- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
CplKlinger
Senior Member
fjordgard
Active Member
As always with these videos, the music choice is interesting but they really show the progress that is happening.
Foolworm
Active Member
I wish the camera had turned around at the two minute mark and pointed north. It would better show the Yellowhead realignment, along with the perimeter road that connects 121 and 107 St in the future.
MacLac
Senior Member
I was thinking the same thing......
whattheheck
Active Member
The fact the city didn't co-ordinate land servicing and promotion of the build out of the land right next to two shiny new lrt stations (one of which is not even being utilized at the moment) shows exactly why the city should NOT be involved in development.
For an organization that preaches all the urban living gospel as they do, to have a blank piece of land and be in charge of all the big puzzle pieces, to then not even try and connect said pieces is just so stupid. But hardly surprising. It's the most Edmonton thing you can do.
And no one should defend such terrible planning/ co-ordination. No one. Demand better of your leaders. Blind faith will lead you off the cliff.
For an organization that preaches all the urban living gospel as they do, to have a blank piece of land and be in charge of all the big puzzle pieces, to then not even try and connect said pieces is just so stupid. But hardly surprising. It's the most Edmonton thing you can do.
And no one should defend such terrible planning/ co-ordination. No one. Demand better of your leaders. Blind faith will lead you off the cliff.
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
What about the hill on 156st and yellowhead?This dirt pile might be Edmonton's highest topographic altitude
scyeg
Active Member
I think the actual highest point in the city is out where the MacTaggart Sanctuary is.
IanO
Superstar
^MacGrath Park, yes.
Coprolite
Active Member
It's easy to pretend that it can all magically be better when you ignore the actual amount of work that has to be done to redevelop this site, yes.
policyenthusiast
Senior Member
Also it's weird to call the planning and development department "our leaders".
Coprolite
Active Member
I mean, he's done an incredible job of arguing at every step that he has no idea what's going on or how anything works, and can't be bothered to comprehend anything on even extremely basic levels or ever make a point in any way based upon reality despite having VERY STRONG OPINIONS.
And god forbid we expect any better.
roe_
Active Member
I am not sure if this is the correct interpretation. My understanding is that many cities are now intentionally building transit into new areas prior to development. I believe this has a number of beneficial consequences, including lowering construction costs and quicker build-outs with immediate transit availability.
There a lots of examples online showing metro stations 10 years apart, going from an empty field to a forest of towers. To date, transit development in Edmonton has occurred in already-developed areas, which has tended to be expensive and slow. I don't know if a new approach will lead to better results, but I think it is worth experimenting to find out.
Coprolite
Active Member
Yeah, an interesting thing about this particular LRT segment is that it's the ONLY one in the last 40 years to complete ahead of schedule, and it completed a year early. There WAS work that had to be done before it could start (some utility work and a bunch of demolition), but once the corridor was prepped, it was amazing how quickly it went without a bunch of active competing things getting in its way like would have happened if there was construction going on around the stations themselves.
But the downside is that when it completes you have folks complaining BUT WHY IS THERE NOT ALREADY HIGH DENSITY BUILT AROUND IT.
thommyjo
Senior Member
I think the argument the other poster is making, which is fair imo, is not “why isn’t there already a ton of high density there?!?!?!” or “why did we build the LRT before the houses?!?!?!”
But rather, why is the vast majority of the development in the first 10 years being done so far from the LRT stations when this is meant to be a green; less car dependent, more transit oriented project.
I do, personally, find the design a bit confusing still as to the LRT alignment, lakes, and homes. Why are we using lakes to turn half of blatchford into a significantly less walkable/accessible to transit development?
It’s literally the same issue we have with our suburbs, where our placement of lakes, large arterial setbacks, and transit placements make car use the only logical choice. We literally shoot our transit in the foot with some of our decisions.
Keeping as much as blatchford within a 5-8min walk of the train stations would have been ideal. Vs 15+ minute walks means fewer will use regularly, if ever.
But rather, why is the vast majority of the development in the first 10 years being done so far from the LRT stations when this is meant to be a green; less car dependent, more transit oriented project.
I do, personally, find the design a bit confusing still as to the LRT alignment, lakes, and homes. Why are we using lakes to turn half of blatchford into a significantly less walkable/accessible to transit development?
It’s literally the same issue we have with our suburbs, where our placement of lakes, large arterial setbacks, and transit placements make car use the only logical choice. We literally shoot our transit in the foot with some of our decisions.
Keeping as much as blatchford within a 5-8min walk of the train stations would have been ideal. Vs 15+ minute walks means fewer will use regularly, if ever.
Last edited: