IanO
Superstar
Can someone explain to me why we are taking 75% of the quick parking meters away from Jasper? While I want Jasper to look great, the balance has been lost IMO.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Gronk!
Senior Member
I took the survey. I told them this:
- make sure the design is consistent with the 109 St-124 St section
- relocate the Corona Station entrance from Jasper Ave north to 108 St north
- escalators in the LRT stations
- vandal-proof the LRT stations
_urbanite
Senior Member
thommyjo
Senior Member
Reminder, this was approved 15 years ago and is at least 6 years from completion.
Our Main Street.
When BILD argues sprawl isn’t costing us, this is what I point to. We can’t even rebuild our main streets (also see whyte ave being trash) because we are too busy twinning suburban roads on every side…
Our Main Street.
When BILD argues sprawl isn’t costing us, this is what I point to. We can’t even rebuild our main streets (also see whyte ave being trash) because we are too busy twinning suburban roads on every side…
kcantor
Senior Member
^
I think you're comparing apples to oranges...
It's a conscious choice to defer maintenance whether it's main streets, neighbourhoods, community facilities, civic buildings, bus fleets, sidewalks, landscaping etc. etc. etc. in favour of spending money on the next shiny penny.
It's really got nothing to do with twinning suburban roads per se - there is a fixation within council(s) and administration on new shiny projects and an apparent abhorrence to actually look after what we already have and have already paid for.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges...
It's a conscious choice to defer maintenance whether it's main streets, neighbourhoods, community facilities, civic buildings, bus fleets, sidewalks, landscaping etc. etc. etc. in favour of spending money on the next shiny penny.
It's really got nothing to do with twinning suburban roads per se - there is a fixation within council(s) and administration on new shiny projects and an apparent abhorrence to actually look after what we already have and have already paid for.
thommyjo
Senior Member
If you look at where the vast majority of road dollars have gone, you’ll see that it’s to new suburbs while our central city roads crumble.
In a world of finite resources, the opportunity cost of new infrastructure is significant.
kcantor
Senior Member
The vast majority - if not all - road dollars in new suburbs are entirely developer funded including large amounts of arterial road construction (https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_plans/roads/developer-arterial-projects).
Of all of the major road and bridge projects underway, none of them are "new suburban" (https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_plans/roads).
I think in large part you're posting what you want to believe rather than what actually is.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Terwillegar widening and interchange is due to sprawl.
Whitemud is being twinned and the city is paying.
City covers all pothole repairs, snow clearing, etc for operating costs, right? Even before eventual renewals.
LRT having to extend to heritage valley, VLW over the henday to Lewis farms, and transit service in new suburbs in general is a huge cost.
And while not current, projects like 23ave interchange caused by SEC and SW sprawl were HUGE tax burdens that I would have loved to see invested in better “city identity” areas like whyte, 109st, jasper, 124st.
All new suburbs, while initial costs might be developer (home buyer) funded, still add to our infrastructure renewal liability. Which constrains future spending capacity.
I’m not sure what you’re claiming. That more roads, pipes, streetlights, sidewalks, parks, etc don’t actually take away from spending money on existing infrastructure?
We continue to have it proven that these new suburbs lose us billions in their life cycles. So how would adding more net negative areas not take away from funding for existing areas?
Last edited:
channing76
Active Member
The density in new areas is pretty good though, they pack alot of homes into small areas. Higher tax base in a smaller area is a good thing, especially compared to the older areas bungalow style neighborhoods.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Agreed.
And yet imagine all those homes being built in existing areas. That’d be even better density.
Every new home in a new suburb takes away demand for a new infill home.
Some people will jump ship to exurbs, but many will buy what’s built. As our infill building has increased, absorption has kept pace.
So instead of adding 10,000 new homes to new suburbs, let’s get those developed across our existing neighborhoods. Instead of new heritage valley apartments, let’s finish century park.
If we restrict land supply until we see more density in the existing city, that’ll help our taxes a ton.
bodsbods9090
Senior Member
Horse Hills...it ain't stopping any time soon.
Northeast Edmonton is about to explode.
_urbanite
Senior Member
I would like to see a more focused economic strategy developed to bring new industrial and commercial development to the area. That would really help the NE explode. Plenty of land up there for this
Right now it's been a slow and steady slog to just to get the land inside of the Henday fully built out (which is finally getting close to happening). The Edmonton Energy & Technology Park was announced over a decade ago, yet very little (if anything) has come from that.
TAS
Senior Member
So much great farmland in area that needs to remain as well.
_urbanite
Senior Member
IanO
Superstar
Sure, but traffic is horrendous, most places still not particularly walkable for services, little to no landscaping, limited transit options and cramped hoods.
Some aspects are much better than previous generation areas, but I am of the opinion that we may regret THAT much density in these types of places in the future.