Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 401 to 465 of 465

Thread: The all-encompassing Northlands site redevelopment thread

  1. #401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Some people will bellyache about anything. The new development will need convenient access to transit. How else do you imagine they could do LRT.
    i think the issue is that lrt should be that, not a local tram
    or streetcar service. our lrt already passes through existing communities and other planned communities that are - rightfully - not destined to have stations.

    the real reason there are two stations within two blocks here is probably a reflection if who the developer is, not because it's good transit system design.
    Too bad they can’t build the rail first and through usage determine optimal station placement. Maybe via portable/temporary stops early on.

  2. #402
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,503

    Default

    To me if you need to move the station and need another, then the development plan is severely flawed

  3. #403
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Some people will bellyache about anything. The new development will need convenient access to transit. How else do you imagine they could do LRT.
    What is the point of a train if it takes as long as a bus
    Volume.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  4. #404
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Some people will bellyache about anything. The new development will need convenient access to transit. How else do you imagine they could do LRT.
    i think the issue is that lrt should be that, not a local tram
    or streetcar service. our lrt already passes through existing communities and other planned communities that are - rightfully - not destined to have stations.

    the real reason there are two stations within two blocks here is probably a reflection if who the developer is, not because it's good transit system design.
    Don’t really understand your first sentence “LRT should be exactly that”.
    The line goes past many neighbourhoods that were conceived long before the LRT was ever though of whereas the new development is being built with mass transit in mind. The thought of not putting a stop there would be foolish.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  5. #405
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Some people will bellyache about anything. The new development will need convenient access to transit. How else do you imagine they could do LRT.
    i think the issue is that lrt should be that, not a local tram
    or streetcar service. our lrt already passes through existing communities and other planned communities that are - rightfully - not destined to have stations.

    the real reason there are two stations within two blocks here is probably a reflection if who the developer is, not because it's good transit system design.
    Don’t really understand your first sentence “LRT should be exactly that”.
    The line goes past many neighbourhoods that were conceived long before the LRT was ever though of whereas the new development is being built with mass transit in mind. The thought of not putting a stop there would be foolish.
    i didn't say there shouldn't be a stop there. i said having two in two blocks doesn't seem to make sense for an efficient lrt system, particularly when neither of them seem to connect very well to the east/west transfer points that should be part of an overall transit system.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  6. #406
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,042

    Default

    Total clusterf**k. Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Edmonton's transit and urban planners.

    Two LRT stations within a block or so? Seriously.

    Well, guess you need that after the tall foreheads needlessly bring 118 ave up to grade - creating a new level LRT crossing while vastly decreasing pedestrian safety.

    I mean, the audacity of having pedestrians and cyclists grade separated from cars, trucks and buses.

    All in the name of what? Oh right ... it'll be so ... you know ... European. Actually so, third world. And we'll get to pay for it. Joy.

    Seriously, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money to what - blow up another overpass (our planners have long loved blowing up perfectly good overpasses)?
    Last edited by McBoo; 23-04-2019 at 03:47 PM.
    ... gobsmacked

  7. #407
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Total clusterf**k. Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Edmonton's transit and urban planners.

    Two LRT stations within a block or so? Seriously.

    Well, guess you need that after the tall foreheads needlessly bring 118 ave up to grade - creating a new level LRT crossing while vastly decreasing pedestrian safety.

    I mean, the audacity of having pedestrians and cyclists grade separated from cars, trucks and buses.

    All in the name of what? Oh right ... it'll be so ... you know ... European. Actually so, third world. And we'll get to pay for it. Joy.

    Seriously, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money to what - blow up another overpass (our planners have long loved blowing up perfectly good overpasses)?
    now, now… calm down and think about this one logically from the city's perspective.

    blowing up these two (there is the pedestrian one as well as the lrt one) makes as much sense as spending $25 million to blow up the coliseum.

    maybe they could negotiate a quantity discount?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  8. #408
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,965

    Default

    Northlands to become 'Urban Villages'...


    https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...se-development
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  9. #409
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Total clusterf**k. Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Edmonton's transit and urban planners.

    Two LRT stations within a block or so? Seriously.

    Well, guess you need that after the tall foreheads needlessly bring 118 ave up to grade - creating a new level LRT crossing while vastly decreasing pedestrian safety.

    I mean, the audacity of having pedestrians and cyclists grade separated from cars, trucks and buses.

    All in the name of what? Oh right ... it'll be so ... you know ... European. Actually so, third world. And we'll get to pay for it. Joy.

    Seriously, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money to what - blow up another overpass (our planners have long loved blowing up perfectly good overpasses)?
    Agree.

    Also, WGD is supposed to be part of the inner ring road. The need to provide vehicle access to a major employment node west of WGD seems incompatible with this.

    Instead of bringing the LRT ROW up to grade what about sinking 118 Avenue to create a grade separation under WGD? The existing pedestrian bridge across 118 Avenue could then be retained (even expanded) to link the north and south parts of the Northlands site.

  10. #410

  11. #411

    Default

    I have a question. What happens with K-Days? Short term nothing is going to change, however there will be a point where there is no more space. What happens from there?

    I know that not everybody loves K-Days, but it is well attended, and it seems to make money.

  12. #412
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Extreme View Post
    I have a question. What happens with K-Days? Short term nothing is going to change, however there will be a point where there is no more space. What happens from there?

    I know that not everybody loves K-Days, but it is well attended, and it seems to make money.
    Perhaps they could move that to Red Deer to join the CFR that Edmonton lost! CFR seems to have gotten a boost from the move, maybe the good folks of Red Deer will be a little more appreciative of K Days than Edmontonians were as well.


    Overall I find this hybrid plan decent but lackluster. I does accomplish what a lot of stakeholders wanted. I foresee them starting at the SW corner for the first transit development, the north one where the coliseum is will be farther out. Which means the coliseum will probably be sitting there for a while yet. Good job city of Edmonton !

    I do support the raising of 118th ave, as do most stakeholders. If they need to bury something, bury 75th street.
    Last edited by 240GLT; 25-04-2019 at 11:18 AM.

  13. #413
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.

  14. #414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Total clusterf**k. Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Edmonton's transit and urban planners.

    Two LRT stations within a block or so? Seriously.

    Well, guess you need that after the tall foreheads needlessly bring 118 ave up to grade - creating a new level LRT crossing while vastly decreasing pedestrian safety.

    I mean, the audacity of having pedestrians and cyclists grade separated from cars, trucks and buses.

    All in the name of what? Oh right ... it'll be so ... you know ... European. Actually so, third world. And we'll get to pay for it. Joy.

    Seriously, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money to what - blow up another overpass (our planners have long loved blowing up perfectly good overpasses)?
    Agree.

    Also, WGD is supposed to be part of the inner ring road. The need to provide vehicle access to a major employment node west of WGD seems incompatible with this.

    Instead of bringing the LRT ROW up to grade what about sinking 118 Avenue to create a grade separation under WGD? The existing pedestrian bridge across 118 Avenue could then be retained (even expanded) to link the north and south parts of the Northlands site.
    People always complain about the underpass but it's not the biggest problem. 118 ave has no business being a 6-lane road there, it could be a much more pleasant walk with just a minor road re-build. One lane each way plus dedicated bus pull-outs would be enough for the limited traffic through there.

    When I ride or walk through there with children I find the Wayne Gretzky Drive intersections to have much more negative impact yet they plan on keeping those forever.
    There can only be one.

  15. #415
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.
    Well the city certainly doesn't make what's cost effective a priority in most other areas so I don't see why residents should be saddled with a lesser option here just because of cost.

    The LRT will cross 118th ave at mid-block, which is the least disruptive of any configuration. Certainly not even in the same league of disruption as the many level crossings at intersections elsewhere on the line.

    118th ave is busy, but not that busy. It narrows and calms significantly west of 82street. I see no reason it can't be calmed and narrowed a couple blocks east. Raising it provides street level opportunities that just don't exist with the current configuration and gets rid of an unwelcoming, dark and somewhat unsafe underpass.

  16. #416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Total clusterf**k. Sadly, that's what I've come to expect from Edmonton's transit and urban planners.

    Two LRT stations within a block or so? Seriously.

    Well, guess you need that after the tall foreheads needlessly bring 118 ave up to grade - creating a new level LRT crossing while vastly decreasing pedestrian safety.

    I mean, the audacity of having pedestrians and cyclists grade separated from cars, trucks and buses.

    All in the name of what? Oh right ... it'll be so ... you know ... European. Actually so, third world. And we'll get to pay for it. Joy.

    Seriously, millions and millions of dollars of wasted money to what - blow up another overpass (our planners have long loved blowing up perfectly good overpasses)?
    Agree.

