What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    64
JMatt88 said:
What are these?
Click to expand...

Glad you asked that. I was of the understanding - and I thought I read it on this forum - that three residential Ice District projects will be expedited and completed by 2028. But I'm not seeing that in any articles.

This one when the deal was announced says OEG residential would begin likely by 2028.
edmontonjournal.com

Keith Gerein: Alberta budget finally gives Edmonton a win, but are the Oilers the biggest beneficiary?

Alberta's new budget finally offers Edmonton some wins on taxes and infrastructure, but a lot of benefit seems to lie with OEG.
edmontonjournal.com edmontonjournal.com

From Gerein:
"Building on 14 towers is expected to start in 2028 and finish 10 years later — I would be skeptical of that timeline"

I thought I read somewhere that OEG would be required to start projects right away. I guess just wishful thinking on my part.
 
MacLac said:
You’re right! OEG is obligated to finish 3 towers by 2028. There is a bunch of literature out there saying so. I know the province published a story on it
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any geotechnical work being conducted in this area as of yet, unless decent studies already exist.
 
I'm sure geotechnical will happen in due time....no exact details have been released yet...
 
MacLac said:
I'm sure geotechnical will happen in due time....no exact details have been released yet...
Click to expand...
Just thinking if they haven't done geotechnical yet, engineering hasn't even started in earnest. Project completion by 2028 is pretty tight, especially with procurement timelines like they are now.
 
NicolBolas said:
Just thinking if they haven't done geotechnical yet, engineering hasn't even started in earnest. Project completion by 2028 is pretty tight, especially with procurement timelines like they are now.
Click to expand...
Geotech would be part of the infrastructure funding the GOA and City are kicking in for the village. Until the master agreement is signed, I can't see anything starting. Too much risk to start now if Council doesn't approve the agreement or sends it back to admin for more updates. The MOU isn't a binding agreement.
 
Out of Towner said:
The City of Edmonton should replace the high level bridge if it wants transformation. A modern bridge with two way traffic would link the north and south sides better and promote economic development. Right now there's basically a north side economy and a south side economy because of the poor north south transportation corridor. For many living on the south side it's too much of a hassle to get downtown. The mirror that's in use on the high level - that's from the farm isn't it? After the LRT expansion, maybe the bridge is next if the the money isn't squandered on bicycle paths that almost nobody uses for 8 months of the year.
Click to expand...
Hey @Out of Towner ... GET OUTTA TOWN!!!

lol jk, but seriously, replacing one of Edmonton's most iconic structures is definitely not the answer. I agree that vehicle connection is not ideal, and perhaps a new bridge (somewhere.... not near the high level....) or updated thoroughfare is needed to improve connectivity between the two very urban sections of the city. But I don't think it would be transformative in the sense that investment would come flooding in just becasue transportation has improved.
 
Out of Towner said:
The City of Edmonton should replace the high level bridge if it wants transformation. A modern bridge with two way traffic would link the north and south sides better and promote economic development. Right now there's basically a north side economy and a south side economy because of the poor north south transportation corridor. For many living on the south side it's too much of a hassle to get downtown. The mirror that's in use on the high level - that's from the farm isn't it? After the LRT expansion, maybe the bridge is next if the the money isn't squandered on bicycle paths that almost nobody uses for 8 months of the year.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree that there needs to be a new High Level Bridge to better link the economies of Old Strathcona and Downtown, but there is no need to tear the old bridge down. There's enough space east of the existing bridge to build a new bridge connecting 109th Street on a straighter alignment (it would cut through the Kinsmen soccer field and the western edge of the Legislature grounds, but still worth it), where you could run two-way vehicle traffic, intercity trains and potentially another cross-river LRT alignment. Then, you keep the old bridge for cyclists, pedestrians and the streetcar.
 
yeggator said:
I definitely agree that there needs to be a new High Level Bridge to better link the economies of Old Strathcona and Downtown, but there is no need to tear the old bridge down. There's enough space east of the existing bridge to build a new bridge connecting 109th Street on a straighter alignment (it would cut through the Kinsmen soccer field and the western edge of the Legislature grounds, but still worth it), where you could run two-way vehicle traffic, intercity trains and potentially another cross-river LRT alignment. Then, you keep the old bridge for cyclists, pedestrians and the streetcar.
Click to expand...
I don't think that will solve the problem of Edmonton lacking an actual North/South corridor. The best we have is 75 street and that isn't saying much.

If this was City Skylines, I would personally build a 6 lane highway directly under the city... Problem solved.
 
yeggator said:
I definitely agree that there needs to be a new High Level Bridge to better link the economies of Old Strathcona and Downtown, but there is no need to tear the old bridge down. There's enough space east of the existing bridge to build a new bridge connecting 109th Street on a straighter alignment (it would cut through the Kinsmen soccer field and the western edge of the Legislature grounds, but still worth it), where you could run two-way vehicle traffic, intercity trains and potentially another cross-river LRT alignment. Then, you keep the old bridge for cyclists, pedestrians and the streetcar.
Click to expand...
I share your opinion that the streetcar is a unique and valuable heritage piece that most other cities don't have but there's little reason to believe that replacing the High Level would spell its demise. Surely a new bridge could be designed so that the view of the river valley from the streetcar wouldn't be disturbed. Extending the streetcar's route onto Whyte Avenue would be a popular tourist attraction. We're not talking San Francisco here but it would still add some interest for people visiting the city like the hop on hop off tour buses that some places have.
 
crisp said:
Hey @Out of Towner ... GET OUTTA TOWN!!!

lol jk, but seriously, replacing one of Edmonton's most iconic structures is definitely not the answer. I agree that vehicle connection is not ideal, and perhaps a new bridge (somewhere.... not near the high level....) or updated thoroughfare is needed to improve connectivity between the two very urban sections of the city. But I don't think it would be transformative in the sense that investment would come flooding in just becasue transportation has improved
Click to expand...
Improving transportation is about improving efficiency. As a rule, people will pick the most efficient way of getting somewhere or going about their business. The Rat Hole on 109th Street was removed and access to the north side has improved and economic development along the corridor is occurring. QE2 has been upgraded over the years and there's more economic development along it. The Feds want to create energy corridors because it improves efficiency. Improving the river crossing is the same concept.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top