Quote:
Originally Posted by feepa
I'm not sure I support Mr Staples plea for development in the river valley. As for it being empty and devoid of people? Absolutely wrong. Half the city had to be in the river valley yesterday. It's just so vast and big that David probably felt out of place with out hipster coffee bars and tapas. Judging by his pictures, he went from 105 street to 109 street, and consider that a grand tour. His photos were very carefully chosen to support his point of view, but I'd bet that even he knows the river valley is a lot more than what he bandying about .
Leave Edmonton's River Valley alone. It's a recreational mecca. A place for nature lovers. Sure, some flat foot in a sports jacket might feel a bit out of place, but we have downtown and old strathcona if you want to drink lattes and enjoy an urban environment.
|
Think you missed his point... the stretch between the Glenora and the LM park is already developed and has been developed for hundreds of years. its just that right now its been developed poorly and with little regard for citizen's interaction with it. parking lots, institutional buildings and trails in the bush set back from the river bank... for that stretch why not do more formal development with the kinds of access and amenities other posters are suggesting? there are literally hundreds of kilometres of river valley in or near the city limits. we are talking about 2 or 3 km near the core - twice that if both sides of the river were developed. i'm fine with leaving the remaining 100's of kms in a more natural state.