    Also, WGD is supposed to be part of the inner ring road. The need to provide vehicle access to a major employment node west of WGD seems incompatible with this.

    Instead of bringing the LRT ROW up to grade what about sinking 118 Avenue to create a grade separation under WGD? The existing pedestrian bridge across 118 Avenue could then be retained (even expanded) to link the north and south parts of the Northlands site.
    What needs to be grade-separated is Wayne Gretzky Drive, not 118ave. WGD is supposed to be a freeway, tt's never going to be a pleasant thing to walk or live beside. That city planners think a 6 lane roadway carrying 55,000+ cars per day is going to be a pleasant place is crazy.

    Although I guess these are the people who think that demolishing a row of homes, cutting down all the street trees and limiting crossings to a few locations is going to make Stony Plain Road more cool and urban.
    There can only be one.

  17. #417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.
    But it would fit nicely with two of the City's favorite priorities - spending money and increasing traffic congestion.

  18. #418
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.
    But it would fit nicely with two of the City's favorite priorities - spending money and increasing traffic congestion.
    Correct. There is ZERO need to bring the road to grade and slow LRT trains and tie up traffic. 118th is just fine as it is.

  19. #419
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.
    Well the city certainly doesn't make what's cost effective a priority in most other areas so I don't see why residents should be saddled with a lesser option here just because of cost.

    The LRT will cross 118th ave at mid-block, which is the least disruptive of any configuration. Certainly not even in the same league of disruption as the many level crossings at intersections elsewhere on the line.

    118th ave is busy, but not that busy. It narrows and calms significantly west of 82street. I see no reason it can't be calmed and narrowed a couple blocks east. Raising it provides street level opportunities that just don't exist with the current configuration and gets rid of an unwelcoming, dark and somewhat unsafe underpass.
    The most recent traffic flow data shows 20,000 vehicles on 118 Ave west of WGD. That's a lot. About double the traffic volume on 95 Street between 112 and 118 Avenues.

    Source: https://public.tableau.com/profile/u...ared/8DWXB4DX4

    I fail to understand why residents would want all that street level noise and congestion when it would likely cost no more to keep the traffic lanes of 118 Avenue below grade until after it crosses WGD.

    So far as pedestrians/cyclists go, the main sidewalks could be located at street level with pedestrian/cycling crossings to connect the north and south sides of the Northlands site.

    118 Avenue also doesn't need any more street level commercial retail when there are already so many empty store fronts west of 80 Street all the way to NAIT.

  20. #420
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^118 Avenue is already below grade for much of its length across the Northlands site so extending it under WGD seems much more cost-effective than your suggestion. Bringing 118 Avenue to grade would not only add another street level LRT crossing, but also increased congestion and traffic noise that results from having a busy arterial roadway bisect a community at street level.
    Well the city certainly doesn't make what's cost effective a priority in most other areas so I don't see why residents should be saddled with a lesser option here just because of cost.

    The LRT will cross 118th ave at mid-block, which is the least disruptive of any configuration. Certainly not even in the same league of disruption as the many level crossings at intersections elsewhere on the line.

    118th ave is busy, but not that busy. It narrows and calms significantly west of 82street. I see no reason it can't be calmed and narrowed a couple blocks east. Raising it provides street level opportunities that just don't exist with the current configuration and gets rid of an unwelcoming, dark and somewhat unsafe underpass.
    The most recent traffic flow data shows 20,000 vehicles on 118 Ave west of WGD. That's a lot. About double the traffic volume on 95 Street between 112 and 118 Avenues.

    Source: https://public.tableau.com/profile/u...ared/8DWXB4DX4

    I fail to understand why residents would want all that street level noise and congestion when it would likely cost no more to keep the traffic lanes of 118 Avenue below grade until after it crosses WGD.

    So far as pedestrians/cyclists go, the main sidewalks could be located at street level with pedestrian/cycling crossings to connect the north and south sides of the Northlands site.

    118 Avenue also doesn't need any more street level commercial retail when there are already so many empty store fronts west of 80 Street all the way to NAIT.
    I don't think there are that many vacant storefronts on 118th from 82-NAIT, in fact anything that's leasable is leased. The vacant storefronts you are seeing are in buildings owned by negligent landlords who have made no effort to upgrade and lease their spaces. That's a reflection of the city's failure to address negligent or absentee owners, not a reflection of the retail demand in the area. Anything decent in that area that is leasable is leased. So yes there is probably room for more good quality CRU's along 118th ave. I see far more vacant storefronts on Whyte Ave than I do on 118th these days, and they're still adding inventory there.

