The City Plan

“What choices do we need to make to be a healthy, urban and climate resilient city of two million people that supports a prosperous region?”

Edmonton City Plan, November 5, 2020

The City of Edmonton has been at work over the last few years creating an urban plan, one which looks to the future and the day when two million people live within city limits. This is an important document as it could shape public policy in Edmonton for years to come. In particular, the plan could have far-reaching consequences for Edmonton’s river valley.

A draft of the city plan was posted on the city’s website on November 5, 2020 and can be read at edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/Draft_City_Plan_FINAL.pdf.

Below is the ERVCC’s response following public consultations in September. Further correspondence and news will be posted here as this important document evolves.

ERVCC’s Response

September 10, 2020

Dear Kalen Anderson and the City Plan team,

The Edmonton River Valley Conservation Coalition appreciates all the work you have done on the City Plan. We have reviewed the plan and would like to offer the following high-level feedback.

Firstly, while we are glad that this plan mentions green living throughout the document, we are concerned about the overarching frame of “growth,” which by definition is not sustainable. As the United Nations’ IPCC Report on Climate Change states, we are nearly out of time to prevent a 1.5 degree change in global temperature; as the United Nations’ IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services states, over one million species are now at risk of extinction, and we need to dramatically stop destroying ecosystems and start restoring them. These reports make clear that we are in crisis, and that growth can no longer be the goal. In fact, even sustainability, in terms of maintaining current levels, cannot be the goal; instead, we need to actively return land to a more natural state, restore ecosystems, and reduce our own consumption. What we need, therefore, is the opposite of growth.

We feel that a more appropriate and realistic framework would be “regeneration,” meaning the active creation of a healthy nature and hence a healthier population and a healthier economy. Regeneration is happening in cities around the world, and the “regenerative city” already exists as a theoretical concept (see

https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WFC_2010_Regenerative_Cities.pdf),

but as far as we know, no city has yet made this its overarching framework. Edmonton, which has the great gift of the North Saskatchewan River running through its heart, and which has committed to being a Biophilic City, has an opportunity to lead the way in the inevitable direction all cities must go. A plan focused on regeneration can accommodate more people if needed precisely because it creates abundance through nature.

Secondly, and related to the point above, we would like to see the plan take more of an ecological perspective rather than an anthropocentric one. Yes, cities are for people, but they are also for nature – and we have, as we now realize, forgotten this at our peril. The climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis are the result of that forgetting, and indicate the need for an urgent shift. Thus, we would like to see the graphic of the nested hierarchy of priorities for sustainability from The Way We Green (page 17, figure 3 (a)) carried over to this city plan. Furthermore, and more specifically in Edmonton’s case, we need to prioritize a value of, and respect for, the ecological significance of the North Saskatchewan River and its valley; this means not only protecting what it is today but also adding to the “ribbon of green.” We feel the plan does not express this value and need, as it often uses terms such as “management” and “enhancement” of nature rather than restoration and regeneration. We do not see the goal to be returning to some lost pristine state, but rather to continuing the de-industrialization of the river valley and shifting the general cultural view away from thinking it is there to serve us toward a relationship of respect, care, and reciprocity.

Thirdly, while the plan makes many excellent references to local living, this theme seems to be contradicted by the focus on mobility. In some cases, this focus works – as in the points on the need for walkability and bikability – but we do not think it works when the term is used to describe a high-tech, hyperconnected city using “all modes of transportation” (a recurring expression in the plan). Our own perspective is that local living should be supported by a transportation plan that clearly prioritizes walking and biking, then an affordable, equitable public transit system, and then vehicles; The Way We Green made this prioritization clear, so to lose it with this plan is a step backward.

We see the consequences of both transportation approaches on the river valley. One that offers a clear prioritization aligned with local living means that our river valley and ravine system is easily accessible to all people through active transportation or public transit. One that flattens the various modes and merely offers “choices” leads to the destruction of the river valley and other natural spaces for increased parking lots, as well as the degradation of ecosystems due to increased emissions and run-off pollution. We would appreciate if all references to “mobility” were reviewed so that they genuinely align with local living, and that the clear prioritization of transportation modes be maintained. We would also like to see more in the plan that expresses local living right here in Edmonton, namely, more references to the value of the North Saskatchewan River and its valley. This is the defining feature of our city, and the backbone of our city’s resiliency, so the plan should clearly describe and value it as such, even using the river as a kind of touchstone throughout the document.

Finally, while the plan is meant to be used by citizens as well as planners, we feel that it should be revised for greater simplicity. The current organization is very confusing, and much of the language is abstract rather than concrete. For example, rather than saying “natural systems and open places,” why not say “parks, forests, and green spaces”? An open space could be a concrete pad. We do not need those. In other places, the language is vague; what, for example, does “deliberate enhancement” mean? The unclear organization and wording meant that we, who are passionate about this city and keen to participate in its shaping, found it nearly impossible to get through the document. An unclear plan will lead to an unclear city. The good life is simple, including in a city. We would like to see this plan, amidst these complicated times, take us there.

A shift in the plan’s focus toward a regenerative city, through ways such as those outlined above, would make for a plan we would be so excited to be part of and support.

Sincerely,

Kristine Kowalchuk

On behalf of the Edmonton River Valley Conservation Coalition