if you don't want it right next to the water--building a bit higher in the slope and also build the funicular.

the rest of the valley we should seriously consider turning into a provincial park with all the protection that comes with it. the city isn't as well aquipped dealing with conservation as the appropriate agencies of the provincial government.

Replacement
13-03-2007, 12:48 AM
Wow... someone's just channeled Jan Reimer....

If that's the case you can have her Murman... :lol:

:smt100

Agree or disagree the above responses are hardly necessary and I'd think not the way to attract lurkers to post here more often.

Kind of dismissive don't ya think? I thought so.

Is that the atmosphere wanted on these boards?

It's called a sense of humour; I see that you passed on the test-drive. The exchange was dismissive.

I'm a new poster, not settled in yet, and from my perspective that kind of exchange is the opposite of welcoming. It excludes.


Maybe you don't even notice being dismissive and maybe some here like that kind of thing. Most people don't. Most are lurking.

Thing is this board is shooting for new posters.

A Thanks to those here that do respond reasonably to posters in a way that would welcome new recruits to the boards.

Nothing wrong with civility.

DebraW
13-03-2007, 07:23 AM
Meeting Info

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Tuesday, March 13, 2007

In the Community:

The city's planning and development department is holding a public meeting tonight to discuss proposed zoning changes to Louise McKinney Park. The meeting runs from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in Salon 3 of the Shaw Conference Centre, 9797 Jasper Ave. For more information call David Schoor at 496-6134.

--30--

m0nkyman
13-03-2007, 07:38 AM
So, we're opposing a restaraunt, but this is OK.
http://aptenobytes.typepad.com/m0nkymans_photo_blog/images/DSC00460-tm.jpg

Trust me, on this issue, I'm much more dismissive in person than over the internet.

Edmcowboy11
13-03-2007, 09:17 AM
It's amazing, a proposal to have a restaurant & retail store at Louis Mckinney Park is made and all of a sudden naturalists have the whole rivervalley from the AHD to Ft. Sask being paved over and being turned into a wasteland of concrete and buildings and so-on. All of you ringing the alarm bells, slow down for a few seconds. The proposal is not to completely convert the river valley. All it is proposing is to add a few ammenities in one of the most visible areas of the valley just below the downtown core. There are probably plenty of office workers that like going outside and enjoying the warm weather in the summer time. Lots go to Churchill square but that area is getting busier and busier. So give them a new option, Louise McKinney Park.

Now if devellopers start proposing Walmarts and Superstores, 6 lane freeways, Major condo project like century park that would cut deeply into parkland, then there will be a problem. But the likelyhood of that to happen is pretty small. There are too many people in this city (including myself) that love the river valley and wont allow it to be over develloped.

IanO
13-03-2007, 09:54 AM
but the children...wont somebody think of the children...

edmowl
13-03-2007, 10:57 AM
Meeting Info

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Tuesday, March 13, 2007

In the Community:

The city's planning and development department is holding a public meeting tonight to discuss proposed zoning changes to Louise McKinney Park. The meeting runs from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in Salon 3 of the Shaw Conference Centre, 9797 Jasper Ave. For more information call David Schoor at 496-6134.

--30--


Should be well-attended with the less than 24 hours notice provided

DebraW
13-03-2007, 11:02 AM
Meeting Info

The Edmonton Journal
Published: Tuesday, March 13, 2007

In the Community:

The city's planning and development department is holding a public meeting tonight to discuss proposed zoning changes to Louise McKinney Park. The meeting runs from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. in Salon 3 of the Shaw Conference Centre, 9797 Jasper Ave. For more information call David Schoor at 496-6134.

--30--

Should be well-attended with the less than 24 hours notice provided

^ Actually this was just a reminder...notice was given prior.

DebraW
14-03-2007, 10:38 AM
Did anyone attend the public meeting on Louise McKinney Park?

Any thoughts, information to share?

ralph60
14-03-2007, 01:14 PM
Regarding Jan Reimer haters etc. I am not a "hater" of anything but how Jan Reimer gets credit for protecting the river valley is beyond me.
She was instrumental in selling off City owned property in the Valley when Rossdale and Cloverdale ceased to become future parks.
This action will be looked upon as one of the biggest sellouts in City history. Not only did Edmonton give up control of huge areas of the valley, it was done with very little financial return to the city.
First priority was given to long term renters of city owned houses, they were given sweetheart deals and most of these properties were flipped within a couple of years for 2-300% profit.

RichardS
14-03-2007, 02:25 PM
And before the coal mines and dumping grounds it was a settlement for natives and fur traders. before that it was relatively untouched (save for a few natives living lightly on the land). just a matter of the time frame you choose to define 'natural'. And because the valley was developed in the past does not mean that it has not been successfully reclaimed, as it has, somewhat depending on your reclamation goals.

To all the coffee shop cheerleaders: the valley has lots of amenities and development. We have hundreds of kilometers of trails, washrooms, even swiming pools and a major recreation centre. It has a major tourist attraction with Ft Edmonton, it acts as a sewage system corridor, and even treats raw sewage before dumping it back into the river. We have littered the valley with our roads along with the trash we throw out the window and the salt that seeps into the soils and, eventually, the river. It has a major power plant complete with several pumping stations that release hot water into an already stressed system. It receives both agricultural and human waste from well over 1 million residents, both up and down stream. The waters are now being used by many boaters powered by both leaky hydrocarbon engines and humans. It has two major refineries just up the banks of it's slopes, along with many other heavy industrial and chemical industries just down stream of Edmonton.

No, the river valley is definately not 'natural' in my opinion. But it is already heavily developed. I must ask again.... how much is enough? When does it stop?

Wow, a little too much hyperbole here...

The power plants - shut down. Rossdale soon enough and Cloverbar done...

The sewage treatment facilities are best in class. World reknown. The agricultural and human waste...yeah, a cafe on the river valley bound by strict environmental rules of operation would be so detrimental compared to the rural areas where run off goes through cow crap. Providing sealed garbage cans is an issue?

The boaters you speak of, seriously, boaters??????????? The Queen, Kayakers, and the odd jet boat...too shallow for any other form of boating. Trust me, I have tried. I passed 3 boats that day, the Queen, a jet boat like mine, and a kayak. Ohh ohh ohh, overcrowded...and as for "leaky", I will challenge you on that. Seriously, I will challenge you on that. Marine regs, especially for the Queen, are so strict it isn't even funny.

I think it is time to amp down the rhetoric on all sides. Thousands upon thousands of people in the river valley parks...nope. I use a lot of the trails, and I am usually alone.

I don't want to get into a shouting match here, but amp it down a notch ok? No one is asking for 30 storey condos, a WEM in Mayfair park, a shooting range in Rundle, and Burbon Street in the Terwillegar Off Leash. Excess development would get killed, even on this forum. However, a hot dog stand - cut it a bit of slack OK?

snakes on a blog
14-03-2007, 03:01 PM
And before the coal mines and dumping grounds it was a settlement for natives and fur traders. before that it was relatively untouched (save for a few natives living lightly on the land). just a matter of the time frame you choose to define 'natural'. And because the valley was developed in the past does not mean that it has not been successfully reclaimed, as it has, somewhat depending on your reclamation goals.

