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
 6.7K     0 
^ I wasn't suggesting otherwise -- enclosed motorized vehicles are here to stay was my point -- they will evolve and are evolving into something other than the huge hulks that once commanded the streets. In a free society there will always be choices and to your one-time age concerns I can only speak for myself as a 78 (and a half) year old. I have no problem getting around and I am still in fit fighting form. When I attended Eastwood Junior High for the 7th grade I rode my bike to school every day (some 10 blocks distant) and I mostly enjoyed the experience (I am a little lazier these days and I don't own a bicycle anymore). When I lived in Europe I walked to Hochschule every day for 4 years (1.5 kilometers). I enjoy driving with the stereo playing and with the AC on. The "senior" cohort is growing in size and is looking for useful solutions to all sorts of societal problems -- including the dominance of motor vehicles. I think with more precise medical options (including AI) the average life expectancy is bound to take another leap forward (good news for your generation) and might make utile possibilities stretch towards an average that is very close to 100. My pet peeve -- riding the bus -- I absolutely hate it. Through a lack of other options I had to take the bus through my first year at U of A -- I hated the experience. On full-load days if I was seated I typically had someone else's business in my face and, nearly as bad, if I was standing I had my business in someone else's face. By my second year I had a used VW Beetle and I ferried myself and other classmates to school, parking near the Lister Hall complex (still a healthy walk to class, most notably on a windy cold winter's day). If you are canvasing for better choices, I am all for it; if you think "the car" is dead then I am not your man.
 
Google Earth Pro updated its imagery for the Southwest. The amount of greenfield that's been filled in since 2021 is absolutely mind-boggling.
1762448400567.png
 
yeggator said:
Google Earth Pro updated its imagery for the Southwest. The amount of greenfield that's been filled in since 2021 is absolutely mind-boggling.
View attachment 693700
Click to expand...

What I fully don't understand is all the people that are anti-greenfield but seeing how much development has occurred how can you reasonably believe we should stop it?
 
Oilers99 said:
What I fully don't understand is all the people that are anti-greenfield but seeing how much development has occurred how can you reasonably believe we should stop it?
Click to expand...
The answer is in your question. Exactly because there's been so much greenfield development we should stop it, or at least reduce it as much as possible. Greenfield development stretches out the public services, cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year only to benefit very few, since central and denser areas pay more property taxes, both per unit and as an aggregate while making more efficient use of city infrastructure. Traffic gets worse and worse, transit coverage ends up being lacking (or it would be extremely expensive to provide high levels of service), road maintenance costs fortunes, fire, police and health services need to either cover larger areas (making service slower and spreading them thin) or we need to spend lots of money to provide these areas with newer facilities and more professionals...

So I flip it back to you: why should we continue to allow this much greenfield development?
 
If the city stops greenfield development, it will just shift to outside city limits. Face it: SFH's are the preferred option for people because it's still attainable. If they can't buy it in Edmonton, they will move to St. Albert, Beaumont, Leduc, Spruce/ Stony. And the city will then lose tax dollars and still have to deal with the impacts of urban sprawl.
 
Here's a City-building argument point -- not specifically in favor of Greenfield Development but neither not ag'in' -- single family housing largely attracts buyers which arguably are more permanent residents because they are financially invested. Studies have consistently shown that renters are more transient and so when or if there is an Edmonton economic downturn they will be the first to flee (this also applies to condo owners (small segment) and townhouse owners -- also small segment)
 
Despite me living in Millwoods I really would like to see a slowdown of greenfield development. It always astounds me when I look at the square kilometer size of Edmonton in comparison to the square kilometer size of Metro Manila. For land size, Edmonton is physically bigger, but when you look at the population comparison Manila is approximately 12 times larger than Edmonton but of course situated in an area slightly smaller than Edmonton. Our city could and should densify by at least 1 million before adding much more going outwards. We should instead be building more and more LRT and bicycle infrastructure.
 
I really think we just need to do a better job of greenfield, rather than stop it. Residential lot sizes are reasonably modest, and there's always apartments, but then we're still building crappy power centres with middling transit access, laid out so that you still feel the need to drive everywhere anyways.
Even without LRT, we should be building walkable town centres around basic levels of transit access that doesn't make you feel like a second class citizen for taking the bus, and we should have pushed to get the LRT out here before all the development too so we're starting with LRT access from the beginning.
And we wouldn't even need to increase density, or eliminate all the SFHs that people want so bad in these neighbourhoods. Just lay them out a little differently and develop the shopping centre areas in a more balanced way.
 
^Exactly!! The city is responsible for this, approving each development, while then admonishing people who need to drive. Well, of course they do, because the city approved a neighbourhood that's car-centric. What we're seeing/ living with is suburban density. It's terrible. But the city keeps on approving it. What's needed is light urban density in the suburbs akin the return to main street style. But don't see that happening any time soon.

And the fact that urban planners and the armchair urban planners don't advocate or push for that is mind-boggling. Greenfield is still gonna happen.
 
The City has already basically said lands south of 41 Ave SW are not going to be developed. Between that and substantial completion the City is controlling greenfield development despite many thinking they are not. Further to the point above, if City of Edmonton proper halts all greenfield development that development will go to the surrounding towns with people using services but not paying municipal taxes and secondly, we love talking about our affordability, restrict supply that affordability will be significantly eroded.
 
Interesting to see what happens when “Substantial Completion” gets voted on later this council term.

The question is not zero greenfield or unbridled greenfield, it is whether or not the pace of greenfield development should be managed so that neighbourhoods/areas are substantially completed before construction begins on the next new area.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top