IMG_0320.jpeg



Blatchford in the news.
 
  • Administration said it intends to list for sale the land that Hangar 11 occupied before it was destroyed by fire in April 2024. Days before the fire, the city had transferred ownership of the historic resource to a new owner, who intended to repurpose it as a $62.5-million mixed-use development. After the building was destroyed, however, the owner determined a faithful reconstruction was not possible, and administration has initiated the process to buy back the land at the value it sold it to the developer, as laid out in the sales agreement. Administration will ask executive committee to recommend to council that it remove the historic designation from the land to facilitate the agreement.
edmonton.taproot.news

On the agenda: Airbnb regulations, downtown infill, new suburb

Council is scheduled to discuss increased regulations for Airbnbs and other short-term rentals, enhanced electrical infrastructure to support infill downtown, and the creation of a master plan for a new suburb.
edmonton.taproot.news edmonton.taproot.news
 
I know I stepped down a year or two ago, but this was just getting silly. There were 25 comments arguing about gas fire pits, and I couldn't even move them to the Warehouse Park thread because most of it was just insults and mud-throwing. In the wise words of Scott Hoy, personal injury lawyer: will you please stop?
 
Last edited:
CplKlinger said:
I know I stepped down a year or two ago, but this was just getting silly. There were 25 comments arguing about gas firepits, and I couldn't even move them to the Warehouse Park thread because most of it was just insults and mud-throwing. In the wise words of Scott Hoy, personal injury lawyer: will you please stop?
Click to expand...
A dog in the fight. I get it. And thanks for the lawyerly tip but we have a lawyer with a KC already. So really not necessary.
 
Last edited:
Out of Towner said:
A dog in the fight. I get it.
Click to expand...
I don't care at all about the presence or absence of gas fire pits. But use the thread for the actual project where those darn fire pits are actually being installed, and if others try to start a fight, take the high road and don't engage. That goes for everyone. If I have to read one more fight about gas fire pits, I'm liable to go jump into one.
 
CplKlinger said:
I don't care at all about the presence or absence of gas fire pits. But use the thread for the actual project where those darn fire pits are actually being installed, and if others try to start a fight, take the high road and don't engage. That goes for everyone. If I have to read one more fight about gas fire pits, I'm liable to go jump into one.
Click to expand...
This is the Blatchford thread, so we can only talk about renewable electric fire pits.
1757447336483.png
 
policyenthusiast said:
This is the Blatchford thread, so we can only talk about renewable electric fire pits.
View attachment 679974
Click to expand...
We do have an actual honest to goodness wood burning fire pit in Littlewood Park, just north of the Control Tower (picture 1). Its entire lifetime operational GHG output to date is going to be less than that of burning a few tanks of gas for an SUV, and most of that would have been the night when some canine copulation technician decided to use it to burn construction waste in a bonfire far exceeding the pit's actual capacity. Were it not for that one guy, the total output would be handily less than burning one tank of gas in a RAV4. It would admittedly be a bit more GHG efficient if in terms of the actual combustion equation if it burned propane instead of firewood, and not to mention produce much less by way of micro particulate air pollutants. Either way, it's a pretty weird thing to get worked up about even in the context of such "controversies" as "is CO2 an efficient absorber of IR wavelength radiation with long atmospheric residence times and are anthropogenic sources of it significant". It's the kind of thing that's easily offset by me personally biking to the downtown farmer's market instead of driving, which is an easy thing to do since we have an actual bike network and the connections are getting better.

The new 113 Street bike lane (picture 2) enabled by the funding for the bike network expansion in particular is going to be an amazing connection for us, since it stands to make reaching the network much less convoluted and just make it a bit easier to cross Kingsway Ave without getting hit by a numpty truck.

IMG_2482.jpeg
IMG_2475.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Coprolite said:
We do have an actual honest to goodness wood burning fire pit in Littlewood Park, just north of the Control Tower (picture 1). Its entire lifetime operational GHG output to date is going to be less than that of burning a few tanks of gas for an SUV, and most of that would have been the night when some canine copulation technician decided to use it to burn construction waste in a bonfire far exceeding the pit's actual capacity. Were it not for that one guy, the total output would be handily less than burning one tank of gas in a RAV4. It would admittedly be a bit more GHG efficient if in terms of the actual combustion equation if it burned propane instead of firewood, and not to mention produce much less by way of micro particulate air pollutants. Either way, it's a pretty weird thing to get worked up about even in the context of such "controversies" as "is CO2 an efficient absorber of IR wavelength radiation with long atmospheric residence times and are anthropogenic sources of it significant". It's the kind of thing that's easily offset by me personally biking to the downtown farmer's market instead of driving, which is an easy thing to do since we have an actual bike network and the connections are getting better.

The new 113 Street bike lane (picture 2) enabled by the funding for the bike network expansion in particular is going to be an amazing connection for us, since it stands to make reaching the network much less convoluted and just make it a bit easier to cross Kingsway Ave without getting hit by a numpty truck.

View attachment 679980View attachment 679979
Click to expand...
Communal fire pits are a rare sight in urban areas, interesting inclusion to the neighbourhood. I would love to have one of these nearby, but people have a tendency to ruin things like this for everyone else.

While the needlessly heated discussion about the comparative GHG impacts of in-city gas and wood-burning fires continues, there have been 5,065 forest fires in Canada this year, burning 8,323,898 hectares of important, biodiverse land. In 2023, these fires created 640,000,000 metric tons of GHG emissions. "They found that the Canadian fires released more carbon in five months than Russia or Japan emitted from fossil fuels in all of 2022 (about 480 million and 291 million metric tons, respectively)."

Let's not argue about candle scents while the house is on fire.
 
policyenthusiast said:
Communal fire pits are a rare sight in urban areas, interesting inclusion to the neighbourhood. I would love to have one of these nearby, but people have a tendency to ruin things like this for everyone else.
Click to expand...
It's a nice feature to have and it's usable for most of the year. We've had some nice gatherings and gotten to know our neighbours over it. Bonfire guy seems to have done a bit of damage in the form of cracking some blocks, but in absence of moving parts it doesn't seem to actually impair its functionality.
 
The equipment was removed from Ecoden's site yesterday; no movement seen today aside from someone working in the site office. Any idea what's going on here, and if this is normal?
20250908_163423.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top