To all the coffee shop cheerleaders: the valley has lots of amenities and development. We have hundreds of kilometers of trails, washrooms, even swiming pools and a major recreation centre. It has a major tourist attraction with Ft Edmonton, it acts as a sewage system corridor, and even treats raw sewage before dumping it back into the river. We have littered the valley with our roads along with the trash we throw out the window and the salt that seeps into the soils and, eventually, the river. It has a major power plant complete with several pumping stations that release hot water into an already stressed system. It receives both agricultural and human waste from well over 1 million residents, both up and down stream. The waters are now being used by many boaters powered by both leaky hydrocarbon engines and humans. It has two major refineries just up the banks of it's slopes, along with many other heavy industrial and chemical industries just down stream of Edmonton.

No, the river valley is definately not 'natural' in my opinion. But it is already heavily developed. I must ask again.... how much is enough? When does it stop?

Wow, a little too much hyperbole here...

The power plants - shut down. Rossdale soon enough and Cloverbar done...

The sewage treatment facilities are best in class. World reknown. The agricultural and human waste...yeah, a cafe on the river valley bound by strict environmental rules of operation would be so detrimental compared to the rural areas where run off goes through cow crap. Providing sealed garbage cans is an issue?

The boaters you speak of, seriously, boaters??????????? The Queen, Kayakers, and the odd jet boat...too shallow for any other form of boating. Trust me, I have tried. I passed 3 boats that day, the Queen, a jet boat like mine, and a kayak. Ohh ohh ohh, overcrowded...and as for "leaky", I will challenge you on that. Seriously, I will challenge you on that. Marine regs, especially for the Queen, are so strict it isn't even funny.

I think it is time to amp down the rhetoric on all sides. Thousands upon thousands of people in the river valley parks...nope. I use a lot of the trails, and I am usually alone.

I don't want to get into a shouting match here, but amp it down a notch ok? No one is asking for 30 storey condos, a WEM in Mayfair park, a shooting range in Rundle, and Burbon Street in the Terwillegar Off Leash. Excess development would get killed, even on this forum. However, a hot dog stand - cut it a bit of slack OK?

You completely missed the point. I was merely trying to point out that the scale of development in the valley is already significant. Once you get a starbucks or another chain in their, others would certainly follow. My opinion, which is shared by most people I know, excluding this form (obviously), is that there is already too much development in the valley. we should not have any more if we wish to maintain some sort of ecological integrity.

RichardS
14-03-2007, 05:49 PM
No, I DIDN'T miss your point. Not by a long shot. So, your circle of friends shares your same views...kind of a prerequisite for being in a circle of friends...so not a very good barometer of public opinion overall.

The scale of development in our river valley is NOT significant by any stretchof the imagination. Compare Calgary, St Louis, Minneapolis, Portland, New York, Chicago, Vancouver, Toronto, and even Winnipeg and you'll find developmemt along theri rivers and waterfront [b]significantly greater than Edmonton's...SIGNIFICANTLY./[b] Hell Saskatoon has more development ON the river...

No one is saying that this is a slippery slope. Far from it. The river valley is kilometers long and people are talking a coffee shop/restaruant in LM Park and Lower Rossdale - 2 areas so far from being "natural" it isn't even funny.

Again, hyperbole. I will guarantee you that if someone came on even this board and said put WEM in Mayfair, they'd get slaughterd. Same for high rise condos in Rossdale....oh wait...someone DID propose that and it got poo-poo'd.

There is plenty of ecological integrity in Edmonton. We are recognized worldwide for this. To paint this forum as a majority people who would not protect the river valley is erroneous...grossly erroneous. I have heard exactly the opposite. We are talking degrees, and a couple shops are not the problem.

IanO
14-03-2007, 05:50 PM
hold the phone...a starbucks in the valley? dreams do come true :P

LindseyT
14-03-2007, 06:03 PM
I haven't ventured into the river valley in years besides golfing. Why? To walk amongst some tree's, to see piliated woodpecker...I can do that at the cabin or a 20 minute drive from the city.

Give me bike and rollerblade paths that lead to restaurants so I can sit in the valley and relax, give me year round heated pools, give me some restaurant built to the edge of the water with balconies hanging over....or dream big, build a lake, imagine water skiing in the shadows of downtown.

ralph60
14-03-2007, 07:01 PM
I hike and explore the river valley and ravines extensively. There is plenty of room for reasonable development if done right. I think what the valley needs most is more people. It was a very positive step allowing cyclists access to nearly all the trails, and I would like to see more off leash areas for dogs. (I am neither a dog owner or mountain biker)
The more normal (for want of a better word) people in the valley will mean less damage from vandals or the homeless. I think that in this instance more use of the valley would actually mean less damage.

edmowl
14-03-2007, 07:09 PM
hold the phone...a starbucks in the valley? dreams do come true :P

How aboutb a floating Starbucks?

there's a novelty you don't see too often

nzuk
14-03-2007, 10:26 PM
I am ALL FOR some development in "the valley". We have what, the largest river valley system in North America, and what to show for it? developing at least a small part of it wouldnt hurt at all, and Im all for this happening sooner than later. I use the valley for rollerblading and biking in the summer, and think it would be great to have a couple shops and restaurants in it. Whatever gets developed should also strive for LEED Platinum and show the rest of the world how to develop parks and waterfronts right through sustainable design (greywater toilets/urinals, solar/wind power, recycled building materials) and this should also keep the critics happy, as most are probably concerned about the environmental impact. I just dont get why its so bad, we have such a huge valley! If you find it too busy and developed just drive your bicycle 5 minutes down the path! It is WAYY under used, and we need something BIG to happen here. And yes, other cities and even towns are ahead of us! Lets give out-of-towners something to remember! If youre worried about too much development go visit other cities and countries and you will appreciate the plains and wildlife we have here. We have plenty of it to go around so lets use it!

murman
14-03-2007, 10:52 PM
(oh I do love it when single-platform people join the forum... can spot them a mile away!)

m0nkyman
14-03-2007, 11:13 PM
An age old mistake repeated time and again and in almost every municipality and we want to do it here too? Why?

Because this is a city. A municipal park in the centre of a million people will have some amenities. What we have to control is how good those amenities are...

tkoe
15-03-2007, 05:00 AM
I think this is one of the most interesting threads I've seen on C2E for a long time. People on both sides of the issues are making some good points.

In my opinion a rental shop, or something of that nature might not be a bad idea. It sort of complements the type of activities already going on in the valley now. As for a restaurant or café, I think maybe they are best left out. Why do you need to buy a coffee and have something to eat everywhere in the entire city. The point of protecting the river valley is to keep in natural, whether that has been done in the past or not. I would suggest in the case of a restaurant it is a slippery slope. Everyone in favour of it says it is just one little development, but that almost always inevitably leads to more.

If the goal is to get more people using the valley, why doesn't the city invest more in trail development so it is possible to ride/walk from one end of the valley to the other? The River Valley Alliance has already established a list of 100m in upgrades that would make the valley truly interconnected.

For the crowd that isn't interested in going into the valley without a cup of joe, maybe it would be a better idea to develop a pedestrian boulevard along the top of the valley. There are already fragments west of the High Level, but buildings interrupt it near the curve where Jasper turns into 124. With some creative planning maybe it could be expanded to run further along the edge of the valley. It would offer awesome views and commercial development would be squarely within already developed areas. Thoughts?

DebraW
15-03-2007, 07:14 AM
River valley park tab tops $600 million

Thu, March 15, 2007
By CARY CASTAGNA, SUN MEDIA

It ain't easy being green. And it's not cheap, either.

The price tag has topped $600 million on the proposed River Valley Park, an 18,000-acre park development that will run 88 km along the North Saskatchewan River from Devon to Fort Saskatchewan.

The River Valley Alliance, organizers behind what is being hailed as "one of the world's largest integrated park systems," have drafted a detailed preliminary plan, which they're trotting out today at a press conference.