    The noise concern is a non-issue. First of all it's no different than any other busy urban street in Edmonton. Second, the underpass actually makes the noise worse by bouncing and reverberating traffic noise up and out of the tunnel. Raising it could actually reduce traffic noise.

    Where are those 20,000 cars going ? Are they all proceeding west past 82st ? If so, what's the difference between having a narrower road west of 82st and the thoroughfare east of it ? If those cars are turning off north or south at Fort Road or 80th or 82nd street, maybe we should be looking at diverting that traffic onto 112th ave by Concordia or pushing them farther up WGD to the Fort Road intersection rather than using the neighborhood as a thoroughfare.
    Last edited by 240GLT; 26-04-2019 at 11:41 AM.

  21. #421

  22. #422

    Default

    saw an ad online yesterday, they are selling the old seats for 200$ a pair starting may 30th
    Friendly neighborhood (non-double poster) photographer.

  23. #423

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    saw an ad online yesterday, they are selling the old seats for 200$ a pair starting may 30th
    A Seat Sale!

  24. #424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by S3RI3S View Post
    saw an ad online yesterday, they are selling the old seats for 200$ a pair starting may 30th
    A Seat Sale!
    Forgot to mention that in the description it talked about the building being "re-purposed" without going into detail, not demolished.
    Friendly neighborhood (non-double poster) photographer.

  25. #425

    Default

    200... no thanks! Would be great to refurbish for home theater seating. 100.00 would be a fair deal.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  26. #426
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    Since 2017, Edmontonians have been sharing their ideas, vision and feedback on this exciting redevelopment project. Come see the culmination of that work, and share your thoughts on the redevelopment concept and policy directions to help us refine the final plan.

    Please join us at our drop-in engagement session.
    Date: Thursday June 27, 2019
    Times: 1-3pm and 5-8pm
    Location: Bellevue Hall, 7308 112 Avenue

    The Edmonton Exhibition Lands represents a major redevelopment opportunity in one of Northeast Edmonton’s core neighbourhoods.

    At 200 acres, Exhibition Lands is the City’s second largest urban infill site. Its premier location close to downtown, LRT and transit, the river valley, a vibrant park area and green space amenities make this a prime opportunity for Edmonton and its big ideas.

    The City is in the process of working with Edmontonians to craft a vision for the future of the area. The Edmonton Exhibition Lands Planning Framework will help bring this vision to life. Learn more about our public engagement activities


    https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...xhibitionlands

  27. #427
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,042

    Default

    I'd think once the site is no longer fenced off to be a fairgrounds there'd be no need for pedestrians to have to go down under the tracks - most of what they'd want would be at that level anyway.

    Far better to put in arm-controlled at grade pedestrian rail crossing(s) east of the Coliseum and/or Expo Centre.

    Seems better to me to spend $$$ putting in additional bridges for pedestrians and cyclists connecting the north and south sides of the site.

    Now, fair 'nuff if you say I don't live there - that's true. I just think we can save a lot of money and create a win-win-win situation.
    ... gobsmacked

  28. #428
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    If they can pull down all the fences around and south of the Expo Centre.. mainly the ones surrounding the old race track and Sportex and the storage yards I think you'd see an almost instantaneous change to how the whole area feels. Maybe once it's all opened up it could give everyone a much different perspective of the site.

  29. #429

    Default

    The existing LRT bridge has enough room to add a multi-use path on either side at minimal cost, just a layer of asphalt on the existing gravel.

    As someone who uses 118ave occasionally, the heavy traffic and long waits at the gretzky drive intersection combined with narrow sidewalks and no boulevards is a much bigger barrier than the dip under the tracks is. It's not that bringing it up to grade is so bad but I would rather that money be spent grade separating WGD than eliminating the grade separation at the tracks.

    And I really like the convenience of the upstairs/downstairs Bus/LRT connection when I take transit.
    There can only be one.

  30. #430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    If they can pull down all the fences around and south of the Expo Centre.. mainly the ones surrounding the old race track and Sportex and the storage yards I think you'd see an almost instantaneous change to how the whole area feels. Maybe once it's all opened up it could give everyone a much different perspective of the site.
    That would make such a difference. An open site would be such an improvement, as long as they don't let it become a wasteland of garbage and weeds.
    There can only be one.

