Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 401 to 500 of 585

Thread: Edmonton Central Park

  1. #401
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,869

    Default

    itís interesting to see this coming back to council on what turns out to be the very last day possible as well as whatís being presented.

    when you need to acquire something by negotiation and/or by expropriation, expropriation is usually reserved for a holdout parcel that is key to the balance of the assembly. itís not normally used to acquire large prortions of non-contiguous land when contiguous parcels are an option.

    itís also my understanding that the mandate was to acquire gravel parking lots while the parcels being expropriated are fully paved and landscaped and no longer being used as parking as their non accessory use permit has expired and their not having one has been respected (ie theyíre not being used for parking).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  2. #402
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,305

    Default

    Expropriation passes, done deal. Lone vote against was from that useless **** Caterina, while Esslinger was absent.
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  3. #403
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Expropriation approved! Now the hard work begins...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  4. #404

    Default

    Waste of taxpayers dollars. Nothing more...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  5. #405

    Default

    Fantastic. Great of them to buy the land now rather than in 10-15 years - especially surface parking lots. Good planning enacted upon from the City for a 30-year outlook on central development and urban planning. A sports field is needed. Good area for active programming. Playground.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  6. #406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    A couple thoughts:

    New developments bordering green spaces are likely to be designed with the view and access in mind. I'd image such buildings would be of a more 'desirable' design style.

    Also, regarding parking, self-driving cars, if they appear in numbers, will likely be able to pick up and drop off their owners and park at a distance from the downtown.

    To attract families downtown, family orientated infrastructure is needed. Parks and playgrounds help. Instead of underground parking, an underground school might be more valuable.
    Further my comment above of a few years ago, maybe thereís potential to buy out or expropriate another building adjoining the parkland, make a potion of the park space suitable for school use and the convert a building or build an elementary/junior-high school.

  7. #407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    "We're going to seize these lands in order to make the area more attractive for other people to build on"

    I agree that the location doesn't make sense for such a large park. The legislature grounds are two blocks away. Beaver Hills is a block away as is Alex Decoteau Park. And we're looking at a minimum of $28 million just for land acquisition. And it's taking out a large swath of land when the downtown supporters are calling for increased density.
    Do the math on the revenue generated by a couple projects that likely wonít go ahead if this park isnít built. It takes money to generate and justify high taxes. This park would likely pay for itself between 10-30 years and beautify the community doing so. Capital costs arenít a good argument, continuity and loss of 107th could be.
    Well heck, let's build two or three then? How about one every two blocks on both sides of Jasper?

    If the city were looking for space for a park, how about the long empty lot on the SE corner of 102 & Jasper? For the price of this park, you could have a number of parks the size of the lot at 102 street scattered about. And if you're looking for athletic fields, there's lots of space at Victoria School, just a few short blocks north. There's also space for sports at Alex Taylor School. Both locations have parking available and frequent transit access as well as being a short walk. Just because something isn't right "downtown" doesn't mean it's not convient for the residents.

    Funny how access to the river valley and the legislature grounds are used as a selling point but are completely dismissed as being too difficult to access or too far out of the way.

    Smaller but more numerous parks seems to be the way to go. Scatter some the size of Michael Phair Park here and there if you like.

    There's numerous Pocket Parks scattered throughout New York and they're all well utilized.

  8. #408
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    ...

    Do the math on the revenue generated by a couple projects that likely wonít go ahead if this park isnít built. It takes money to generate and justify high taxes. This park would likely pay for itself between 10-30 years and beautify the community doing so. Capital costs arenít a good argument, continuity and loss of 107th could be.
    balanced by the couple projects that wonít proceed - or lay any taxes - because their owner had their land expropriated?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  9. #409

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    Fantastic. Great of them to buy the land now rather than in 10-15 years - especially surface parking lots. Good planning enacted upon from the City for a 30-year outlook on central development and urban planning. A sports field is needed. Good area for active programming. Playground.
    What's the population of school age children downtown? There's neighbourhoods that are dealing with crowded classrooms or children facing long bus trips each day and downtown needs a school of it's own? And a full size sports field as well?

  10. #410
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    A game changer and space that will allow for uses not currently available in the Downtown, something critical to expanding our residential population and the overall desirability of the core.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #411
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    ...

    Do the math on the revenue generated by a couple projects that likely wonít go ahead if this park isnít built. It takes money to generate and justify high taxes. This park would likely pay for itself between 10-30 years and beautify the community doing so. Capital costs arenít a good argument, continuity and loss of 107th could be.
    balanced by the couple projects that wonít proceed - or lay any taxes - because their owner had their land expropriated?
    I could be mistaken but I donít believe there has been any developments planned for any of these lots.

    @kkorikiz thatís actually not something I would be opposed to! Little pocket parks all over the place would be nice for people all over the community, but something like this does have the potential of being a landmark for the city.

  12. #412

    Default

    A landmark? Will people travel from across the world to take pictures of it? Will it be on the covers of magazines? Will it be as well known as the Sydney Opera House or the Eiffel Tower?

    A landmark? Please....

    Exactly what uses will this allow that aren't already within a 1 km radius of the downtown area Ian? What else does downtown need to make it desirable? Art gallery the scale of the Louvre? As many live theares as Broadway? It's funny how other neighbourhoods are desirable already without these attractions necessary. How about handing people sacks of cash. Bet that would make people want to live there. Why not just waive property taxes altogether. Think of the demand to be able to live tax free. You'd have them lined up down the block.