"It's quite a grand proposal," said Coun. Ron Hayter, who sits on the board of the River Valley Alliance. "I hope the citizens of Edmonton and the other municipalities along the river will enthusiastically buy into this particular plan. This river valley is a treasure that we must protect and preserve and utilize in a positive way."

The River Valley Park concept, which has been compared to Vancouver's Stanley Park and New York's Central Park, will see existing parks, facilities and attractions along the North Saskatchewan River fall under the authority of the alliance. New attractions, including at least seven pedestrian bridges, will also be developed.

The grandiose green corridor meanders through Edmonton and includes parkland in Parkland County, Leduc County, Sturgeon County and Strathcona County. The park was initially estimated to cost $200 million in July 2004.

Alliance executive director Bruce Wilson said at the time it was difficult to predict a timeline for the ambitious project.

Funding will come from the three levels of government, private donors and various foundations, Hayter said.

--30--

grish
15-03-2007, 09:21 AM
i would like to repeat my earlier thought--turn it over to the province as a provincial park. they will pick up the costs and the protection of it.

provincial parks allow some business activity on a very limited basis.

MylesC
15-03-2007, 09:45 AM
Well, my two cents:

First of all, there isn't much development nor amenities in the River Valley as of now. There's a whole bunch of passive infrastructure such as fire pits, trails, etc...all of which you could easily find in a national park. As Lindsey mentioned, you can get this stuff pretty much anywhere.

HOWEVER, I would disagree with Lindsey that this means such things shouldn't be present in the valley. Not all of us have country chalets to wisk away to when we want a bit o' nature ;)

The wonderful thing with the River Valley is that there is an opportunity to provide both sides of the coin here quite easily. With the size of the valley we can easily maintain huge tracks of naturalized areas with paths, etc, etc while creating some areas of development.

So, Louise McKinney park with a coffee shop, patio overlooking the valley...a wonderful urban park all around, then a quick jog away something like the UofA forest reserve. Badda bing, badda boom.

We are not going to see a flood of Starbucks descend into the valley with 2nd Cups on their heels. That's simply a crazy overreaction.

Some balanced development will not only improve our urban fabric but also encourage people to actually experience and use the valley as opposed to stare down at it from the High Level while driving home from work and wonder what's up with all the trees.

Replacement
15-03-2007, 12:40 PM
I am ALL FOR some development in "the valley". We have what, the largest river valley system in North America, and what to show for it? I'm not sure what this means. Does MORE development make it a better, more unique place or is it better the way it is? Its an important question being asked right now.
In any case the some development in the river valley, ravine system and environs includes:

Water treatment plants, Power plant, Ski hill's, several golf courses, Kinsmen Rec Cente, Fort Edmonton. Gallagher park, home of the folk festival, Hawreluk park, home of several festivals and annual events including the famous Heritage days, Baseball Stadium, ACT Centre, Several Neighborhoods, Freeways, bridges, Lower level of Shaw Convention Centre, Large performance Amphitheatre, Edmonton Queen landing, Rainbow Valley campground(beautiful location) Swimming pools, Numerous parks facilities, U of A botany park, U of A forestry, Royal Glenora Club,

This is far from a complete list but gives an overview that development and multi-use HAS occurred. I think its the length and expanse of the River valley system that gives the impression that theres limited development. If this park was concentric, Like Stanley Park, the amount of development contained would seem carnival-like. ;)


developing at least a small part of it wouldnt hurt at all, and Im all for this happening sooner than later. I use the valley for rollerblading and biking in the summer, and think it would be great to have a couple shops and restaurants in it.Honestly I can see where restaurants may add to the appreciative experience for some people as they can offer reflective experience. But shops? A quick story. A famous bay in Maui, recently regarded as one of the ten most beautiful, unspoiled, ocean bay/beaches in the world is now instead home to large hotels, and long strip mall shops selling the usual junk instead of the visual wonder that was there before. The buildings are *tastefully* done but the visual natural spectacle ruined. Tourists, locals, no longer consider it a wondrous beach and the draw of the location has decreased.


. I just dont get why its so bad, we have such a huge valley! If you find it too busy and developed just drive your bicycle 5 minutes down the path! It is WAYY under used, and we need something BIG to happen here. And yes, other cities and even towns are ahead of us! Lets give out-of-towners something to remember! If youre worried about too much development go visit other cities and countries and you will appreciate the plains and wildlife we have here. We have plenty of it to go around so lets use it!A suggestion is to spend some time with some visitors that like a balance of nature/development. A perfect place for this is hanging around, hiking around Rainbow Valley. There you will find awestruck campers from far away places with jaw dropping wonder at the beautiful undeveloped stretches of ravines in either direction. Stop any of them for a conversation and they will tell you that THIS is why they will come here again.

Many people continue to live in the City of Edmonton due to the River Valley system currently still being a wonderfully balanced place.

Sorry if it seems I've picked at your post. I just meant to get some ideas out there and responding to yours was a suitable platform of response.

Replacement
15-03-2007, 01:14 PM
An age old mistake repeated time and again and in almost every municipality and we want to do it here too? Why?

Because this is a city. A municipal park in the centre of a million people will have some amenities. What we have to control is how good those amenities are...One of the common refrains heard from visitors/residents alike is how impressive the river valley is in relation to parks systems in other cities. That an ecosystem like this can exist within a city is what people tend to be amazed about.

Its not the specific Louise Mckinney park restaurant I'd personally be concerned about and I'll relent on that.

The "more is better" development notion or the "its all sitting there doing nothing" thinking does however elicit in me a response about what nature is *intended* to do.

The mankind vs the natural world or residing within the natural world balance of which theres been very little on the larger planet often evokes strong polarized thought and opinion.

Add nature to religion and politics :wink:

snakes on a blog
15-03-2007, 01:23 PM
There is plenty of ecological integrity in Edmonton.

Ah hahahahahahahahah!!!! best i've heard in a long time. Thanks, for that. I'm sure edmonton does marginally better than other cities, but please, you can't be serious!

People on this form sure do get grumpy when they don't have a coffee and hot dog with their morning view of that ugly Queen boat thing. Talk about getting pissy just because someone takes an opposing view to development.

So people in this city NEED services (bike/skate rentals, coffee, donuts) in the valley? how come we can go out to most any provincial or national park without these services (excluding the obvious like banff/jasper townsites)? If you're just going to sit there, why not pack a lunch/coffee or take a 5 minute stroll up the hill to get pretty much anything you want?

To summarize my position, I would favour less commercial/industrial in the valley altogether. This has many benefits. more vegetation, etc. means slowing down the pace of bank erosion, having the wildlife corridor benefits, and having a nice quiet trail system where people can enjoy thier various activities.

travis
15-03-2007, 04:29 PM
^This should **** you off:

http://www.rivervalley.ab.ca/pdf/Capital_City_Centre.pdf

travis
15-03-2007, 04:30 PM
Wow, that's incredible. Automatic vowel killer. It's amazing how far technology has progressed. :-D

travis
15-03-2007, 04:34 PM
Here's the rest of the plan

http://www.rivervalley.ab.ca/pla.html

DebraW
15-03-2007, 04:41 PM
Big plan for Edmonton’s river valley
It's all over but the funding.


Mike Sadava, edmontonjournal.com
Published: Thursday, March 15, 2007

An ambitious $605-million plan was unveiled today to create a continuous river valley park from Fort Saskatchewan to Devon complete with 12 new pedestrian bridges, new trails, docks, and eventually new attractions such as an aquarium.

While the River Valley Alliance's latest plan flushes out the details of what is being touted as Edmonton's version of Stanley Park, the lobbying of the federal and provincial government for the funding to make it possible has not yet started.

Sol Rolingher, chair of the River Valley Alliance, vowed that the plan, which itself cost $1.6 million to prepare, won't gather dust.

"The million people here won't accept that," Rolingher told a news conference at the Oldtimers Cabin overlooking the river valley.

Residents of seven municipalities from Parkland County to Sturgeon County want the valley connected and protected for their children and grandchildren, he said.

"Truly this is a situation where the sum of the parts is much greater than the individual pieces," Rolingher said.

"The price tag is a lot, I won't hide that," he said. "We can't ignore it, but we have to deal with it."

The individual municipal councils represented on the alliance will each ratify the plan over the next six months, and then the lobbying of MLAs and provincial and federal cabinet ministers right up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper will begin.

Read Mike Sadava's full story in Friday's Edmonton Journal.
--30--

MylesC
15-03-2007, 04:53 PM
Wow, that's incredible. Automatic vowel killer. It's amazing how far technology has progressed. :-D

I'll remind people about a point in the ToS of this site:

"We ask that you keep the language clean. "

If you can't say it without using four letter words, perhaps it's not worth saying.

ThomasH
15-03-2007, 07:22 PM
This plan shows what Edmonton and the surrounding communities are capable of doing. Let's make it happen!

grish
15-03-2007, 10:39 PM
looks great to me.

dwells
16-03-2007, 10:10 AM
From the wide range of ideas presented here I have to wonder how many of the people posting here actually use the river valley for anything other than to cross the river. (Rhetorical, no need to respond)

I have no problem with paved paths to allow walking, blading and bicycling. I don't even disagree with food service and "personal convenience stations." But that's as far as I'm willing to go right now.

Has the bicycle rental place in Rossdale closed down? Are Riverdale and Rossdale too far away from Louise McKinney Park to use as a departure or destination point?

Why do we need to construct anything? For food service we can license one or more mobile food vendors, as we do elsewhere, and for toilet facilities we can have some of those blue portables which could be a condition of the food vending permit.

This could be done immediately, at absolutely no cost, and in a few years we can decide if the above posts are only daydreams or if enough demand calls for permanent structures.

snakes on a blog
16-03-2007, 11:00 AM
^This should p*ss you off:

http://www.rivervalley.ab.ca/pdf/Capital_City_Centre.pdf

I actually like this plan. It calls for a park, NOT industrial/commercial development. Price tag is staggering though.

I'm not against using the valley for recreational purposes. I am, as you can imagine, dead set against commercial and/or industrial development. It would be impossible to prevent recreational activity within the valley in the middle of a 1,000,000+ community. And, the impact is far less than proposed development options.

nzuk
16-03-2007, 11:32 AM
Ill double post for those who havent seen these renderings.

Some older renderings...
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/423123409_2ce650d6a2.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/423123399_0c869c8d63.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/423123385_dc702dea5f.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/163/423123381_2deee2de42.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/423123290_9b155037a6.jpg?v=0

Sorry...for some reason its not letting me post my images...if anyone would like to be my guest!

m0nkyman
16-03-2007, 11:39 AM
O'tay
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/423123409_2ce650d6a2.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/423123399_0c869c8d63.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/423123385_dc702dea5f.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/163/423123381_2deee2de42.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/423123290_9b155037a6.jpg

nzuk
16-03-2007, 11:51 AM
Thanks dood! :D

dwells
16-03-2007, 03:20 PM
Ooh! Pretty colors!

But aside from the picture with the coils of roads, which vaguely resembles Rossdale on one side and Cloverdale on the other (did we raze Levigne already),
none of these strike me as representing Edmonton's river valley park (especially the one of the midway).

And I can't fathom why we would want to show off three story "faux chalets" on the flood plain as desirable additions to a green space.

Forgive my retching, but this does something bad to my lunch.

RichardS
16-03-2007, 03:30 PM
There is plenty of ecological integrity in Edmonton.

Ah hahahahahahahahah!!!! best i've heard in a long time. Thanks, for that. I'm sure edmonton does marginally better than other cities, but please, you can't be serious!


.

We do SIGNIFICANTLY better...

prove.....me....wrong.... ;)

This place has a greater environmental conscience than any place I've ever lived...

kcantor
16-03-2007, 04:49 PM
[quote=snakes on a blog]...The boaters you speak of, seriously, boaters??????????? The Queen, Kayakers, and the odd jet boat...too shallow for any other form of boating. Trust me, I have tried. I passed 3 boats that day, the Queen, a jet boat like mine, and a kayak...

Boats? Who needs boats?

http://www.cableski.org/Video/video.html

On a more serious note, I am luck enough to live in Riverdale and know that there are actually more boats using the river in the summertime - and hovercraft in the winter - than anyone who doesn't spend a lot of time in the valley would expect.

To put the overall discussion in perspective, I would also highly recommend that everyone take a complete river valley tour from Devon all the way through to Fort Saskatchewan using Google Earth if you don't have a boat.

There is no other way to get a good understanding of how large and long this park space truly is, how special it could be and how little of it is affected by Riverdale, Rossdale or Cloverdale or by Louise McKinney Park or some of the adjacent golf courses (of which there are more than you would think unless you are a golfer and I am not) etc.

ralph60
16-03-2007, 07:20 PM
Restaurants and park development go hand in hand all over. There is the Teahouse in Stanley Park, the cafe at Maligne Canyon, even a restaurant at the top of the skytram in Jasper.
The valley should be for everyone, with our aging population the demand for more amenities is only going to grow and they should be accommodated. A little old lady who wants to sit and drink tea by the river has just as much right to the valley as a bird watcher. It is great that we have natural areas in the middle of the city but Louise McKinney Park isn't one of them.

Sonic Death Monkey
17-03-2007, 01:50 AM
Why do we need to construct anything? For food service we can license one or more mobile food vendors, as we do elsewhere, and for toilet facilities we can have some of those blue portables which could be a condition of the food vending permit.
:?

grish
17-03-2007, 09:30 AM
Why do we need to construct anything? For food service we can license one or more mobile food vendors, as we do elsewhere, and for toilet facilities we can have some of those blue portables which could be a condition of the food vending permit.
Why? Because I would rather our parks look like properly looked after parks. Portables are temporary, uncomfotable and send the wrong message that our whole existence here is temporary. Perception is everything. I would like to go to a proper park with proper facilities.

I really am finding this quite surprizing. I mean the opposition to placing a few amenities in our park. At certain places throughout the mountain parks near Jasper, Banff, Kananskis, etc you may find a toilet, a cafe. Have those things turned the whole park into a disaster area? There is a great little hot chocolate place at the end of a trail near Lake Louise for example.

Having a couple of "designer" parks does not render the whole park unusable and overdeveloped. On the contrary, things like one cafe, a toilet, a ski/snow shoe/bike/ canoe rental places would make the park used much better. More people using the park=more people caring about it. With care comes political capital for the council to work protect and improve it.

dwells
17-03-2007, 11:16 AM
Grish, contrary to the impression you may have of me, I am not against development of parks in the valley. I enjoy walking and bicycling through the ravines and along the river. We picnic and play in the parks developed for that purpose. I even used to canoe frequently on the river and sometimes I just stand at the side of Jasper Avenue east of the convention center and admire the view.

What I object to is garish and unnecessary construction and waste of tax money on frivolous pet projects. What I don't like is misrepresentation, misleading information and useless ideas that cost a lot of effort and time; ideas that a little thought would show to be totally irrational.

When I stand overlooking LMP I see Cloverdale a few hundred metres across the footbridge, I see Rossdale a few hundred metres to the west, I know that Riverdale is a few hundred metres just over the hill to the east, and just below me is the entrance to the convention center. All these places around LMP offer more amenities. Surely we don't need to deface this jewel of a park with another structure that simply offers what's already within shouting distance.

But just in case we do need it, I am willing to compromise and give it a try with licensed mobile food vendors. Yes, they may be temporary, tacky and uncomfortable, but they will prove the need and they can be there this spring, we don't have to wait another two years until construction is complete. To top that, they will pay for themselves, we don't have to gamble with tax money on the evaluation. If they prove that a food concession necessary, or even just viable, we will have the proven support of users - not just the wishes of dreamers - then you can have my support.

Regarding your comparison with the mountain parks, it's been a few years since I indulged, but I find it hard to accept that the pristine trails are now littered with structures every 500 metres and even harder to believe that restaurants are popping up in the middle of the vistas below the viewpoints.

kcantor
17-03-2007, 11:58 AM
Grish, contrary to the impression you may have of me, I am not against development of parks in the valley...

When I stand overlooking LMP I see Cloverdale a few hundred metres across the footbridge, I see Rossdale a few hundred metres to the west, I know that Riverdale is a few hundred metres just over the hill to the east, and just below me is the entrance to the convention center. All these places around LMP offer more amenities...

Regarding your comparison with the mountain parks, it's been a few years since I indulged, but I find it hard to accept that the pristine trails are now littered with structures every 500 metres and even harder to believe that restaurants are popping up in the middle of the vistas below the viewpoints.

I live in Riverdale...there is nowhere to have a coffee or get an ice cream cone. There isn't anywhere in Rossdale either that I am aware of, or Cloverdale for that matter. I suppose you could walk though the convention to the food fair under Canada Place and back but that's not terribly pleasant or intuitive.

We are not talking "every 500 meters from Devon to Fort Saskatchewan". I would think there is some "room" between that and none to satisfy most of us. As to the Chateau at Lake Louise obstructing the view to the lake or the Tea House in Stanley Park obstructing the view to the Strait of Georgia, they're much more sensitive to their surroundings than Hall D. It is the execution, not necessarily the principle to be concerned with. Just like the portable potties on Sir Winston Churchill Square don't compare with the permanent facilities at Brockton Oval...

Sonic Death Monkey
17-03-2007, 12:20 PM
Glad that Churchill Square was mentioned. The 3 Bananas cafe and the visitor centre with washrooms would be precisely the building footprints I'd envision for the plaza being built in McKinney Park.

NBS
17-03-2007, 01:34 PM
Good afternoon all,

In my opinion, some permanent recreational structures (i.e: bike rental, small sandwich shop) would be possible. I think of the city beach in Wollongong in NSW, Australia (I couldn't find a picture) as happening in Louise McKinney. But, by absolutely no means should there be any roads or vehicle access whatsoever. I think we would like to increase pedestrian traffic to certain nodes of the river valley. Perhaps these swarms of people will stay close to the amentities and not invade the rest of the more pristine parts of the valley, I don't know.

The difference in my opinion however is, I want to see ecological data on the River Valley, and models that might predict how wildlife habitation can change with changes in certain parameters, such as noise pollution, litter, etc... Can Snakes on a Blog find that information? Development of the park requires very thoughtful and careful planning, looking at all of the data. I just don't think we should form our opinions in half a second based on an already established ideology and then display that opinion in a one-sentence quipp (to be fair most of you write more than that..).

To some of the new posters on here, such as Replacement, please don't be discouraged, your opinions really help illuminate the debate, and are needed here. I find sometimes on this forum that there is a little bit of a clique that has developed, and it's the same people who dominate the threads; but is also these same people that contribute to the forum and keep it alive. But certainly, it is not fair if a new poster comes on here and gets lambasted because of an opinion that goes against the dominant ideology of this forum. I do think this prevents new posters from wanting to participate and improve the discussion (which was the whole point of this website in the first place).

Everybody just chill out, post and link articles - reference everything you say as much as possible (which I'll be doing as much as possible in future posts), and respect one another. Thanks.

RichardS
17-03-2007, 06:49 PM
I can easily agree on the no roads/vehicle access.

I also fully support the comment of...Development of the park requires very thoughtful and careful planning, looking at all of the data.

Edmcowboy11
17-03-2007, 07:06 PM
I think what the city invisions and I would like to see as well is a picture like this. As your driving accross the valley coming into the downtown, you look towards LMP and see people enjoying the park, walking along the rivers edge, buying hot dogs, see kids playing, how about a balloon vendor. By the time you get to the downtown hopefully you'll be saying, "hey I'd like to go to the park and check all that out"

grish
17-03-2007, 11:20 PM
what if the proposed vendors in the park are city-owned with revenues going towards park maintenance?

dwells
18-03-2007, 03:03 AM
I think what the city invisions and I would like to see as well is a picture like this. As your driving accross the valley coming into the downtown, you look towards LMP and see people enjoying the park, walking along the rivers edge, buying hot dogs, see kids playing, how about a balloon vendor. By the time you get to the downtown hopefully you'll be saying, "hey I'd like to go to the park and check all that out"
This sounds quite idyllic and I might even enjoy that drive myself - but as the area around LMP is now, I can't visualize myself on any road that would offer that view.

What road should I take into the downtown so that I can also imagine what you foresee?

As I let my mind roam all around the area, all the roads seem to offer no sight lines or are so far away that it would be difficult to discern any activity.

I anticipate that LMP will be less impromptu and much more events oriented than we might now expect - although... on sunny days it might turn out to be better than Hawrelak - and for that I wouldn't want to be distracted by driving in traffic.

nzuk
18-03-2007, 03:06 AM
nice thought tho...

kcantor
18-03-2007, 10:30 AM
This sounds quite idyllic and I might even enjoy that drive myself - but as the area around LMP is now, I can't visualize myself on any road that would offer that view.

What road should I take into the downtown so that I can also imagine what you foresee?

As I let my mind roam all around the area, all the roads seem to offer no sight lines or are so far away that it would be difficult to discern any activity...
98th Avenue westbound as you come down the hill towards James MacDonald Bridge...less so eastbound on that bridge.

The Low Level Bridge in either direction provides some glimpses...

The High Level Bridge if traffic ran northbound - as it should - would also likely provide some glimpses albeit from further away although the LRT bridge is too low (except to perhaps catch the balloon vendor if he is using lots of string... :) ).

Then of course we could try and visualize a new top of bank to top of bank bridge connecting Gateway Boulevard to the downtown...

Sonic Death Monkey
18-03-2007, 11:30 AM
The Walterdale Bridge. Especially once the Rossdale Plant is redeveloped and they go ahead with the Legislature makeover.

travis
19-03-2007, 06:24 PM
Didn't we just vote on this subject a while ago with Bill Smith at the helm ? We don't need another place for
partiers , homeless people to inhabit., as well as a place for gang fights. A better deal would be to give the
police department money for more policemen to solve the problems we have now.

Also fixing main and alley roads in older areas would help too - a couple of years ago our street was redone but our block didn't get the sidwalks redone as they were in good condition.Guess what, because we have no control with four school buses bouncing down our street four times a day , we're getting cracks in the sidewalks. We were told before the roads were re-done that the large puddle in front of my neighbors
house could only be fixed if the road was redone- it fixed the neighbors problem buI the puddle has shifted to in front of my property. Our alley is another story .

:?

