Thank you for your writing on the Hawrelak Park Rehabilitation Plan, and what are apparently your experienced and educated efforts to explain how this project was allowed to proceed.
I worked a bit with the ERVCC via Kristine Kowalchuk to try to delay the current "rehabilitation" of Hawrelak Park. I was told that lack of meaningful public consultation - including with traditional 1st Nations users of the parks land base - and the removal of 220 large trees might be platforms to delay the project. It now proceeds with a large swath of grass base already removed.
After over 35 years of local environmental work with groups like Greenpeace, Western Canada Wilderness Committee and Council of Canadians, my conclusions remain the same. This so-called "rehabilitation" was a go from the beginning - a make-work project driven by private corporate interests (Chandos Construction, for one, has now planted its advertising signs around the park, and no doubt had its say in the plan).
City policies and by-laws were used to justify the project as necessary "renewal", the public was minimally "engaged" on "how" they wanted the project to go, unknown consultants were engaged to finalize design, and it was a done deal in 2018. There was absolutely zero effort to engage the public on "if" the project should proceed.
Long story short, I will continue to research my question of how such a massive and disruptive project in Edmonton's favorite park could proceed in an ostensibly democratic society. So far, none of Council nor project communications officials seem concerned that the Hawrelak project - like others such as the Gondola, and paving McKinnon Ravine for a freeway - would have been flatly refused with any meaningful public engagement. It is absolutely clear to me that neither public input nor the environment were ever seriously considered. Another recent example of this is shown in the massive chunk of concrete and removal of about 100 mature pine trees on 106 St between Argyll Road and 51 Avenue for what I was told by city officials was about a new bike trail (presumably an environmental effort). Does the right hand know what the left is doing?
Corporate capture and conflicts of interest will be areas of my research should you or your readers wish to participate should you wish to post this.
Has anyone figured out the carbon footprint of this project? How about the carbon costs of the ongoing use of the lights? I know that the new lights will be LED's which are a lot more efficient than old fashioned lights, but is this an example of the efficiency paradox? This is where a new technology increases the efficiency of an older version of the same technology, but the increase efficiency results in increased use which gobbles up most or all of the gains in energy efficiency that result from the initial improvement.
The efficiency paradox can be seen in automotive technology where increased efficiency in internal combustion engines enabled the production and sale of ever larger SUV's and pickup trucks. These vehicles have replaced the smaller coups and sedans that used to dominate the private vehicle market. Consequently, the fuel consumption of the average private vehicle has not gone down as much as the increased efficiency of internal combustion engines suggest that it should.
Back to Hawrelak Park, are we just saying, "Hey lighting is cheap on electricity, let's spread it all over the landscape."
I say, "No, let's not. Let's take advantage of increased energy efficiency to reduce our carbon footprint, not as an excuse to increase our use of technology. "
Yes, the undisclosed destruction of these trees is like a gut punch. An afterthought? No way, an unacceptable decision that begs revisiting before they're gone.
It isn't too late to stop the tree cutting until the trees have actually been cut down. It seems like the groundswell of public opposition is getting stronger. Presumably Council could reverse this decision under public pressure?
Canary in the coal mine? Seems like the City is set to fast-track development with changes in the zoning bylaws. The Hawrelak Park issue not only shows that the City has made little progress with beefing up its public consultation process, but it reveals it as a hypocrite - it is accepting money to plant more trees under the federal tree planting program!
Maybe we need to rethink the use of parks for large festivals such as the Heritage Festival that require lots of infrastructure in a park. Parks should be kept for events that protect the purpose of the park ie. green space, nature appreciation, physical recreation etc. Making parks more accessible by ensuring infrastructure that supports accessibility is good. However there must always one a priority for activities focussed on nature and conservation.
The count I have from just with in the amphitheater space (completed last summer) was 74 trees including long lived evergreens. The plan for that space includes removing all these cover trees, grass and slope in favour of leveling and concreting the space.
The designers are based in Calgary and have, at the time of my last invitation to a meeting (June 2022), not been to the site. This is exemplified by the construction planned for the parking lot as they don't understand the elevations of the site.
