News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.9K     0 
Seamusmuldrew said:
Interesting, certainly skewed towards the American context. This would classify the MacEwan neighbourhood as “dense urban”
Click to expand...
I almost didn't believe that but wow the ASP called for 6165 people over 111 ha of total land (~5500pop/sqkm) which is firmly within dense urban. And the 2021 census data shows the population is just under 6k so the ASP wasn't far off at all.

Page 49

Screenshot 2025-10-15 at 10.07.21 AM.png
 
stensby said:
I almost didn't believe that but wow the ASP called for 6165 people over 111 ha of total land (~5500pop/sqkm) which is firmly within dense urban. And the 2021 census data shows the population is just under 6k so the ASP wasn't far off at all.

Page 49

View attachment 688505
Click to expand...
It’s very impressive how densely our newer suburbs have been built.
 
yeggator said:
It’s very impressive how densely our newer suburbs have been built.
Click to expand...

Because of the neighbourhood designs though, specifically the road systems, I've heard stories of traffic concerns and likely high vehicle usage.

One of the hopeful outcomes of density is less traffic.
 
TAS said:
Because of the neighbourhood designs though, specifically the road systems, I've heard stories of traffic concerns and likely high vehicle usage.

One of the hopeful outcomes of density is less traffic.
Click to expand...
Yes, more density, but unfortunately not necessarily less traffic. This goes back to comments about how the newer areas are really not designed to be very walkable.
 
IanO said:

Postponed: City Building at the U of A Conference

Join us for the fourth annual City Building at the U of A Conference to learn about “Managing our Urban Future.”
www.ualberta.ca www.ualberta.ca
Click to expand...
EDIT: Event postponed. Likely it was an error, and they had to hit the big red button.

Despite the initially promoted $150 price tag, registration appears to be ringing up as $25.

Either they reconsidered, or it's a clerical error. Either way, $25 for an all-day conference of this quality is a bonkers good deal. Hope to see some of you there.

1760557773538.png
 
Last edited:
David A said:
Yes, more density, but unfortunately not necessarily less traffic. This goes back to comments about how the newer areas are really not designed to be very walkable.
Click to expand...
Dense sprawl, which our suburbs are, basically give you a bunch of the downsides of both suburbs and high density ahha. Traffic, noise, smaller homes, busier parking and also car dependence, long commutes, cookie cutter vibes, primarily franchises/big box retail.

The benefits? Mixed income neighborhoods are better for crime and equality. More density helps financial sustainability. Townhomes/stick builds are cheaper than concrete high density.

But our walkability in new areas is still quite poor. Our traffic is getting brutal. Transit is so expensive to run way out to these areas and jobs are still mostly central or in areas hard to serve with transit (office parks/industrial/retail).

Instead of new suburbs, we need to start shifting to significant TODs. Those can actually be walkable. Have more local retail. Connected to transit. Jobs can cluster.

Density and car dependency isn’t a win for liveability.
 
TAS said:
Because of the neighbourhood designs though, specifically the road systems, I've heard stories of traffic concerns and likely high vehicle usage.

One of the hopeful outcomes of density is less traffic.
Click to expand...
Traffic concerns are often the result of the developer completing their required roadway construction but the city putting off their own roadway construction.

Designating bus stops but not providing bus service doesn’t help alleviate traffic and school sites without schools on them doesn’t alleviate traffic or assist in walkability either.
 
Panel discussion at the RAE/NAIOP panel today had the question "Where do you see the best payoff for CRE investment in 10-20 years", responses were:

Small bay industrial spaces (Multi-family market is saturating rapidly and rents are declining)
Office spaces like DT are undervalued and can turn on a dime
Convenience-based locations like restaurants with a drive thru are growing much faster than sit-in
 
policyenthusiast said:
Panel discussion at the RAE/NAIOP panel today had the question "Where do you see the best payoff for CRE investment in 10-20 years", responses were:

Small bay industrial spaces (Multi-family market is saturating rapidly and rents are declining)
Office spaces like DT are undervalued and can turn on a dime
Convenience-based locations like restaurants with a drive thru are growing much faster than sit-in
Click to expand...
At some point returning to office should start to impact office space, almost nothing has been built for several years now and the city continues to grow.

I'm really not a big fan of being stuck in a drive thru and generally avoid them. I find it can be faster to go in and order, especially at less busy times. I think what may be happening is just a shift to lower priced dining which tends to be more convenience based.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top