Replacement
20-03-2007, 11:42 AM
I just don't think we should form our opinions in half a second based on an already established ideology and then display that opinion in a one-sentence quipp (to be fair most of you write more than that..).
To some of the new posters on here, such as Replacement, please don't be discouraged, your opinions really help illuminate the debate, and are needed here. I find sometimes on this forum that there is a little bit of a clique that has developed, and it's the same people who dominate the threads; but is also these same people that contribute to the forum and keep it alive. But certainly, it is not fair if a new poster comes on here and gets lambasted because of an opinion that goes against the dominant ideology of this forum. I do think this prevents new posters from wanting to participate and improve the discussion (which was the whole point of this website in the first place).
Thanks for the encouragement. I notice some board specific ideology and dismissal of ideas/opinions that go against the grain taking hold here.

That can become insular thinking in a hurry without fresh debate, input, posters, I'd think. Whats the point if the discourse just reinforces all our own thoughts. Dissonant views, properly communicated are great to see and create thought.

Differences are what make boards like this potentially so interesting but my preference is for discussion/debate rather than summarily negating others ideas which ideally shouldn't be occuring here in a public/civic board.

dwells
20-03-2007, 01:36 PM
Then of course we could try and visualize a new top of bank to top of bank bridge connecting Gateway Boulevard to the downtown...
I visualize that it would obstruct the view from the High Level Bridge regardless of the direction of traffic flow. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

travis
20-03-2007, 01:56 PM
If done right, people would go to the high level just to get a view of the new bridge.

dwells
20-03-2007, 02:46 PM
To some of the new posters on here, such as Replacement, please don't be discouraged, your opinions really help illuminate the debate, and are needed here. I find sometimes on this forum that there is a little bit of a clique that has developed, and it's the same people who dominate the threads; but is also these same people that contribute to the forum and keep it alive. But certainly, it is not fair if a new poster comes on here and gets lambasted because of an opinion that goes against the dominant ideology of this forum. I do think this prevents new posters from wanting to participate and improve the discussion (which was the whole point of this website in the first place).
Thank you, NBS.

I realize that this is off topic, but the appropriate forum has little traffic and the symptom appears here.

To say that I disagree with some of the statements made on this board could be an understatement and I admit that some of my posts were a bit over the top, but although others generally disagree with my stated opinions, I am pleased to say that I have not yet been personally attacked for my views nor has my IQ been questioned.

I especially appreciate the references offered by posters who help me to become more knowledgeable on various subjects and who offer intelligent answers to uninformed and naive questions.

However, I am beginning to feel alone, a pariah, a voice stifled in the wilderness. I am a tightwad where tax money is concerned, it is, after all my money that the city, the province and the country wants to tear out of my pocket so they can build (useless to me) structures that can only remain useful if more tax money is poured into them year after year. Of course I feel I should question the need of a project and to argue against it as hard as others argue for it.

I suspect that, on this site, the most vociferous supporters of tax supported public works are downtown apartment dwellers who are rather insulated from property tax and largely unaware of the cost and hardships imposed on others by a variety of taxes posing as user fees and utility charges. It is my hope that as we continue to share our points of view, we can become more respectful of one another.

dwells
20-03-2007, 02:57 PM
If done right, people would go to the high level just to get a view of the new bridge.
Do you agree that we should build a restaurant and washroom facilities on the High Level Bridge so the people taking advantage of the anticipated view of the new bridge and the renovated Legislature Grounds wouldn't have to go all the way to the south end of the bridge to visit a restaurant? :twisted:

travis
20-03-2007, 02:58 PM
Nope :D

travis
20-03-2007, 03:02 PM
I do think however, that the walterdale bridge needs a replacement and that the replacement should be aesthetically pleasing.
:) :D :-D :twisted: :evil: :( :? 8) :!:

travis
20-03-2007, 03:03 PM
south end of the bridge to visit a restaurant?

Don't forget the restaurants at the north end

dwells
20-03-2007, 03:10 PM
Don't forget the restaurants at the north end
Oh! I did forget them. I was preoccupied with maintaining the hypothetical sight line to Louise McKinney Park. I was going to propose coin operated binoculars at the restaurant too. :twisted:

travis
20-03-2007, 03:15 PM
You don't need to worry about the sightlines. Just build the restaurant at the top of the 500 foot tall observation tower that will be built on the bridge's upper deck.

dwells
20-03-2007, 03:31 PM
When did they add that to the draft? It's a great idea. You can see the whole park all the way from the Fort to Devon from one place. :twisted:

kcantor
20-03-2007, 04:42 PM
...However, I am beginning to feel alone, a pariah, a voice stifled in the wilderness. I am a tightwad where tax money is concerned, it is, after all my money that the city, the province and the country wants to tear out of my pocket so they can build (useless to me) structures that can only remain useful if more tax money is poured into them year after year. Of course I feel I should question the need of a project and to argue against it as hard as others argue for it.

I suspect that, on this site, the most vociferous supporters of tax supported public works are downtown apartment dwellers who are rather insulated from property tax and largely unaware of the cost and hardships imposed on others by a variety of taxes posing as user fees and utility charges. It is my hope that as we continue to share our points of view, we can become more respectful of one another.

dwells,

In fact it is "our" dollars being spent, not just "yours". Not sure whether to add a :) or a :( to that.

As to the "useless to me" comment, is the school you attended of no value because you no longer attend and you have no children? Will not the children that do attend be more skilled, earn more money and assume a larger part of the tax burden otherwise left to you and me?

I have never been to High Level (probably my loss and I don't know about you) but that does not mean maintaining the highways in and out of High Level has no value. You may not be a hockey fan or a symphony goer or a fan of the new art gallery. Does that mean the facilities they need have no value? I would not say our hospitals have no value because I am lucky enough not to need one - at least for the moment - or a bridge to drive on to reach it when I do.

I am probably slightly - and only slightly - to the left of Attila the Hun when it comes to personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is not just about one's own insular well-being however. We have a responsiblity towards the well-being of our neighborhoods and our neighbors, our city, our province and our country and someone has to pay for it. As much as I complain, as long as it is not wasted (you knew there would be an adscam disclaimer here at some point), I'm probably more frustrated about not seing money being spent in some areas than I am about having my taxes reduced to a point where I am getting less and less value instead of more.

You are neither a pariah nor a voice stifled (!?!) in the wilderness (?!?) and you are not the only tightwad here, but you in fact raise a question of value, not level, and the value in this case relates to society overall more than it does to individual returns (again assuming some sense of fairness and reasonableness, both of which can be very large assumptions).

Ken

travis
20-03-2007, 04:53 PM
In fact it is "our" dollars being spent, not just "yours". Not sure whether to add a or a to that.
How about one of these, :twisted: .

m0nkyman
20-03-2007, 05:14 PM
More like one of these:
:?

RichardS
20-03-2007, 07:41 PM
dwells, your points are understood, but a city is more than just a road to the burbs. I pay taxes, and I am happy to have some of my $$ go to this jewel.

I paid for it, I will darn well USE it.

snakes on a blog
20-03-2007, 08:31 PM
[quote="NBS"]The difference in my opinion however is, I want to see ecological data on the River Valley, and models that might predict how wildlife habitation can change with changes in certain parameters, such as noise pollution, litter, etc... Can Snakes on a Blog find that information? Development of the park requires very thoughtful and careful planning, looking at all of the data. I just don't think we should form our opinions in half a second based on an already established ideology and then display that opinion in a one-sentence quipp (to be fair most of you write more than that..).[quote='NBS"]

As requested, I found this link http://www.nswa.ab.ca/pdfs/sowr.pdf to the North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance (NSWA) report on the state of the NSR watershed as a whole. While the report does not focus on the Edmonton area specifically, it does go into great detail as to the over 'health' of the system.