  13. #413
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Opening day, you and me, 1 on 1 at the new court.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  14. #414

    Default

    There's alreadt courts available.

    Oh right, they don't count because you;' have to leave your enclave. Nothing outside of "downtown exists for downtownies. Funny how you always say that the downtown parks are for everyone but the downtownies can't be expected to go less than a mile to access any sort of facilities.

  15. #415
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    There's alreadt courts available.

    Oh right, they don't count because you;' have to leave your enclave. Nothing outside of "downtown exists for downtownies. Funny how you always say that the downtown parks are for everyone but the downtownies can't be expected to go less than a mile to access any sort of facilities.
    Why does this debate upset you so much? Iíve never seen someone get so upset about a parkspace lol. If it got rejected I would have been disappointed but not boiling.

  16. #416

    Default

    Because the folks like IanO are so focussed on downtown that they're willing to put the rest of the city (and province) in harm's way. Everything must be about downtown. If you're not supporting everything going to a relatively small population, you're not supporting the city.

    The biggest example is DynaLab. He and the DBA are actively lobbying against the new lab because downtown might lose a handful of workers that might go out for a sandwich. You know what? Companies leave neighbourhoods all the time. He had no problem with Stantec moving downtown even though it would harm the local restaurants around their old headquaterers the exact same way that DynaLab moving might.

    Moving the RAM? No biggie, downtown deserves it and nobody else does.

    It's never enough for the downtownies in general and IanO in particular. Things will continue to be built downtown and elsewhere and sometimes, just sometimes, downtown won't get what they want.

    We're looking at 36 million in land alone for this park. How many other parts of the city get something of this scale? But it's apparently worth expropriation just to keep IanO happy. Because, this time for sure, this will somehow, magically, make everyone want to move downtown instead of anywhere else.

  17. #417
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Because the folks like IanO are so focussed on downtown that they're willing to put the rest of the city (and province) in harm's way. Everything must be about downtown. If you're not supporting everything going to a relatively small population, you're not supporting the city.

    The biggest example is DynaLab. He and the DBA are actively lobbying against the new lab because downtown might lose a handful of workers that might go out for a sandwich. You know what? Companies leave neighbourhoods all the time. He had no problem with Stantec moving downtown even though it would harm the local restaurants around their old headquaterers the exact same way that DynaLab moving might.

    Moving the RAM? No biggie, downtown deserves it and nobody else does.

    It's never enough for the downtownies in general and IanO in particular. Things will continue to be built downtown and elsewhere and sometimes, just sometimes, downtown won't get what they want.

    We're looking at 36 million in land alone for this park. How many other parts of the city get something of this scale? But it's apparently worth expropriation just to keep IanO happy. Because, this time for sure, this will somehow, magically, make everyone want to move downtown instead of anywhere else.
    ... :/ Okay.

  18. #418
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640
    Last edited by IanO; 11-01-2019 at 09:06 PM.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  19. #419
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,305

    Default

    What are the names of the three projects?
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  20. #420
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    108st - 2 towers - Pangman/Maclab/JohnDay

    106st - Westrich

    106st - 2 towers - (north parcel) - Edgar - 'shift'

    The old funeral home on 108st/102ave is also a tower redevelopment site from the same folks at the top.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  21. #421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Well they will certainly benefit financial by the COE taxpayer largesse of a free park built in front of their properties. Probably added $100k per unit.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  22. #422

    Default

    A desert. There's a brand new park a block away along with an older one a similar distance. And yet, in all IanO's planning for Alex Decotou Park, he didn't think to address this issue.

    And if there's such a lack of park space, why are there three existing parks shown on the plan?





    Ian O'Donnell, executive director of the Downtown Business Association, said the proposed park would make the downtown more desirable for business owners and residents.


    He said the lack of park space in the area amounted to a "playground desert."

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...park-1.4975175

  23. #423
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  24. #424
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,305

    Default

    So Allard wants a "chance of a lifetime opportunity" to have a decades-old Impark parking lot?
    Expropriation cannot come soon enough.

    BTW Allard Development has a website but has sweet FA on it.
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  25. #425

    Default

    OK, what about all the other vacant lots downtown? Should they also be expropriated because the owners hav't built anything on them yet? Isn't that what this park is somehow going to magically do? Maybe the city should punish other land owners that aren't building fast enough. Increase the taxe reate each yer until they either sell or build.

    That'll show them.

    Expropriation should be a last resort measure for major projects such as LRT. Using it for a park in a pretty much unpopulated part of downtown is a mistake.

  26. #426
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    8,127

    Default

    North side of Rogers would be a bad place for a park. It would turn into a passing out and a needle infested area. It would be too close to that action. This place they are putting it would be quite a bit better and further away from that. Not to say it wonít happen but it would be much less for sure. imo

  27. #427
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    8,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    OK, what about all the other vacant lots downtown? Should they also be expropriated because the owners hav't built anything on them yet? Isn't that what this park is somehow going to magically do? Maybe the city should punish other land owners that aren't building fast enough. Increase the taxe reate each yer until they either sell or build.

    That'll show them.

    Expropriation should be a last resort measure for major projects such as LRT. Using it for a park in a pretty much unpopulated part of downtown is a mistake.
    It would be a parking lot forever. Itís Allards.

  28. #428

    Default

    So, make it illegal to own or operate a parking lot? Seize them all? Funny how IanO admitted that multiple projects are already planned for this area without a park.

  29. #429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    North side of Rogers would be a bad place for a park. It would turn into a passing out and a needle infested area. It would be too close to that action. This place they are putting it would be quite a bit better and further away from that. Not to say it won’t happen but it would be much less for sure. imo
    So parks are only for rich people???
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  30. #430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Because the folks like IanO are so focussed on downtown that they're willing to put the rest of the city (and province) in harm's way. Everything must be about downtown. If you're not supporting everything going to a relatively small population, you're not supporting the city.

    The biggest example is DynaLab. He and the DBA are actively lobbying against the new lab because downtown might lose a handful of workers that might go out for a sandwich. You know what? Companies leave neighbourhoods all the time. He had no problem with Stantec moving downtown even though it would harm the local restaurants around their old headquaterers the exact same way that DynaLab moving might.

    Moving the RAM? No biggie, downtown deserves it and nobody else does.

    It's never enough for the downtownies in general and IanO in particular. Things will continue to be built downtown and elsewhere and sometimes, just sometimes, downtown won't get what they want.

    We're looking at 36 million in land alone for this park. How many other parts of the city get something of this scale? But it's apparently worth expropriation just to keep IanO happy. Because, this time for sure, this will somehow, magically, make everyone want to move downtown instead of anywhere else.
    Maybe because they and the rest of Edmontonians know that we once had a vibrant downtown and it was lost. Restoring that is generally seen as very desirable. I desire that too. (Oddly and unfortunately some put blame on entities like WEM for what they somehow see as the stealing of the old downtown’s vibrancy. Others see some what I see a vibrant downtown as a matter of city survival. I see that as unfounded and unproven belief in a necessity. Nonetheless with that belief comes some inherent right to go beyond incentivizing to the point of forcing vibrancy back downtown.)

    Further on the matter of restoring the old downtown’s vibrancy none of the vested interests / boosters ever mentioned how family-unfriendly, anti-family the downtown had become.* The blame for that can be placed on the burbs existence or the burbs out competing the downtown. The blame falls on the self-destructive nature of those people making housing decisions downtown. (Large numbers of adult only buildings ensured that.)

    * I recall my own WRF moment here on c2e a number of years ago about downtown’s dirty little secret. All these people posting to c2e were talking up downtown and often bashing suburban sprawl, suburban life, this suburban this and that. Then some poster mentioned how hard it was to find a place downtown for his/her family and the issue of downtown’s vast number of adult restricted buildings was revealed. Families couldn’t locate downtown even if they wanted to. Yet all these clueless single guys or childless downtown guys posting to c2e were trying to put a guilt trip on every family chosing to live in the suburbs.

    From the 1910s to the 1960s my own mother and her siblings grew up in or next to, depending on one’s definition, the old vibrant downtown. In a bungalow with a backyard. A family of six supporting the downtown. That old neighbourhood was pretty much bulldozed for minimally family-friendly apartment buildings.

  31. #431

    Default

    Unless this expropriation comes with some mechanism to force the building of affordable three bedroom units it's a waste.

    $28 million would go a long way to re-establishing Oliver arena/outdoor pool. $28 million would go along way in the Quarters. You know, where families already live. You know, where the likelihood of establishing family neighbourhoods is far greater.

    I don't want to hear another word around here about how "the Leg grounds/the River Valley is my backyard".

  32. #432
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    CRL dollars cannot be spent in the Quarters or Oliver and I would agree that the hope is for more 3 bedroom units, but to mandate them is a bad idea. Toronto had them mandated and then pulled that back.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  33. #433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Unless this expropriation comes with some mechanism to force the building of affordable three bedroom units it's a waste.

    $28 million would go a long way to re-establishing Oliver arena/outdoor pool. $28 million would go along way in the Quarters. You know, where families already live. You know, where the likelihood of establishing family neighbourhoods is far greater.

    I don't want to hear another word around here about how "the Leg grounds/the River Valley is my backyard".
    No matter what develops, added green space will make the downtown much nicer.

    Too bad though that it’s not an avenue of green touching the whole length / breadth of an area downtown or a corridor tying in with the river valley park system as a ravine in the suburbs would tie outlying areas to thd valley.

    Additional money can always be provided towards the re-establishment of the facilities you mentioned.
    Last edited by KC; 12-01-2019 at 08:50 AM.

  34. #434
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,869

    Default

    ^^

    at the risk of chasing another horse that has left the barn, downtown was vibrant without a park here, without a funicular, without a series of jasper avenue revisioning stretches, without capital boulevard etc. although interestingly enough it did have a downtown arena. it also had a year round city/farmers market and an elementary school or two. we took the most attractive family friendly destination we had - the city hall wading pool - and closed it last year because we can’t afford it. $28 million would have gone a long way to upgrading it and keeping it open instead of buying and expropriating a bunch of parking lots that will stay that even if they’re not used for parking (and i guess we’ll see about that) for a decade or two until we can actually turn them into usable park space. by then, everything around it will be developed unless everyone anticipates there will be no development here for decades despite the city having acquired a park site. and if things are going to develop without a park site, why the rush to sterilize these lands and the money used to buy them?
    Last edited by kcantor; 12-01-2019 at 08:47 AM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  35. #435

    Default

    $28M is just the land. How much will be spent on developing the park?

    I see the COE won't spend a dime on a gondola that would benefit DT and Old Strathcona for transit users and tourism. I thought that IanO would support that.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  36. #436
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    TBD, but likely around 15-20M to a total max of 50M.