  31. #431
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    I assume the demolition of the Sportex imminent, it would be nice to clear the whole site from the south edge of the Expo Centre to Borden park, it would give a much better idea of the potential of the site and improve the psyche in the area overall.

  32. #432

    Default

    Do you mean Northlands Park?

    Sportex has been down for over a decade.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  33. #433
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Virginia Park
    Posts
    248

    Default

    What part was the Sportex? I just remember it all being called the Agricom before they renovated and renamed it all the Expo Center.
    I will beat the dead horse back to life.

  34. #434
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,477

    Default

    Heh, the Sportex has been gone for 10+ years. It was a separate, low slung building that sat Southeast of the old Agricom. It had a bunch of sheets of ice for hockey, curling, floor hockey etc.

    https://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/northlan...lding-1.335469

  35. #435
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Do you mean Northlands Park?

    Sportex has been down for over a decade.
    Yes, the building known as the Spectrum. I always get that and the Sportex mixed up

  36. #436
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,221
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ..that's OK...I still say Agri-Com as does our weekend Global helicopter guy....
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  37. #437
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,578

    Default

    For a sec I thought I was reading an old post bout the sportex.

  38. #438
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,965

    Default

    Exhibition Lands Redevelopment Project preferred concept presented
    June 26, 2019

    Edmontonians are invited to a drop-in engagement session on the redevelopment concept and policy direction of the Exhibition Lands Project. Feedback from the session will be used to refine the final concept and planning framework to be submitted at a public hearing to City Council for approval in late 2019.

    Date: Thursday, June 27
    Time: 1 - 3 p.m. & 5 - 8 p.m.
    Presentations: 1:15, 2:15, 5:15, 6:15 & 7:15 p.m.
    Location: Bellevue Hall, 7308 112 Avenue

    The preferred concept combines what the City heard from Edmontonians and stakeholders in a series of sessions since the summer of 2017. Economic, market, opportunities and constraints analysis, transportation and feasibility assessments have been crucial to inform the redevelopment concept.

    The Exhibition Lands is the City’s second largest urban infill site, in a premier location close to downtown, LRT and transit, the river valley, a vibrant park area and green space amenities​. ​This is an opportunity ​for the City and Edmontonians ​​to re-imagine and re-build responsibly to meet the changing needs of our city and citizens.


    For more information:
    edmonton.ca/exhibitionlands

    Media contact:
    Jodi Tauber
    Account Director
    Communications and Engagement
    780-508-9191
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  39. #439

    Default

    “opportunity ​for the City and Edmontonians ​​to re-imagine and re-build responsibly to meet the changing needs of our city and citizens.”

    Right here is the lesson to be learned and not repeated. Don’t build anything to last but instead build it for maybe a 25 yr lifespan. Make as much temporary, modular and and easily recycled as possible. The city’s needs change.

    When I look at our neighbourhood’s elementary school it was undersized and so portables were brought in. Well, some have been removed but others have been there for literally decades. They’ve done fine and can be towed away on a moments notice. Brilliant!!!

    This shows that even the main structure could have used a re-think from its conception. Now out here in the burbs there isn’t any expansionary pressures and the original building has turned out to be near permanently undersized. However it could have gone the other way. Look at all the school closures. Perfectly good buildings wasting away. A waste of resources if they aren’t used for their fully achievable cost effective lifetimes.

    Downtown and surrounding communities however regularly face a re-imagining and re-thinking. So who knows, in 20-25 years there may be a desire to raze this whole area for some reason and use it towards new priorities. So build cheap and build with removal in mind.

    Don’t incur massive upfront investment in potentially under-utilized infrastructure and buildings that only burden future generations with useless assets costing many more millions to obliterate.
    Last edited by KC; 26-06-2019 at 03:44 PM.

  40. #440
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton -> -> Beautiful BC
    Posts
    5,395

    Default

    ^ Isn't that already one of the perennial problems with Edmonton ? Don't we already build low quality, short lived infrastructure and buildings because that's how things are done here ? Isn't our urban fabric more of a patchwork quilt because things get torn down as fast as they get built, why things fall apart prematurely because they don't get maintained, why the vast majority of people prefer the suburbs because living centrally is a headache of constant re-building, demolition, problem shuffling and ever changing goal posts courtesy of our planning officials ? If "downtown and surrounding areas regularly face re-imagining and re-thinking" Maybe that's the problem. If we need new stuff every 25 or 30 or 50 years, maybe that's a symptom of Edmontonians fickle nature and inability to think long term. There's too much of that already.