Overall, the NSR watershed gets a generally 'fair' mark out of a scale of 'excellent, good, fair, poor'. Of the many recommendations the group makes, the most relevant to this discussion are summarized as follows:

1. To support municipal government initiatives that promote wise use and management of their portion of the watershed such as urban sustainability initiatives (Smart Growth), conservation planning, riparian area protection zones, wetland restoration and upgrades to waste water and storm water treatment.

2. To encourage municipal governments to incorporate watershed function in planning and development policy reviews. Riparian areas, native and perennial tame vegetation and wetlands are key elements in watershed protection. The NSWA should work with and encourage municipalities to develop and implement land use policies that protect these features.

Again, Edmonton is at a loss for leadership on this issue. We react to discrete projects with great emotion, yet have no overall plan or policy for the protection and enhancement of the river valley, and other natural areas within the city boundaries. We need LEADERSHIP, not excuses.

RichardS
20-03-2007, 09:53 PM
I remeber that report, and it has some very valid concerns. However, given what is actually around the NSR, I'd rate it higher than Fair, but then the river is much cleaner back in Genesee...faster current and rockier...

dwells
21-03-2007, 04:20 AM
dwells, your points are understood, but a city is more than just a road to the burbs. I pay taxes, and I am happy to have some of my $$ go to this jewel.

I paid for it, I will darn well USE it.
I suppose that we can metaphorically sum up our perspectives that while I look in my nearly empty wallet and bemoan the state of our tax-supported core services, others are euphoric at the toy store with an inexhaustible pile of cash taken by force from our wallets.

I guess that's how 'my money' became 'our money' and 'want' trumped 'need.'

dwells
21-03-2007, 05:12 AM
Ken

Just because I question the need for, and the location of, a restaurant in Louise McKinney Park does not mean I am antisocial.

My concern over irresponsible allocation of monies taken from defenseless taxpayers does not make me an anarchist.

I have stated my position why I think it is unnecessary and intrusive. I even suggested alternatives including a 'try it before we buy it' approach.

But so far I've seen nothing that convinces me that it's necessary or cost effective.

grish
21-03-2007, 07:24 AM
i wonder if a restaurant, if it is built in LMP, will cost the innocent and defenseless taxpayer money? gudging by the support so far on this forum and the proximity to lunch-eating downtown crowd, it just might make money, pay taxes, and the employees pay various taxes as well.

defenseless taxpayer is a romantic notion that does not fly in this day of democracy. if there are enough of people who feel this is a waste of money--you will certainly make your voices heard and counted in the next election.

oh and the empty wallet things is touching and it does appeal to our sense of "helping the little guy," but this issue is not about the "rich guy" wanting to waste money and the "poor guy" wanting to save it. it has to do with people's priorities. some people feel that spending money on public spaces for public good is wise, while others feel that city money should only be spent on core services only.

dwells
21-03-2007, 10:29 AM
gudging by the support so far on this forum and the proximity to lunch-eating downtown crowd, it just might make money, pay taxes, and the employees pay various taxes as well.
It might be a huge success, and then again it might not. Do we have any surveys yet that would establish its viability? Why are we afraid to try it with the mobile food vendors before we commit to a permanent structure?

With all due respect, grish, the individuals posting on this forum may be informed, opinionated and vocal, but we can hardly be considered a cross-section of society. We are a small, (mostly) like-minded group whose very nature tends to drive away others who may disagree. So judging by the support on this forum is like going to a beef-barbeque and doing a survey of vegetarians.


defenseless taxpayer is a romantic notion that does not fly in this day of democracy. if there are enough of people who feel this is a waste of money--you will certainly make your voices heard and counted in the next election.
Why should we wait for the next election while you go full speed ahead, unopposed. By the time election comes around, contracts may already be signed. Then we'll be asked why we didn't speak up sooner.

Be careful here, grish, we just might end up forcing many of these projects into referenda.


oh and the empty wallet things is touching and it does appeal to our sense of "helping the little guy," but this issue is not about the "rich guy" wanting to waste money and the "poor guy" wanting to save it. it has to do with people's priorities. some people feel that spending money on public spaces for public good is wise, while others feel that city money should only be spent on core services only.
Oh, it's definitely not about the 'rich guy' wasting money. It's about a few 'poor guys' bullying all the other 'poor guys' so they can pretend to be rich.

It's good that you mention priorities. Why should we place a higher priority on projects such as this while core services are consistently under-funded? Let's use tax money for the necessary core services and find some voluntary means of support for the extras.

m0nkyman
21-03-2007, 10:42 AM
Why are we afraid to try it with the mobile food vendors before we commit to a permanent structure?

Because there is almost no correlation between the market for a sit down meal and for a hot dog vendor

dwells
21-03-2007, 12:11 PM
Because there is almost no correlation between the market for a sit down meal and for a hot dog vendor
I hadn't even considered hot-dog and dickie-dee like carts either.

What I was looking for is more like mobile kitchens similar to these. (http://www.russellconcessions.com/8x30pics.html) With the addition of seating and an awning, they can offer almost anything a fast food restaurant can.

They can be moved around within the park to find the optimum location for a permanent structure and once the restaurant is open, they can be moved to another park to build demand there. If there is insufficient demand, we lose nothing and save a bundle.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

grish
21-03-2007, 12:16 PM
dwells,
there is a significant like-mindedness on this website. it is not a total one.

i have been in numerous endless debates with many of the most vocals here about numerous issues. High speed rail, unification of school boards, and mandating curbing of urban sprawl by fixing city borders are just a few of issues that come to my mind.

this isn't as a one-sided forum as you make it out to be. you, for one are disagreeing and making a fine example of plurality. convince a few of your friends to join, and we will have a more complete representation from which the debate will carry more weight. just one request, make sure your friends aren't here for a one-issue participation.

grish
21-03-2007, 12:21 PM
yes, that metal kitchen on wheels screams dining comfort and is exactly like a sit-down restaurant :lol:

I actually don't mind something like this as a temporary solution while a regular place is being constructed. There is still quite a difference between this thingy and a sit-down restaurant.

Also, this thingy will bring about litter. It will. People will take their disposables out on the lawn and the wind will have them blowing about for weeks. The place will also be very depended on the weather, while a restaurant with walls and a roof may be enjoyed rain or shine.

Viewpoint
21-03-2007, 12:24 PM
I think there are times when without reliable market data, business decisions have to be made. I would not propose that a restaurant in LMP is a public good, but I do suggest that the City should take a chance on putting in a commercial establishment without having to conduct a number of surveys, or try to implement a partial solution. It is common for focus groups to not accept a product that they are unfamiliar with, but then once shown its use to readily accept it (most of us are deductive reasoners - starting with a problem and finding a solution, as opposed to inductive reasoners - seeing a capability and trying to imagine a way to use it). I support the development of some commercial enterprises in LMP (especially if Riverdale and Rossdale are determined to stay residential). Maybe the next step is the placement of a restaurant in the old building just north of Rossdale?

RichardS
21-03-2007, 12:33 PM
Rossdale would be an excellent first choice - especially since there is interest in redeveloping the plant.

DebraW
21-03-2007, 12:56 PM
To some of the new posters on here, such as Replacement, please don't be discouraged, your opinions really help illuminate the debate, and are needed here. I find sometimes on this forum that there is a little bit of a clique that has developed, and it's the same people who dominate the threads; but is also these same people that contribute to the forum and keep it alive. But certainly, it is not fair if a new poster comes on here and gets lambasted because of an opinion that goes against the dominant ideology of this forum. I do think this prevents new posters from wanting to participate and improve the discussion (which was the whole point of this website in the first place).
Thank you, NBS.