    The gondola project is being led by a private group, as it should be.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  37. #437

    Default

    I would see acquiring the essentially undeveloped land while they can and during a recession as a good thing. Completing the required land package by acquiring any older buildings at the same time would also be reasonable if there is risk of future development making that impossible.

    However, there can’t be many things cheaper than converting parking lots into basic functional park space so I’d say it’s also reasonable to devote additional money towards that.

    Steriling these lands might serve the interests of a number of hidden agendas.
    Last edited by KC; 12-01-2019 at 09:03 AM.

  38. #438
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,690

    Default

    50 million is a lot of money for an unused soccer field.

  39. #439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    This comment below goes with the map. I’d love to see the reasoning behind this rather sweeping statement:
    “The promise of the potential park has already spurred new investment around it. Other holdings have rumoured to be sold too. Downtown catalyst projects have an impact , as shown by the new arena.”
    “Downtown catalyst projects” could also be called taxpayer subsidies.


    Clearly developers are already identifing significant downtown residential demand potential. I don’t know how important this specific downtown location might be. Maybe there are a number of other locations considering development to capture the very same demand potential. Those in the map though are very likely each identifying the very same specific demand so are competing with each other. As some catalysts actually work the timing of the rezoning applications might be a direct result of the park - or not. However only one project may actually proceed.

    People should ask if this is going to steal away - for the better or for the worse - demand from some other part of the downtown area. If there is no new net demand then is it only going to poach from other downtown residential and what will be the effect of starting that chain reaction / domino effect?
    Last edited by KC; 12-01-2019 at 09:27 AM.

  40. #440
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    TBD, but likely around 15-20M to a total max of 50M.

    The gondola project is being led by a private group, as it should be.
    iím not sure what criteria youíre using to make that conclusion/pronouncement but wouldnít it also mean we shouldnít have done the funicular until it was done by a private group? or the streetcar? or transit overall for that matter?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  41. #441
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Does the Corporation of the City of Edmonton have a hate on for the Allards or something? What if the Allards were going to build their own towers here?
    While park space would be nice, something is not adding up.

    If there is CRL money to burn, why not cut the property taxes?

  42. #442

    Default

    I remember when downtown was "vibrant" - my Mom would bundle my brothers and me together and get us on the old S7 bus and head downtown.

    Because it was the only place to go, if one didn't drive (like my Mom), to pay property taxes at City Hall or $1.49 Day at Woodward's, or shop at Eaton's or The Bay. It wasn't because people lived downtown or there were trendy-enough restaurants.

    Then Edmonton grew up.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  43. #443
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    Does the Corporation of the City of Edmonton have a hate on for the Allards or something? What if the Allards were going to build their own towers here?
    While park space would be nice, something is not adding up.

    If there is CRL money to burn, why not cut the property taxes?
    Cut property taxes! LOL, thats a joke..right?

  44. #444
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    Does the Corporation of the City of Edmonton have a hate on for the Allards or something? What if the Allards were going to build their own towers here?
    While park space would be nice, something is not adding up.

    If there is CRL money to burn, why not cut the property taxes?
    Not at all and that land owner was supportive of a park keep in mind. What if the Oilers were consistent.

    There is not money to burn good sir, but rather to spend as it is generated and on the catalyst projects that are identified here:

    https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...town-plan.aspx
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  45. #445

    Default

    Heck, the money spent to build a park and increase the value to developers amounts to a corporate slush fund. They get a huge windfall.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  46. #446
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    Does the Corporation of the City of Edmonton have a hate on for the Allards or something? What if the Allards were going to build their own towers here?
    If you want Allard Development's vision of downtown, they've spent decades sitting on dirty parking lots instead of developing towers on them. Not sure if he's related to them, but Charles Allard headed up Envision Edmonton that fought to keep the City Centre Airport open. His father was a good man who is probably rolling in his grave.
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  47. #447

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Heck, the money spent to build a park and increase the value to developers amounts to a corporate slush fund. They get a huge windfall.
    Don't forget that any new projects fall under the CRL and thus make the slush fund self-perpetuating. And while construction of the park comes out of the CRL, what about maintenance? Police? What about increased fire protection? These new projects aren't paying into the pool of property taxes since it goes into the CRL. Therefore, the rest of the city is subsidizing the downtown residents. Having a "vibrant" downtown was supposed to make downtown safer and yet the city still had to double the size of the downtown police presence. The CRL isn't paying for that.

  48. #448
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Heck, the money spent to build a park and increase the value to developers amounts to a corporate slush fund. They get a huge windfall.
    Don't forget that any new projects fall under the CRL and thus make the slush fund self-perpetuating. And while construction of the park comes out of the CRL, what about maintenance? Police? What about increased fire protection? These new projects aren't paying into the pool of property taxes since it goes into the CRL. Therefore, the rest of the city is subsidizing the downtown residents. Having a "vibrant" downtown was supposed to make downtown safer and yet the city still had to double the size of the downtown police presence. The CRL isn't paying for that.
    Can you tell me what the operational costs of this park will be? Or are you just assuming the total costs along with the capital costs will outweigh the revenue generated by new development?

    Honest question, if you can give me a tangible number on how many extra police officers, what fire prevention and what the maintenance costs will be, then we can talk about your points. My advice would be to look at other parks for a loose comparison.

    In my moderate amount of public works experience, Iíll tell you park management and construction tend to have a lot of sunken upfront capital costs, but the op costs experienced are almost null.

