News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.9K     0 

I could do a documentary series that would have enough stories to make at least 100 episodes about blindered planners that have never left their desk and have no concept of the market. Or if they do know there's a market, they'll approach it like Marxists. Hello UBC urban geography department as one such shining example; back in the day, a prof there told me that you'd only get tenure in that department if you bought into and sold a Marxist perspective. I'm not joking about that.
Please enlighten me as to what the actual F does Marxism have to do with this?
 
Downtown has needed a lot of investment over the past 20+ years. Fixing up streets like Jasper Avenue, building Roger’s Place and the Ice District. Adding downtown residential buildings and a second LRT line. That is a lot for downtown.

It’s true that the Quarters has not had the same success, but I could see something happen within five years. Covid slowed things down, but development like Stationlands and the Winspear expansion has brought promise downtown again.
 
The Quarters is going to become Edmonton's East Hastings unless it's wrapped up in a package and sold to a developer at ring road pricing (which is what it's worth).
 
It’s going to be crickets. Invoking Marxism without explaining yourself, as if it’s some amorphous disease, is the quickest way to tell everyone at the party you have a room temperature IQ.
I appreciate the IQ measurement! Room temperature is an improvement from the 🥶 one I'm usually told I have.

In short, planners coming out of the UBC planning school as one example (of which urban geography was a bachelor-level taste of left-wing interpretations of real estate), learned to lens real estate through a Marxist eyeglass. That tended to produce planners that were, to varying degrees, working in a bubble that was either market-antagonistic or market-ignorant. In a market-based economy, one can plan all they want but if they ignore the market, knowingly or not, you can end up with examples like the Quarters: a costly planning bubble.

And even so, that's only my $0.02 based on my own experiences both in field of studies and real-world real estate work.
 
I appreciate the IQ measurement! Room temperature is an improvement from the 🥶 one I'm usually told I have.

In short, planners coming out of the UBC planning school as one example (of which urban geography was a bachelor-level taste of left-wing interpretations of real estate), learned to lens real estate through a Marxist eyeglass. That tended to produce planners that were, to varying degrees, working in a bubble that was either market-antagonistic or market-ignorant. In a market-based economy, one can plan all they want but if they ignore the market, knowingly or not, you can end up with examples like the Quarters: a costly planning bubble.

And even so, that's only my $0.02 based on my own experiences both in field of studies and real-world real estate work.
No concrete examples... Not to mention the broad definition of anything that you don't agree with as "Marxist" with absolutely no substance to support it.
I dare you define what is Marxism, without ChatGPT.
 
Setting aside the "what is Marxism?" deal, there certainly is a kind of left-NIMBY who's averse to the idea that a developer might ever make a profit on anything. But this discussion is about Kinistinaw Park, and I don't know that that conversation really pertains to it. The city poured a lot of money into it in the hopes that a broader investment would materialize, and it didn't. Maybe the city's judgment was bad, or maybe they were the victims of bad luck, but I don't see anything anti-market there.
 
Screenshot 2025-05-20 at 12.44.35 PM.png

 

Back
Top