While I find it all very frustrating from the amphitheater perspective I am more upset about the paved paths and addition of lights in one of our last dark sky reserves in the city effecting the nocturnal fauna that call the park home.
Many have not seen the plans as they haven't been posted in many places:
William Hawrelak Park Redevelopment - Are Trees the “Canary in the Coal Mine?” Thanks .The tree cutting and 134 million expense highlights a problem that might be avoided if all planners saw themselves first as env planners. I expect we would see less trade offs and more wins/wins where green "infrastructure" substituted for more expensive grey infrastructure. I walked Hawrelak yesterday and it would seem we will also lose natural area. This is also a trend which undermines our stated goal of increasing NA. Since this land is also located on traditional lands of first nations you would think targeted consultation would occur up front. Also disturbing is the borrowing of 134 million for infrastructure completed 1967 without seeing a needs assessment or any documentation to support the claim that the grey infrastructure has reached the end of life.
I share many of your concerns and ideas, particularly the fast tracking with the changes in the zoning bylaw. The primary benefactors are developers. I think this council is seeking to make substantive changes to our city, but it appears to them that means expedited processes for economic interests. I am all for efficient internal review processes, but that doesn't have to mean fast. Good decisions take time. The administration seems to see consultation as means to hear what people say, but accords too little agency to make changes. I had one consultant tell me one time that the community has "no skin in the game," so should have little influence. (Nice to hear from you Patsy...its been a while)
The river valley has a long history of being a working landscape going back to indigenous times., but made much worse by the colonizers. Hawrelak Park was always a bit of a conundrum for me. It was a former gravel pit and as such is hardly a natural landscape. However, after converting it to a manicured park, we did plant it up, now they are wanting to get rid of those same trees. I am ok with some of the festivals like Heritage Days and Arbor day celebration, and winter use of the pond for skating and ice festivals. Triathelons are a stretch for me. The impact on the ponds, birds and critters is too much.
My sense generally is that we have a senior management team dominated by engineering and protective services backgrounds - they tend to see the world black and white, not the shades of grey.
Dr. Priebe,
Thank you for your writing on the Hawrelak Park Rehabilitation Plan, and what are apparently your experienced and educated efforts to explain how this project was allowed to proceed.
I worked a bit with the ERVCC via Kristine Kowalchuk to try to delay the current "rehabilitation" of Hawrelak Park. I was told that lack of meaningful public consultation - including with traditional 1st Nations users of the parks land base - and the removal of 220 large trees might be platforms to delay the project. It now proceeds with a large swath of grass base already removed.
After over 35 years of local environmental work with groups like Greenpeace, Western Canada Wilderness Committee and Council of Canadians, my conclusions remain the same. This so-called "rehabilitation" was a go from the beginning - a make-work project driven by private corporate interests (Chandos Construction, for one, has now planted its advertising signs around the park, and no doubt had its say in the plan).
City policies and by-laws were used to justify the project as necessary "renewal", the public was minimally "engaged" on "how" they wanted the project to go, unknown consultants were engaged to finalize design, and it was a done deal in 2018. There was absolutely zero effort to engage the public on "if" the project should proceed.
Long story short, I will continue to research my question of how such a massive and disruptive project in Edmonton's favorite park could proceed in an ostensibly democratic society. So far, none of Council nor project communications officials seem concerned that the Hawrelak project - like others such as the Gondola, and paving McKinnon Ravine for a freeway - would have been flatly refused with any meaningful public engagement. It is absolutely clear to me that neither public input nor the environment were ever seriously considered. Another recent example of this is shown in the massive chunk of concrete and removal of about 100 mature pine trees on 106 St between Argyll Road and 51 Avenue for what I was told by city officials was about a new bike trail (presumably an environmental effort). Does the right hand know what the left is doing?
Corporate capture and conflicts of interest will be areas of my research should you or your readers wish to participate should you wish to post this.
Thanks, Richard (Philip) Merry, Edmonton
Markus Eymann
Has anyone figured out the carbon footprint of this project? How about the carbon costs of the ongoing use of the lights? I know that the new lights will be LED's which are a lot more efficient than old fashioned lights, but is this an example of the efficiency paradox? This is where a new technology increases the efficiency of an older version of the same technology, but the increase efficiency results in increased use which gobbles up most or all of the gains in energy efficiency that result from the initial improvement.
The efficiency paradox can be seen in automotive technology where increased efficiency in internal combustion engines enabled the production and sale of ever larger SUV's and pickup trucks. These vehicles have replaced the smaller coups and sedans that used to dominate the private vehicle market. Consequently, the fuel consumption of the average private vehicle has not gone down as much as the increased efficiency of internal combustion engines suggest that it should.
Back to Hawrelak Park, are we just saying, "Hey lighting is cheap on electricity, let's spread it all over the landscape."
I say, "No, let's not. Let's take advantage of increased energy efficiency to reduce our carbon footprint, not as an excuse to increase our use of technology. "
Yes, the undisclosed destruction of these trees is like a gut punch. An afterthought? No way, an unacceptable decision that begs revisiting before they're gone.
It isn't too late to stop the tree cutting until the trees have actually been cut down. It seems like the groundswell of public opposition is getting stronger. Presumably Council could reverse this decision under public pressure?
Canary in the coal mine? Seems like the City is set to fast-track development with changes in the zoning bylaws. The Hawrelak Park issue not only shows that the City has made little progress with beefing up its public consultation process, but it reveals it as a hypocrite - it is accepting money to plant more trees under the federal tree planting program!
Maybe we need to rethink the use of parks for large festivals such as the Heritage Festival that require lots of infrastructure in a park. Parks should be kept for events that protect the purpose of the park ie. green space, nature appreciation, physical recreation etc. Making parks more accessible by ensuring infrastructure that supports accessibility is good. However there must always one a priority for activities focussed on nature and conservation.
The count I have from just with in the amphitheater space (completed last summer) was 74 trees including long lived evergreens. The plan for that space includes removing all these cover trees, grass and slope in favour of leveling and concreting the space.
The designers are based in Calgary and have, at the time of my last invitation to a meeting (June 2022), not been to the site. This is exemplified by the construction planned for the parking lot as they don't understand the elevations of the site.
While I find it all very frustrating from the amphitheater perspective I am more upset about the paved paths and addition of lights in one of our last dark sky reserves in the city effecting the nocturnal fauna that call the park home.
Many have not seen the plans as they haven't been posted in many places:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-mPaJvZQyEujhZ0vZsQE9GYdShfjMTJH/view?usp=share_link
William Hawrelak Park Redevelopment - Are Trees the “Canary in the Coal Mine?” Thanks .The tree cutting and 134 million expense highlights a problem that might be avoided if all planners saw themselves first as env planners. I expect we would see less trade offs and more wins/wins where green "infrastructure" substituted for more expensive grey infrastructure. I walked Hawrelak yesterday and it would seem we will also lose natural area. This is also a trend which undermines our stated goal of increasing NA. Since this land is also located on traditional lands of first nations you would think targeted consultation would occur up front. Also disturbing is the borrowing of 134 million for infrastructure completed 1967 without seeing a needs assessment or any documentation to support the claim that the grey infrastructure has reached the end of life.
Interesting comments that I truly appreciate.
I share many of your concerns and ideas, particularly the fast tracking with the changes in the zoning bylaw. The primary benefactors are developers. I think this council is seeking to make substantive changes to our city, but it appears to them that means expedited processes for economic interests. I am all for efficient internal review processes, but that doesn't have to mean fast. Good decisions take time. The administration seems to see consultation as means to hear what people say, but accords too little agency to make changes. I had one consultant tell me one time that the community has "no skin in the game," so should have little influence. (Nice to hear from you Patsy...its been a while)
The river valley has a long history of being a working landscape going back to indigenous times., but made much worse by the colonizers. Hawrelak Park was always a bit of a conundrum for me. It was a former gravel pit and as such is hardly a natural landscape. However, after converting it to a manicured park, we did plant it up, now they are wanting to get rid of those same trees. I am ok with some of the festivals like Heritage Days and Arbor day celebration, and winter use of the pond for skating and ice festivals. Triathelons are a stretch for me. The impact on the ponds, birds and critters is too much.
My sense generally is that we have a senior management team dominated by engineering and protective services backgrounds - they tend to see the world black and white, not the shades of grey.