    Edit: in regards to the city subsidizing the downtown community, where do you think the bulk of tax revenue is generated? You would never hear me talking about suburbia gouging downtown of our high taxes generated because I understand that taxes are collected and allocated for the betterment of the city and communities as a whole.
    Last edited by Stevey_G; 12-01-2019 at 04:14 PM.

  49. #449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Edit: in regards to the city subsidizing the downtown community, where do you think the bulk of tax revenue is generated? You would never hear me talking about suburbia gouging downtown of our high taxes generated because I understand that taxes are collected and allocated for the betterment of the city and communities as a whole.
    Not any longer. Taxes from downtown are now by law only to be spend downtown, at least as far as new projects are concerned. Should West Jasper Place be permitted to keep the taxes generated by WEM? How about Mill Woods and the industrial areas around it?

    Af for park maintenance, don't forget that one of the major reasons Churchill was paved over was because of the cost of maintaining the grass. Seeing as this park is supposed to be primarily turf, it's maintenance costs are going to be more than Churchill was.

    Regarding policing, the additional police officered, 33 iirc, were hired specifically hired because of the ice district. If this area is to get a stronger police presence, you're going to need even more office on the downtown beat. I don't have exact figure for maintenence or police because none have been supplied yet, just like the final cost of the park is unknown. All we do know for sure is that the cost of land will be $30 million +.

  50. #450
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,455

    Default

    I suspect the homeless , that like to sleep in parks during the summer,will think this is great being so central..

    Just behind save on 109 th to nait, the police were called just about every day to move them along..

  51. #451

    Default

    "A downtown for everyone" - IanO

  52. #452
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    I suspect the homeless , that like to sleep in parks during the summer,will think this is great being so central..

    Just behind save on 109 th to nait, the police were called just about every day to move them along..
    Iíve never personally been harassed or antagonized by a homeless person in four years downtown, and I donít like the idea of them being shoed into back alleys if all they are doing is loitering if thatís what was happening.

  53. #453
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    I suspect the homeless , that like to sleep in parks during the summer,will think this is great being so central..

    Just behind save on 109 th to nait, the police were called just about every day to move them along..
    Iíve never personally been harassed or antagonized by a homeless person in four years downtown, and I donít like the idea of them being shoed into back alleys if all they are doing is loitering if thatís what was happening.
    One of the women from a seniors centre was scared out of her wits, by a drunk native. ( he slept in that area, along with quite a few others, who refused help.I don't think they normally go after males, Steve.

    I don't live anywhere near there now, but I didn't walk the streets after a certain time on my own. Who mentioned alleys, they sleep by the river, and they like parks, fact!

  54. #454
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    Does the Corporation of the City of Edmonton have a hate on for the Allards or something? What if the Allards were going to build their own towers here?
    While park space would be nice, something is not adding up.

    If there is CRL money to burn, why not cut the property taxes?
    Not at all and that land owner was supportive of a park keep in mind. What if the Oilers were consistent.

    There is not money to burn good sir, but rather to spend as it is generated and on the catalyst projects that are identified here:

    https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...town-plan.aspx
    And here I thought the CRL was only supposed to pay for the Ice Dristrict improvements and the Arena.

    The things you learn on C2E! A very valuable educational resource.

  55. #455
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,869

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    ...
    There is not money to burn good sir, but rather to spend as it is generated and on the catalyst projects...
    good sir? the question was from david jackson on c2e, not lysander in a midsummer night’s dream.
    Last edited by kcantor; 13-01-2019 at 02:11 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  56. #456
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  57. #457
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    8,127

    Default

    I just hope it has a big round cement seating area with a fountain in the middle and lots of pigeons, like Iíve seen in so many places Iíve visited. Nice to sit and feed the pigeons. (CofE can hire people to clean up the crap)

  58. #458
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,869

    Default

    ^^

    i donít know about everyone but personally? yeah, the never ending frustration - and i donít mean with IanO - does tend to colour the posts, even to IanO, as mad. because i am, not on principle but with more and more reason as more and more time goes by seeing the same foolishness rise to the top again and again.

    so iíll stand by my posts and what theyíre trying to address. and for what itís worth my posts arenít the only places i try and make a difference with what i say. i try and walk the talk in whatever i do and i devote more hours to volunteer and committee work, much of it for the city of edmonton, than i do to posting.

    maybe itís just time for me to stick to those other things, at least for a while.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  59. #459
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    ^^

    i don’t know about everyone but personally? yeah, the never ending frustration - and i don’t mean with IanO - does tend to colour the posts, even to IanO, as mad. because i am, not on principle but with more and more reason as more and more time goes by seeing the same foolishness rise to the top again and again.

    so i’ll stand by my posts and what they’re trying to address. and for what it’s worth my posts aren’t the only places i try and make a difference with what i say. i try and walk the talk in whatever i do and i devote more hours to volunteer and committee work, much of it for the city of edmonton, than i do to posting.

    maybe it’s just time for me to stick to those other things, at least for a while.
    Personally, I had two cancer things and a stroke arise in my family this past year, spending so much time in those wards and seeing what some people go through really gave me some perspective regarding the important things in life. If things on here bother me? I block them, if Facebook is too negative? I delete my profile. If I still want to be in touch with the online community? I find sites more suitable to my tastes such as reddit.

    Life is fleeting, and it's not worth wasting it to be ****** off all the time. Especially over a website that seems to put passion and opinions to a megaphone. If ya do take a pause or flat out leave this page, you'd be missed. I don't always agree with your posts. but I find them valuable and insightful considering your experience.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  60. #460

    Default

    Some CRL details please.