  41. #441

    Default

    After 20-25 years, the tax rate starts going up in order to force redevelopment. Think of all the construction jobs it would create! And let's do it for everything, not just commercial. Imagine how much would would be created if everyone had to replace their house after 25 years.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 27-06-2019 at 12:58 PM.

  42. #442

  43. #443
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,516
    “You 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.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  44. #444
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,516
    “You 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.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  45. #445

    Default

    What exactly is left of Northlands at this point? A shuttered Coliseum that nobody can do anything with, a closed racetrack and a few acres of parking lots on both sides of 118 ave?

  46. #446
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Virginia Park
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Northlands Expo Center has been busy. Porkapalooza, Bomfest, Punk in Drublic, Jurassic Quest, Edmonton Craft Beer Fest, Edmonton Indigenous People's Festival, a couple martial arts and dance competitions, Stingers games, Gift & Home Market, and of course KDays and the dozen trade shows that happen.

    Be great if the new CEO could right the ship but I'm not sure what they can really do aside from sell land to Concordia and try to generate interest in their development ideas.
    I will beat the dead horse back to life.

  47. #447
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nickv View Post
    Northlands Expo Center has been busy. Porkapalooza, Bomfest, Punk in Drublic, Jurassic Quest, Edmonton Craft Beer Fest, Edmonton Indigenous People's Festival, a couple martial arts and dance competitions, Stingers games, Gift & Home Market, and of course KDays and the dozen trade shows that happen.

    Be great if the new CEO could right the ship but I'm not sure what they can really do aside from sell land to Concordia and try to generate interest in their development ideas.
    expo centre may well have been busy but that has nothing to do with northlands since the city effectively foreclosed on the asset (i think it's now formally edmonton expo centre).

    northlands is probably still none too happy how that all took place or the assumptions under which much of it took place but it is what it is. they currently occupy leased space in sherwood park and have no physical assets that i am aware of and are now an "event producer" which includes k-days and supporting epcor's riverfest and operating the summer urban farm on the exhibition lands.

    all of the exhibition lands are under city of edmonton ownership and control and anything that does get sold to concordia will be under a transaction that doesn't involve northlands at all.

    even local horseracing - which through provincial grants and the casino license provided mainstay funding to northlands - isn't in their purview now that century mile has taken that over.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  48. #448
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Virginia Park
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    expo centre may well have been busy but that has nothing to do with northlands since the city effectively foreclosed on the asset (i think it's now formally edmonton expo centre).

    northlands is probably still none too happy how that all took place or the assumptions under which much of it took place but it is what it is. they currently occupy leased space in sherwood park and have no physical assets that i am aware of and are now an "event producer" which includes k-days and supporting epcor's riverfest and operating the summer urban farm on the exhibition lands.

    all of the exhibition lands are under city of edmonton ownership and control and anything that does get sold to concordia will be under a transaction that doesn't involve northlands at all.

    even local horseracing - which through provincial grants and the casino license provided mainstay funding to northlands - isn't in their purview now that century mile has taken that over.
    I appreciate the info. I knew the CoE neutered Northlands but didn't know it was to that extent.
    I will beat the dead horse back to life.

  49. #449

    Default

    Expo Centre is now run by the Convention Centre. The Coliseum is closed with no likelihood of that being reversed. Horse racing has moved to the airport.

    I really fail to see what the new head of Northlands can actually come up with to save the organization. And if Northlands folds and/or the grounds are redeveloped, where will K-Days (or whatever they call it) move to? Not many places in town that you could set up a midway of this size.

  50. #450
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,915

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nickv View Post
    Northlands Expo Center has been busy. Porkapalooza, Bomfest, Punk in Drublic, Jurassic Quest, Edmonton Craft Beer Fest, Edmonton Indigenous People's Festival, a couple martial arts and dance competitions, Stingers games, Gift & Home Market, and of course KDays and the dozen trade shows that happen.

    Be great if the new CEO could right the ship but I'm not sure what they can really do aside from sell land to Concordia and try to generate interest in their development ideas.
    And don't forget the ever popular Edmonton Expo.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  51. #451
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Expo Centre is now run by the Convention Centre. The Coliseum is closed with no likelihood of that being reversed. Horse racing has moved to the airport.

    I really fail to see what the new head of Northlands can actually come up with to save the organization. And if Northlands folds and/or the grounds are redeveloped, where will K-Days (or whatever they call it) move to? Not many places in town that you could set up a midway of this size.
    emphasis added...

    the redevelopment is likely a 20 - 40 timeframe and plans include the retention of expo hall so there is lots of long-term potential for k-days if it's wanted.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  52. #452

    Default

    That depends on how quickly the city decides to act and where they start redevelopment. They could tear down the race track and start there but pretty much anywhere else is going to have an impact on the midway.

  53. #453
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    That depends on how quickly the city decides to act and where they start redevelopment. They could tear down the race track and start there but pretty much anywhere else is going to have an impact on the midway.
    it's a 220 acre infill development project with lots of hair on it in a decent but not the most attractive location...

    you could start tomorrow - literally - at the west end of borden park but it will still take 20 - 40 years before it will be completed. and you don't have to take my word for it. those were the time frames in the city's analysis and reports to council.

    so while you could start tomorrow, you still need to remove the existing lrt station, construct two new one, relocate the lrt maintenance facility, reconstruct wayne gretzky drive to a two way alignment and not a couplet, design and construct any necessary storm water management facilities, address your major utilities (some of which need to be "downsized" and not upsized to be usable) and then you need to construct your roadways and underground services etc.

    as i said, lots of work - much of it unfunded as of yet - and all of it public. regardless of what we may think about some of the decisions and the directions taken, the city has been quite open and transparent with their plans and their processes for these lands.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  54. #454

    Default

    Yes, you could but that doesn't mean that is the way that it will unfold. Someone could come up with a plan to redevelop the whole thing a lot faster or in a more piecemeal fashion that more directly impacts the areas where the midway sets up. Betting on it unfolding in just one particular way is a good path to being caught by surprise.

    Personally, I'd rather see Borden Park expand north to the south edge of the racetrack and over to WGD. Basically halfway between 114 & 115 ave, including the grandstand but not the track itself. Then reopen 115 ave for access.

    And the idea of moving the existing LRT station and adding another is stupid.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 25-07-2019 at 06:26 PM.

  55. #455
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,503

    Default

    What I'd like to see is extend the Expo Center over the tracks have escalator, elevator, stair access from 118th Ave, track to a 2nd floor concourse, exhibition halls
    Probably have a diagonal roads, sidewalks south from the station and north on the Coliseum site as much as possible to act access from the area to the station.
    Perhaps add a nice lake, retention pond along the south, encourage high rises near the station, stepping down to about 5 floors as you get further away

  56. #456

    Default

    I agree with kcantor. 20 to 40 years.

    Lots of brownfield locations in the city have been slow-down for a decade or more. If Northlands is fast tracked, all the others will suffer.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  57. #457

    Default

    And that would really surprise you? Welcome to Edmonton: City of Shooting Ourselves in the Foot.

  58. #458
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Yes, you could but that doesn't mean that is the way that it will unfold. Someone could come up with a plan to redevelop the whole thing a lot faster or in a more piecemeal fashion that more directly impacts the areas where the midway sets up. Betting on it unfolding in just one particular way is a good path to being caught by surprise.

    Personally, I'd rather see Borden Park expand north to the south edge of the racetrack and over to WGD. Basically halfway between 114 & 115 ave, including the grandstand but not the track itself. Then reopen 115 ave for access.

    And the idea of moving the existing LRT station and adding another is stupid.
    come up with a plan to redevelop the whole thing a lot faster or in a more piecemeal fashion?

    what in the world do you think should be in the plan that isn't already there that would see it develop faster?

    all 220 acres are addressed within a plan that is intended to be pretty flexible as development proceeds and the market changes.

    but regardless of what's in your plan or how you intend to phase it (or whether you even intend to phase it or to service it all at once) you can't create demand and sales that isn't there. the anticipated time frame isn't mine, and it isn't just the city's either. it's based on analysis done by the city, by outside consultants (including accounting firms as well as planning and engineering firms), and by outside developers, all of whom would like nothing better than for it to be completed as quickly as possible.

    you can't just create lots or homes or condos as fast as you want as sell them if there aren't enough people willing and able to buy them. is predicting those rates an exact science? nope. that's why the forecasts range for 20 years to 40. might things take off like crazy for alberta and edmonton and the exhibition lands site? maybe. but even if they do you're probably looking at 15 - 20 years, not 5 or even 10.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  59. #459
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    And that would really surprise you? Welcome to Edmonton: City of Shooting Ourselves in the Foot.
    how is recognizing reality and planning for it "shooting yourself in the foot"?

    shooting yourself in the foot is being convinced that if you build it they will come and jumping in with both feet spending tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars and finding out a decade or two later that you blew your brains out and will never get your money back. if you need a local definition of what that looks like, it's called station pointe on fort road in belvedere.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  60. #460

    Default

    My uneducated perception is that these repurposed urban lands aren’t seen the same as typical suburban developments. In the suburbs it’s usually expansion around other new developments. It’s new housing, new retail, new retailing formats, new schools, new roads and new infrastructure. Often filled by a similar demographic of young and growing families too.

    I know people that will only buy new (new cars, houses, etc.) so I suspect that the psychological desires of the people buying into the typical new development goes well beyond just a desire for a new house. A new house in an old area may not be a great draw unless the area is somehow special (Eg. in or above the river valley).
    Last edited by KC; 27-07-2019 at 07:28 PM.

  61. #461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    And that would really surprise you? Welcome to Edmonton: City of Shooting Ourselves in the Foot.
    how is recognizing reality and planning for it "shooting yourself in the foot"?

    shooting yourself in the foot is being convinced that if you build it they will come and jumping in with both feet spending tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars and finding out a decade or two later that you blew your brains out and will never get your money back. if you need a local definition of what that looks like, it's called station pointe on fort road in belvedere.
    WEM too. Remember the financial problems it had. It was in the edge of the city and could benefit from future suburban expansion yet in retrospect, it was a truly massive high risk bet.

    So I can’t imagine the issues in trying to attract buyers to a development bounded by older communities that may add or detract from the desirability and financial support of a new development. Suburban growth increases the margin of safety but in these core developments my guess is that the neighbours may actually reduce the margin of safety. To do any kind of development the hook that attracts new buyers must be pretty well defined.
    Last edited by KC; 27-07-2019 at 07:43 PM.

  62. #462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    What I'd like to see is extend the Expo Center over the tracks have escalator, elevator, stair access from 118th Ave, track to a 2nd floor concourse, exhibition halls
    Probably have a diagonal roads, sidewalks south from the station and north on the Coliseum site as much as possible to act access from the area to the station.
    Perhaps add a nice lake, retention pond along the south, encourage high rises near the station, stepping down to about 5 floors as you get further away
    Is the expo-centre making money as it is? I don’t know. I just can’t see any further expansion in the future.

    I don’t even know who would buy into the highrises. My guess is that future residents would primarily be downtown workers but downtown isn’t expanding at any great rate so if jobs aren’t expanding then the occupants would have to come from existing workers already living in other parts of the city. So the area would have to be attractive enough to poach residents from other communities around downtown.

    They might be successful in stealing buyers away from the residential development occurring right in the heart of the city. Lower costs begetting lower rents and sale prices could be a strong attractant. However I think much City planning still revolves around building the downtown resident population. This might just undermine those efforts.
    Last edited by KC; 27-07-2019 at 07:55 PM.

  63. #463
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,503

    Default

    Not sure if the Expo Center is making money but expanding the convention center downtown is almost impossible without building more into the valley or up, both options are significantly more expensive than expanding the Expo Center.

  64. #464

    Default

    I wonder how big a space they could build at the ECC id they took over the vacant lot to the west? Convention space below with a hotel above. Could even tie into the Hotel Mac and the Courtyard Inn.

    I know that there's a contingent opposed to the pedway system but when I'm attending a convention, it's nice if I don't have to haul along a heavy coat in the winter from my hotel to the convention centre.

  65. #465
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    the redevelopment is likely a 20 - 40 timeframe and plans include the retention of expo hall so there is lots of long-term potential for k-days if it's wanted.
    Then why not retain sufficient space to accommodate a summer fair/midway right from the get go? The amount of land set aside for parking to accommodate major exhibitions at the Expo Centre is woefully insufficient in the latest plan.

    Better yet, redevelop the lands more in line with what the City of Vancouver is doing with its exhibition lands:

    The Hastings Park / Pacific National Exhibition Master Plan will transform Hastings Park into a greener, year-round destination for park use, culture, sport and recreation, pleasure, and fun.
    https://vancouver.ca/home-property-d...velopment.aspx

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

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
  •