I agree. It’s a swing, and I’m hoping at least a double, if not a HR.
The accuracy of these representations is questionable. It shows lots of people strolling around the park at dusk but most people leave parks when its getting dark. Does the brief time that people are able to enjoy the light feature justify the cost of having it?
Like many people on this forum, I would've loved to have seen a nice, big fountain, but I also have the feeling that people on this forum at the 99th percentile among the general population in wishing that there were a fountain here.
Not sure I understand the logic here. These lights will only be in use past sundown true. But a fountain would only be functional in the Summer. Why is one a necessity and the other a waste?
Well, I’m originally from Montreal, and I can tell you that a lot of people go to parks and even stroll around in parks after sundown! Will it be the case for this park? Maybe not right away, but if we continue attracting the right demographic such as students downtown, I can definitely see it being used at night during summer. Give it 5–7 years, and you might be shocked.
Day versus night activities. Nobody hangs around a park at night - especially in winter - because there's nothing to do. So what's the purpose of the light? Only use that I can think of is to potentially hi-light some ice sculptures. A fountain can be enjoyed all day in summer by visitors.
Attracted by the light! lol. Got it. (ps: nothing personal but the architectural firm that did the library was from Montreal too, so let's hope that you're right)
It’s a massive over generalization to say nobody would use the park after dark, especially considering that the sun sets by the time a lot of people get home from work in the winter. Keep in mind that there is a lot of residential construction around the park, so even if the park isn’t drawing visitors from beyond Downtown, there are people who are and will be living right on the doorstep of the park, particularly students (considering the new housing incentive). They might use that park at all times of day for the most mundane activities like walking their dogs, going for a jog or just clearing their head (and especially if they’re students, maybe add in some weed, booze or late-night make-out sessions), and a cool ambient lighting feature would be heavily appreciated by those users. Yes, the park could have been enhanced with a fountain, but remember that it was created first and foremost as an amenity to make this area of downtown more liveable, not necessarily as a tourist draw, and it still does a fantastic job as a local park for neighbours. Most neighbourhoods in the city don’t have a basic water feature anyway, and when we get in a better budget position, there will be room by the park for a fountain. And that would be in addition to Churchill Square and the Leg, which have very popular water features already.
As well as fountains, I love ice sculptures! Many think Edmonton is such a cold city, but in fact our winter weather can be quite variable.
I also think that it will add much needed light in those darker months. And thankfully, there are safety factors related to that.
Some good points made but I'm certain that empirical data on park usage would confirm that the vast majority of visits to parks are made during the day. At this point its not even clear if the city will permit the park to be open after dark. Its usage could be limited to daylight hours to prevent the establishment of encampments. It would be interesting to know what the city administrators in camera discussions on the park were because there's some ambiguity on what the park's mandate actually is. To me it appears to have changed from a tradition park designed for R&R to more of an events driven festival park. I think your making a mistake believing that it's a neighborhood park because the amenities being constructed point to a festival park.