    I thought retention and use within the CRL territory was only going to be of gains in taxes due to new development and only for 20 years. (Essentially a retention of synergistic gains to provide financing of the catalyst project alone.) So there would be a base level still flowing into general coffers and not dedicated to the district. Therefore only the net of any new gain in taxes, probably over and above whatever the annual tax increase, would fall under the new mechanism’s rules.

    Interesting:
    Downtown CRL :: City of Edmonton

    “Council has approved a boundary for the Capital City Downtown CRL. The City estimates that the Capital City Downtown CRL will generate sufficient revenue over its 20 year life to fund approximately $500 million in new infrastructure downtown.”

    https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...ntown-crl.aspx
    Old commentary:

    Proposed arena CRL boundary draws controversy
    Jessica Earle, ctvedmonton.ca
    Published Thursday, March 31, 2011

    "The important thing to remember about a community revitalization zone is that the primary purpose is to actually encourage revitalization in an area," said the city's Chief Financial Officer Lorna Rosen.

    "If we can develop the downtown arena and it has the positive impacts that we believe it should, then this is the area we believe would be most positively impacted by that infrastructure."
    ...
    “The Mayor counters that argument by saying the city's already ahead by $9 million, taking away some of the danger.

    "We won't have to subsidize Northlands $2.4 million. We won't have put $3 million in the capital over there. There's $2 million we generated from taxes from the building itself, and plus there's about $2 million in savings from some other things as a result of this building being built," argued Mandel.

    Furthermore, the authors of the document suggest after the initial investment is paid off, the area would generate $30 million per year for public coffers.
    "If we pay off the arena in the 20-year span, then for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years or whatever number of years, those buildings from the city, we're going to get the revenue from it," said Mandel.”

    “A deal is done.” Essential Quotes on Edmonton’s new downtown arena, Part 4 – Edmonton Journal

    “September 18 2013, arena deal supporter Coun. Dave Loken, as city council passes downtown Community Revitalization Levy to pay $200 million of $480 million arena (the CRL is also slated to pay $377 million for other downtown projects): “I hope I don’t have to sit here for another day to listen to conspiracy theories, facts that aren’t facts and cheap sound bites. I say to the critics out there, that if you have a better idea, then put up or shut up.” And Iveson: “If we win this wager, we get a thriving downtown.” And Diotte: “If you took a deal like this to a bank, they would laugh you out the door. … I think it’s the worst type of corporate welfare.” Mandel in response to Diotte: “If I could take it to any bank in the world, they would fund it. I don’t know what (the speaker is) talking about. They should learn a little bit more about business when they’re talking about things, to learn what can and can’t be financed.”

    https://edmontonjournal.com/sports/h...n-arena-part-4
    Last edited by KC; 13-01-2019 at 09:58 PM.

  61. #461

    Default

    The reason for the subsidy to Northlands was to repay them for lost revenue from the sweetheart Oilers deal. Because a company that can pay their primary employees millions of dollars per year is just the sort of business that government needs to be supporting.

    It's funny how so many other cities can somehow manage to get away without subsidies to professional sports teams yet the Oilers, supposedly one of the top NHL markets, has to sit outside City Hall waving a tin cup just to survive.

  62. #462
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    https://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...96&context=etd

    A scholarly and sourced research paper on the weighted costs and benefits of park spaces to a community. It's about an hour read for those of you interested. I'd say it's worth it regardless of which side you fall on of this opinion.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  63. #463
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    https://dc.uwm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.c...96&context=etd

    A scholarly and sourced research paper on the weighted costs and benefits of park spaces to a community. It's about an hour read for those of you interested. I'd say it's worth it regardless of which side you fall on of this opinion.
    Living in a concrete jungle, you need the trees, and some grass, because it grounds you..

    Especially children, my grandchildren love to run barefoot on our grass..

  64. #464

    Default

    Legislature grounds, Louise McKinney. Both those have grass and trees

  65. #465
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Legislature grounds, Louise McKinney. Both those have grass and trees
    Read the paper.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  66. #466
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,396

    Default

    He'd rather argue and rehash the same arguments over and over, thankyouverymuch.

  67. #467

    Default

    Our biophilic needs being met, indeed.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  68. #468
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,520

    Default

    I donít have an hour to read something like that. Sorry. I canít be the only one.

  69. #469
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    Iím currently in Vancouver preparing for a job interview and was staying at my sisters place in Yaletown. A park I would love to see this emulate would be George Wainborn Park near Pacific Street. Itís a simply designed green space treed in and some nice retaining walls and a water feature. The green space is a big open area which is awesome for dog owners or kids to just run around on. It doesnít have much going on, but architecturally, the park is quite nice.

  70. #470

    Default

    In the summer its just as well of an informally programmed as David Lam two blocks down. Wainborn is a far superior designed park than Lam, however. That is the perfect in-a-silo design we should be aiming for, the key is that Lam has adjacent retail on Pacific Boulevard which really makes it alive and the kids at Lam Park is insane in the summer which synchronizes with the playgrounds there and the Community Centre, daycare and elementary school across the quiet street. It's been programmed from the periphery as well as inside itself.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  71. #471
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Both are quite nice, but also a bit lacklustre without climate taken into account. That said, let's borrow certain elements.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  72. #472
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Both are quite nice, but also a bit lacklustre without climate taken into account. That said, let's borrow certain elements.
    Lots can be done with the open space. One example would be a skating loop like a bigger version of what youíd see in Rotary Park in Stony Plain.

