[ntt1]

Confusion and backlash over City of Edmonton’s neighbourhood renewal plans - Edmonton | Globalnews.ca

A City of Edmonton neighbourhood renewal plan for Dunluce that calls for wider sidewalks, bike paths and reduced street parking is meeting resistance from area residents.

globalnews.ca

*groan*

Saw this on the news today. Why is it that it only seems like the NIMBYs get the news coverage over these things? It seems pretty obvious to me that they are uncompromising with their demands and arguing in bad faith ("Stop the Destruction"??).

I find the design of 1970s-1980s built suburbs to be extremely hostile to anybody not driving a vehicle. It's literally taking your life into your own hands whenever you need to cross the any of the collector roads because they are so wide. I am in a similar suburb and I'd venture to guess that 65-70% of the time, cars won't stop for someone standing waiting to cross, and over half of them are speeding. No wonder not many people are out using the sidewalks.

 

[The_Cat]

I wonder if expanding 112 Street and 167 Avenue (west of 112 Street) to four lanes might be a benefit to the Dunluce Community. That would take traffic of Dunluce Road.

 

[trevorhayden]

If Dunluce doesn't want renewal, the City should move on and just use the money to renew another neighbourhood. I am sure there are at least 5 who would gladly take the money to move up their renewal schedule.

 

[buildings]

^^^^ "confusion and backlash"... I mean, the City has been in talks with the residents of Oliver for a least a year now and more to come. I assume the City performed a similar process with the folks in Dunluce. At the end of the day, improvements to basic infrastructure all happen on City owned property and thus will conform to whatever the current standards are. A pox on the NIMBYs. However, if the folks in Dunluce don't want it, Oliver will happily take that money for improvements to the one ice sheet and the not-year-round outdoor pool that service the densest neighbourhood in the city.

 

[David A]

I suppose we can blame the residents for being so stubborn and difficult here, but if there is one common response by citizens to the City's "consultations" on various things in recent years, it seems to be frustration and a sense of not being really listened to or heard.

It is a troubling sign that some communities now don't want city infrastructure spending, another possible interpretation of this is that what the City wants to do is out of touch with what the residents in the area feel is needed.

 

[constance_chlore]

The question is, how representative are those people and how much should we really value their opinions? Loud groups of angry citizens proclaiming that the city is forcing something on them is a hallmark of NIMBYism—we saw it with every single one of the surplus school sites. We need to be discerning about when to listen to them and when to ignore them.

 

[David A]

The question is, how representative are those people and how much should we really value their opinions? Loud groups of angry citizens proclaiming that the city is forcing something on them is a hallmark of NIMBYism—we saw it with every single one of the surplus school sites. We need to be discerning about when to listen to them and when to ignore them.

Good point, but I suppose how representative they are is hypothetical until tested. Why not have a neighbourhood vote?

 

[Greenspace]

I am not saying I agree one way or another, but it should be mentioned that Neighbourhood Renewal is no longer just replacing like-for-like, it is also to add bike lanes, accessibility requirements, Vision Zero goals, etc, many of which have nothing to do with basic Neighbourhood Renewal. It has also driven up the costs, which was mentioned in the fall budget debate.

Let's say for example there's a neighbourhood up for renewal, and a bike lane is supposed to go along an avenue way far from anywhere people regularly commute by bikes, takes away all the street parking you've had for 40 years, and doesn't allow driveways cause they're no longer allowed to cross an active cycle route, wouldn't you be angry?

 

[trevorhayden]

I have been to NR public meetings. 95% of people support the plans. Most opposition is driven by a small group of conspiracy theorists. There is no evidence that any of the 700 signatures on the petition are real or even from Dunluce.

 

[constance_chlore]

Why not have a neighbourhood vote?

I do think this would (setting aside any logistical and budgetary considerations) be better than the current system of just accepting the feedback of whoever is willing to go out of their way to give it, but there's also the question of what to do when neighborhoods continuously make decisions with negative externalities, leaving the city at large to pick up the tab. I think this is the situation of a lot of opposition to rezoning: people don't want multi-family housing in their neighborhoods because of how it could affect their home values, but the result is that housing everywhere becomes more expensive and taxpayers shell out more in the long term for infrastructure in the suburbs. These things shouldn't be left entirely to the neighborhoods themselves.

 

[trevorhayden]

These residents are asking for public infrastructure below standards. Unacceptable.

 

[archited]

^^^^^ do we ignore the mob that has been led to believe that the devil is on their front porch by a "convincing" torch-bearing leader. It amazes me how easily people are duped. Do not let the mob rule; we never end up in a good place.

 

[thommyjo]

I am not saying I agree one way or another, but it should be mentioned that Neighbourhood Renewal is no longer just replacing like-for-like, it is also to add bike lanes, accessibility requirements, Vision Zero goals, etc, many of which have nothing to do with basic Neighbourhood Renewal. It has also driven up the costs, which was mentioned in the fall budget debate.

Let's say for example there's a neighbourhood up for renewal, and a bike lane is supposed to go along an avenue way far from anywhere people regularly commute by bikes, takes away all the street parking you've had for 40 years, and doesn't allow driveways cause they're no longer allowed to cross an active cycle route, wouldn't you be angry?

I don’t believe that’s happening anywhere…. Happy to be proven wrong though.

Where are driveways being banned and street parking entirely removed?

Also, “bikes lanes where people don’t regularly bike”. Is there a school within 10 minutes?

And very few neighborhood renewals have bike lanes. Most are MUPs. Which massively benefit those using strollers, walking in groups, walking dogs, etc.

 

[ntt1]

It does seem like all the bike lanes planned were changed to MUPs, per the final design book: https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/Dunluce-WWD-Design-Book.pdf

Below is a street view of one of the collectors in Dunluce. I'd feel pretty unsafe crossing here to get to the bus stop. Definitely could benefit from a road diet.

 

[thommyjo]

W

It does seem like all the bike lanes planned were changed to MUPs, per the final design book: https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/Dunluce-WWD-Design-Book.pdf

Below is a street view of one of the collectors in Dunluce. I'd feel pretty unsafe crossing here to get to the bus stop. Definitely could benefit from a road diet.

View attachment 630754

What a gross road for a neighborhood. Anyone advocating this be 1for1 replaced is out of their minds.