I realize that this is off topic, but the appropriate forum has little traffic and the symptom appears here.

To say that I disagree with some of the statements made on this board could be an understatement and I admit that some of my posts were a bit over the top, but although others generally disagree with my stated opinions, I am pleased to say that I have not yet been personally attacked for my views nor has my IQ been questioned.

I especially appreciate the references offered by posters who help me to become more knowledgeable on various subjects and who offer intelligent answers to uninformed and naive questions.

However, I am beginning to feel alone, a pariah, a voice stifled in the wilderness. I am a tightwad where tax money is concerned, it is, after all my money that the city, the province and the country wants to tear out of my pocket so they can build (useless to me) structures that can only remain useful if more tax money is poured into them year after year. Of course I feel I should question the need of a project and to argue against it as hard as others argue for it.

I suspect that, on this site, the most vociferous supporters of tax supported public works are downtown apartment dwellers who are rather insulated from property tax and largely unaware of the cost and hardships imposed on others by a variety of taxes posing as user fees and utility charges. It is my hope that as we continue to share our points of view, we can become more respectful of one another.

dwells,

I am one of the more frequent posters to this forum and I fit none of you assumptions…

For one I am female (as denoted by the girl part). If there is a clique then I am certainly not part of it or even aware of it. The “internet” component of this “interactive” forum can lead to polarization, which is a reason behind events such as the Open Forum in December, and this Saturdays Meet and Greet. Come out and become connected!

I am not a downtown apartment dweller insulated from paying property taxes. You will not find too many people more “frugal” or fiscally conservative than me. Nor do I work downtown (although I have in years past).

I have utilized the River Valley (RV) in many different ways during the years and I am a strong proponent of careful and well thought out development of it (the RV). Even though I will never utilize LM Park no matter what ends up there I still hope this “almost hidden, under resourced and under-serviced” gem achieves the potential it has for the “global” Greater Edmonton community.

Keep posting, (especially differing viewpoints if these are what you believe in!) as that only strengthens this forum; diversity and debate are the only things that lead to change.

I too hope that this forum is open and respectful to all posters and their ideas and I know that is how I approach it.

my .5 cents

djgirl

RichardS
21-03-2007, 01:03 PM
Simply put, dwells, your opinion is no more valid/invalid than the ones made by the DT apartment dwellers. Say it, defend it, but also be ready to say/concede defeat appropriately, and celebrate victories politely.

I too am a fiscal conservative, and that is the basis of my refuting a couple of white elephant projects proposed here...but I also know when some pet projects are in the mix.

dwells
22-03-2007, 08:28 AM
Simply put, dwells, your opinion is no more valid/invalid than the ones made by the DT apartment dwellers.
No, we simply have different needs which breed differing perspectives, opinions and prejudices. My remark was not intended to inflame, but to remind us to be aware and respectful of those differences.

Few of us will reject proposals if we can substantiate their need or benefit to the 'common good' but we should all question whether a project meets whatever criteria we, as a group, choose for approval. Do we have criteria?


Say it, defend it, but also be ready to say/concede defeat appropriately, and celebrate victories politely.
I have reviewed all my posts in this topic and invite you to do the same.

I can find no instance of outright rejection of a restaurant or other development of LMP. On the contrary, I repeatedly expressed a willingness to be convinced and even offered a means to substantiate the need, a means that could actually increase the demand by demonstrating the potential to the users of the park.

"Say it, defend it," I believe that throughout my posts I have defended what I said regarding LMP. I too invite others to do the same.

I can think of many reasons why a restaurant in LMP would be less successful than we, on this forum, might expect; but there may be other factors that I fail to consider.

For example, I don't believe that it's even been established what type of facility we visualize, where it is on the scale between a grandiose concession stand and a licensed gourmet restaurant. We may have an unrealistic preconceived expectation of the clientele or of the environment.

RichardS
22-03-2007, 10:43 AM
My say it/defend it was more general in nature, not specific to this topic. Your lament was on being alone in the world, which I can assure you that you are not.

Replacement
23-03-2007, 11:46 AM
Back to the Restaurant in Louise Mckinney Park. Heres a different take from me.

Is this economically viable in said location? I'm sure the first thing people think of is Idyllic summer days, warm rays of sunshine, al fresco dining possibly listening to birds sing..

Well, 4 months of that and several more months of less pleasant weather. This restaurant would be located in the river valley, off the beaten path, and in the dead of winter. Will they have a crosscountry ski check room? :wink:

Winter dining in a parklike setting restaurant can be an amazing experience and the German Restaurant in the forest below Banff Springs hotel is brought to mind. Pine trees bowing under the weight of heavy snowfall, Bow river, falls, somewhere below.... nice, order another special coffee and take it all in. Even outdoor/ indoor paths to get you there. (I'm not ftr condoning the restaurants location and haven't dined there)
But this is Louise Mckinney. Not in itself a visually inspiring area. Basically a no grow deforested zone bleached dry by unchecked exposure to radiation and perfectly lined up to get that. No trees, no snow on boughs, a view from the river vallley yes, but any better than one afforded from the clifftop restaurants?

I think not.

Would people really come here in the winter to dine?

grish
23-03-2007, 12:11 PM
a restaurant in a scenic location like this may also attract special events like weddings, birthday parties, christmas parties.

if you think that's not going to happen without car access, check out the banquet facilities in Calgary Zoo.

snakes on a blog
27-03-2007, 12:21 PM
a restaurant in a scenic location like this may also attract special events like weddings, birthday parties, christmas parties.

if you think that's not going to happen without car access, check out the banquet facilities in Calgary Zoo.

Don't we already have that at the fort edmonton park?

grish
27-03-2007, 01:34 PM
yes. the city of this size often has two, sometimes even three banquet facilities :?

Ft. edmonton park occupies a niche of character facilities that is unmatched by anyone else. this restaurant will occupy a different niche with different interior and different amenities. edmonton is large enough to have more than one of a kind.

soycd
29-04-2007, 03:17 PM
Trails meandering through the river valley are nice, but I'm opposed to paving them. It takes away from the natural setting when you have a paved walkway with a yellow line running down the middle of it.

IMO it becomes "too" pedestrian and you lose the sense of wilderness when the path is paved. Leave it in gravel.

Pathway paving is EXTREMELY expensive and you are left with maintenance issues that are much more costly as opposed to a gravel walkway.

Sonic Death Monkey
29-04-2007, 03:46 PM
Hey, at least there are no potholes on those paved trails!!!

grish
29-04-2007, 04:53 PM
actually, considering foot and bike traffic, if we don't pave them they will soon become impassable in wet conditions and might actually lead to erosion. i think they should be paved.

DanC
29-04-2007, 10:36 PM
Trails meandering through the river valley are nice, but I'm opposed to paving them. It takes away from the natural setting when you have a paved walkway with a yellow line running down the middle of it.

IMO it becomes "too" pedestrian and you lose the sense of wilderness when the path is paved. Leave it in gravel.

Pathway paving is EXTREMELY expensive and you are left with maintenance issues that are much more costly as opposed to a gravel walkway.
The point is to have a usable trail system for everyone. 1 Paved trail running from Devon to Ft. Sask allows any average, disadvantaged user to use the park system.

The idea is to have a mix of paved and unpaved trails. I think the City of Edmonton has done and excellent job choosing where and what to pave.