    A park doesnít need to be jam packed with things like basketball courts, playgrounds, and soccer fields to be affective. In fact, Iím the opinion that open spaces like the Leg grounds are more effective gathering spaces when properly maintained.

  73. #473
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Expect to hear more about this and the design competition in the next 2 months.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  74. #474
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Central Park set to be new downtown landmark
    May 31, 2019

    The City is preparing an international design competition to collect the best and brightest design ideas for a major centrepiece downtown: the Warehouse Campus Neighborhood Central Park.

    The project vision, goals and design parameters to inform the international design competition will be shared at two upcoming drop-in information sessions.

    Date: Tuesday, June 4
    Time: 11 a.m. - 1:30 p.m. and 4 - 7 p.m.
    Location: NorQuest College, 10215 108 Street

    Several years in the works, the project marked a major milestone earlier this year when the final piece of land needed for Central Park was acquired.

    Located in the Downtown Warehouse District, the Warehouse Campus Neighborhood Central Park will cover 1.25 hectares (roughly 12 500 square meters or just over two football fields) between 106 - 107 Street and Jasper Ave - 102 Ave. It is a significant Catalyst Project identified in the Capital City Downtown Plan and fully funded by the Capital City Downtown Community Revitalization Levy .


    For more information:
    edmonton.ca/warehousecentralpark

    Media contact:
    Amber Medynski
    Communications Advisor
    780-944-7914
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  75. #475

    Default

    I bet these land speculators were happy for the city to cash in their long term investment


  76. #476
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Edgar, Day, MacLab, Pangman, Westrich all might disagree with you.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  77. #477
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I bet these land speculators were happy for the city to cash in their long term investment

    I'd argue this is a catalyst project to improve the land and make it more economical for speculators and lot holders to develop. In the time I've been in the area, I've seen limited, if any, effort to beautify and revitalize this area. It ended up being a pretty poor investment on my part as well.

    If this park can be built with a reasonable payback period and roi from surrounding developments, then I think it's an acceptable use to taxpayers dollars from an economic standpoint. Not to mention that the area desperately needs amenities, yes it may be central, but having moved to the lower mainland, I notice how lacking downtown Edmonton is in park space amenities. Which is where people here seem to spend all their time.

    Interesting point on the land tax though.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  78. #478
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,305

    Default

    What will the park's name be? "Central Park" is overly derivative. Someone local and famous should work.
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  79. #479
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Bonnie Doon
    Posts
    5,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    What will the park's name be? "Central Park" is overly derivative. Someone local and famous should work.
    I suggest to name the park....Mayfair Park.

  80. #480

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    What will the park's name be? "Central Park" is overly derivative. Someone local and famous should work.
    Central is actually quite accurately descriptive, but it does seem like copying something else already better known. I think we should be more imaginative or unique. There are some former mayors, premiers and significant former federal MP's (at least two I think would be worthy) or former Senators who haven't been honored with anything significant, but we could also consider local musicians, artists, athletes, etc..

  81. #481

    Default

    How about "Off-Centre Park"?
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  82. #482

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    What will the park's name be? "Central Park" is overly derivative. Someone local and famous should work.
    Central is actually quite accurately descriptive, but it does seem like copying something else already better known. I think we should be more imaginative or unique. There are some former mayors, premiers and significant former federal MP's (at least two I think would be worthy) or former Senators who haven't been honored with anything significant, but we could also consider local musicians, artists, athletes, etc..
    I'd prefer someone other than a politician.

  83. #483

    Default

    How about the Mike MacDonald Band Celebrity Parc?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  84. #484
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    I wouldn't mind something generic to be honest. The Warehouse District Park sounds just fine to me. It's a name that anchors the community and identifies it to wayfinders. Paying homage to politicians and people of the past is great and all, but this community needs things with it's name on it.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  85. #485

    Default

    This being Edmonton, Left of Centre Park could work...
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  86. #486
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,305

    Default

    Alberta Capital Region Park
    Paul Coffey Park - because which HHOF Oilers haven't been honored yet in this city?
    Jan Reimer Park
    Telus Central Park Presented By The Brick
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 02-06-2019 at 01:02 PM.
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  87. #487
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,305

    Default

    Edmonton turning downtown parking lots into Central Park

    The City of Edmonton plans to do the opposite of paving paradise and putting up a parking lot.

    It's going to transform four existing downtown parking lots into a 1.25-hectare park.

    The envisioned green space, about the size of two football fields, will span nearly two blocks from Jasper Avenue to 102nd Avenue and between 106th and 108th streets.

    Tuesday, the city held a drop-in session at NorQuest College to display its vision for the park ó a large open green space with landscaping, a variety of seating, play areas for children and art installations.

    David Holdsworth, a senior planner with the city's urban renewal department, said the park should be a welcoming place where neighbouring businesses like coffee shops and restaurants are free to open up and integrate into the green space.

    "It's a legacy," Holdsworth said. "It's not often you get to build a major park in a major city."

    It's dubbed the Warehouse Campus Neighborhood Central Park until a new name is chosen, Holdsworth said.

    Coun. Scott McKeen, who represents the downtown ward, said he wants the park to be spectacular.

    "I think there has to be a lot of grass because that is one of the things that is in short supply in the downtown area," McKeen said Tuesday at city hall.

    He said the park should encourage activity and possibly include a facility where people can rent sports and leisure gear.
    "Everything from chess boards to frisbees to soccer balls," he said. "Do we need a sand volleyball court in there?"
    Later this year, the city will hold an international design competition, inviting proposals for a future park.
    Holdsworth said various landscape architects have expressed interest to bid.

    The city has set aside $20-28 million for the park.

    Construction on Central Park may begin as early as 2021.
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  88. #488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Edmonton turning downtown parking lots into Central Park

    ...

    It's dubbed the Warehouse Campus Neighborhood Central Park until a new name is chosen, Holdsworth said.

    ...
    Why choose a single name when you can choose them all?

  89. #489

    Default

    Much like South Campus/Fort Edmonton, which doesn't actually have a bus to Fort Edmonton this year due to renovations. You can't get there from here.

  90. #490
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    8,127

    Default

    International design competition. Where have I heard this before. Looking forward to seeing how badly the city can f this up. The devil fools with the best laid plans. Itís a park man, just build it. Thereís a lot of local talent available.

  91. #491

    Default

    $28,000,000.00 just for the land acquisition alone. WOW!!! that money could've went to homeless shelters.... wait.... wait.... That's what this will actually be. No different than beaverhills.

  92. #492
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,640

    Default

    Land in the middle of Downtown is not inexpensive.

    Far from.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  93. #493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I bet these land speculators were happy for the city to cash in their long term investment

    I'd argue this is a catalyst project to improve the land and make it more economical for speculators and lot holders to develop. In the time I've been in the area, I've seen limited, if any, effort to beautify and revitalize this area. It ended up being a pretty poor investment on my part as well.

    If this park can be built with a reasonable payback period and roi from surrounding developments, then I think it's an acceptable use to taxpayers dollars from an economic standpoint. Not to mention that the area desperately needs amenities, yes it may be central, but having moved to the lower mainland, I notice how lacking downtown Edmonton is in park space amenities. Which is where people here seem to spend all their time.

    Interesting point on the land tax though.
    Also by taking land off the market it potentially boosts the value of other land and may somehow enable or a accelerate other development. Moreover raw land enables the easier creation of parks as well as potentially enables increases in parking availability or lower cost parking to facilitate any growth.

    How does market value taxation impact the raw land holdings of “speculators”? And if some person or entity holds raw land for years and maybe even longer than some residents or businesses even stY in the area, is it right to call them speculators? A resident that did nothing to enhance their place and then moves out as prices appear to peak would come close to fitting the definition of speculator. And that’s the case with large numbers of residents.
    Last edited by KC; 05-06-2019 at 08:27 AM.

  94. #494

    Default

    but what about homeless shelters, hospitals and care for the elderly? Wouldn't that money be much better used for that?

    I mean, if we spent even a 1/4 of that on a park somewhere else outside of the downtown/Downtown area, you'd be all "Superlab like" again

  95. #495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    International design competition. Where have I heard this before.
    Odds are most of the time you see this it's a fancy way of saying "this project is big enough that we're required by trade agreements to open this internationally".

    It's pure spin. No matter what comes out of the "competition" it'll go through rounds of value engineering & parting out of incomplete scope to the lowest bidder, as per usual.
    Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  96. #496
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    but what about homeless shelters, hospitals and care for the elderly? Wouldn't that money be much better used for that?

    I mean, if we spent even a 1/4 of that on a park somewhere else outside of the downtown/Downtown area, you'd be all "Superlab like" again
    Although I somewhat agree with your sentiments that there are more pressing needs for this money, Iíd argue that long term, the tax revenue generated over time from the surrounding developments will far outweigh the merits of sinking the money into the community services as an immediate capital expenditure.

    In fact a few months back I ran the economics on it through an excel program. Assuming the park makes the Shift and J108 more economically viable due to saleability at higher price per square foot, thatís 1700 units coming online through two developments and excludes Westrichís future development and the lots south of the Park on Jasper. It can be assumed the mean pricing across all these units will be conservatively estimated at 350,000 dollars. That puts yearly taxation per unit at around 2500/yr. Net annual tax revenue - original land taxation is about $4.2 million dollars per year. If the park has a 20% cost overrun and puts the pricetag at 40 million dollars, the payback period is rounds up to 10 years; after which the city indefinitely experiences positive tax revenue for services such as homeless initiatives, sewer/sanitation upgrades, etc etc.

    Those are numbers that factor in a very reactionary attitude with a low risk tolerance. The park makes economic sense as much as it does sense for the surrounding community as a destination - considering that I believe these developers were waiting for a yes or no answer on what theyíd be building beside.
    Last edited by Stevey_G; 05-06-2019 at 10:12 AM.

  97. #497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Land in the middle of Downtown is not inexpensive.

    Far from.
    And thanks to this, it'll be even more expensive!

    All those developers & land owners are all getting a big fat payday for doing literally nothing. Intentionally reduced supply & demand induced by the public purse. Socialized risks, private profits.
    Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  98. #498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Although I somewhat agree with your sentiments that there are more pressing needs for this money, Iíd argue that long term, the tax revenue generated over time from the surrounding developments will far outweigh the merits of sinking the money into the community services as an immediate capital expenditure.
    Loooooooong term, given that the immediate uplift will go into paying off the mortgage on our future that is the CRL. See ya in 2039!

    We'd see money flowing into City coffers much sooner if that money was invested literally anywhere else.
    Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  99. #499

    Default

    The park will be nice on the day it is completed.



    Every day after it will have overflowing garbage cans, weeds and in the winter, covered by brown snow, ice, grit and Tim Hortons cups .

    Zero dollars available to maintain it.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  100. #500

    Default

    See: Alex Decoteau Park.
    Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •