Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Edmonton Central Park

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why is downtown parking a need that only the City of Edmonton can provide, at this particular location? And why should the taxpayer be asked to subsidize it, no less? Why is it that the market will not respond if parking prices soar with additional parking structures?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stevey_G View Post
      Originally posted by GreenSPACE View Post
      ^Currently there is minimum separation distances between towers, so on that block you'd have 25m between residential towers for instance. The developer would be encouraged to design skinnier towers that block sun for less time.
      It also depends on what the city does to amend height restrictions themselves in the warehouse district. Healy aside; isn't there some 10 story limitation give or take for developments in the area? I could see that more strictly enforced if we had a landmark destination in the area creating a development appeal.
      Height restrictions along Jasper Avenue Main Street Commercial Zone (JAMSC) are 70-85m. Height restriction in the Urban Warehouse Zone (UW) is 50-60m. Again, towers are permitted, but skinnier towers with maximum separation distance would be encourage over short and wide.
      www.decl.org

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Stevey_G View Post
        Originally posted by JayBee View Post
        Originally posted by Stevey_G View Post
        Originally posted by etownboarder View Post
        Except we have done it in several other locations over the years and they're paying off years later. The same happens here... except paying it off is now easier caUse there's actually demand for downtown parking, and this demand will only increase.
        And 1-dimensional mass transit access is not an equitable game plan for this city. If you want to continue to make the downtown core our landmark destination you need to have ease of access and no barriers to entry. People will just avoid downtown even more if parking demand decreases and rates increase. I don't subscribe to the notion that in order to build a sustainable city you need to isolate urban villages with singular nodes of transportation. The strength of this core will depend on keeping people flowing in and out of the downtown as easily as possible. Our valley line is not going to be the Skytrain, it is at best a complimentary mode of transportation and unless we want to see people avoid downtown because of inefficient access then I suggest we make the core as welcoming and easy to live and play in as possible.

        Sustainability practices are diverse; in this city we need more than mass transit to keep people doing business downtown.
        Originally posted by etownboarder View Post
        ^agreed. The LRT in this city is not adequate to replace cars completely. As surface parking lots disappear for parks and new development, this parkade below the park opportunity is huge.
        The LRT doesn't need to replace your car or anybody elses in particular. What if enough people ride it that traffic to/through Downtown doubles or triples, but car drivership only increases by 40%? Your parking rates only go up 40% is what. Put parking under this thing and your rates go up 39% instead? Who cares? Aggragate taxes go up more than parking rates come down.
        If car drivership increases by 40% and lot/parkade volumes decrease 40% you're gonna see a hell of a high increase in the value of parking downtown - to the point where if people are unwilling to take LRT they will just avoid it except in the case of going to hockey games or special events. Not to mention these underground lots in other cities rake in millions of dollars of revenue a year. Of course it's gonna cost a lot of money to build; but it's a project that further future proofs the city's parking needs, creates revenue for the city, and still allows a node of access to people who aren't dedicated to the LRT.

        I love using the LRT; but I know people from Vegreville or Stony Plain come from a different world and will dodge downtown at all costs if it means parking at a transit lot and burning half an hour to get to where they're going. It's not the same for some people and we need to respect that.
        (highlights by me)

        How is it decreasing? Every multistorey building we'll get going forward is going to be providing additional underground parking. This will, in effect, multiply the parking supply per square metre of current surface lot. Those that add to the daytime demand (office towers) will have to meet their own demand while they add almost nothing but vacant spaces to the evening/weekend supply as well.

        But absolutely the LRT is going to reduce demand for the parking we have and the parking we will continue to add. With the most simple calculations, we're doubling the people who would find LRT convenient within five years (although looking at station placement and considering "multispoke multiplier", I'd not be surprised with triple or more the ridership we have now.)

        Just look at the U of A in the 1990s -- they couldn't function anymore with the growth in the driving student population, they were choked with traffic and massive amounts of surface parking.

        But between then and now?
        1. Innovation Centre for Engineering
        2. Mechanical Engineering
        3. Morrison Structural Engineering Lab
        4. Computing Science Centre
        5. Natural Resources Engineering Facillity
        6. Electrical and Computer Engineering Research Facillity
        7. Engineering Teaching and Learning Complex
        8. National Institute for Nanotechnology
        9. The Timms Centre for the Arts
        10. The Telus International Centre
        11. The Edmonton Clinic North
        12. The Edmonton Clinic South
        13. Jubilee Parkade (haw haw)
        14. Cooling Plant
        15. The Mazankowski Heart Institute
        16. The Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Research Innovation
        17. Katz Group Centre for Pharmacy and Health Research


        You have to ask yourself how in the hell did they suddenly find all that land under those buildings. Answer - damn right LRT reduces parking pressure. Massively.
        Let's make Edmonton better.

        Comment


        • Plans for a new park spur a vehicle parking debate - only in Edmonton...
          “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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JayBee View Post
            Originally posted by Stevey_G View Post
            Originally posted by JayBee View Post
            Originally posted by Stevey_G View Post
            Originally posted by etownboarder View Post
            Except we have done it in several other locations over the years and they're paying off years later. The same happens here... except paying it off is now easier caUse there's actually demand for downtown parking, and this demand will only increase.
            And 1-dimensional mass transit access is not an equitable game plan for this city. If you want to continue to make the downtown core our landmark destination you need to have ease of access and no barriers to entry. People will just avoid downtown even more if parking demand decreases and rates increase. I don't subscribe to the notion that in order to build a sustainable city you need to isolate urban villages with singular nodes of transportation. The strength of this core will depend on keeping people flowing in and out of the downtown as easily as possible. Our valley line is not going to be the Skytrain, it is at best a complimentary mode of transportation and unless we want to see people avoid downtown because of inefficient access then I suggest we make the core as welcoming and easy to live and play in as possible.

            Sustainability practices are diverse; in this city we need more than mass transit to keep people doing business downtown.
            Originally posted by etownboarder View Post
            ^agreed. The LRT in this city is not adequate to replace cars completely. As surface parking lots disappear for parks and new development, this parkade below the park opportunity is huge.
            The LRT doesn't need to replace your car or anybody elses in particular. What if enough people ride it that traffic to/through Downtown doubles or triples, but car drivership only increases by 40%? Your parking rates only go up 40% is what. Put parking under this thing and your rates go up 39% instead? Who cares? Aggragate taxes go up more than parking rates come down.
            If car drivership increases by 40% and lot/parkade volumes decrease 40% you're gonna see a hell of a high increase in the value of parking downtown - to the point where if people are unwilling to take LRT they will just avoid it except in the case of going to hockey games or special events. Not to mention these underground lots in other cities rake in millions of dollars of revenue a year. Of course it's gonna cost a lot of money to build; but it's a project that further future proofs the city's parking needs, creates revenue for the city, and still allows a node of access to people who aren't dedicated to the LRT.

            I love using the LRT; but I know people from Vegreville or Stony Plain come from a different world and will dodge downtown at all costs if it means parking at a transit lot and burning half an hour to get to where they're going. It's not the same for some people and we need to respect that.
            (highlights by me)

            How is it decreasing? Every multistorey building we'll get going forward is going to be providing additional underground parking. This will, in effect, multiply the parking supply per square metre of current surface lot. Those that add to the daytime demand (office towers) will have to meet their own demand while they add almost nothing but vacant spaces to the evening/weekend supply as well.

            But absolutely the LRT is going to reduce demand for the parking we have and the parking we will continue to add. With the most simple calculations, we're doubling the people who would find LRT convenient within five years (although looking at station placement and considering "multispoke multiplier", I'd not be surprised with triple or more the ridership we have now.)

            Just look at the U of A in the 1990s -- they couldn't function anymore with the growth in the driving student population, they were choked with traffic and massive amounts of surface parking.

            But between then and now?
            1. Innovation Centre for Engineering
            2. Mechanical Engineering
            3. Morrison Structural Engineering Lab
            4. Computing Science Centre
            5. Natural Resources Engineering Facillity
            6. Electrical and Computer Engineering Research Facillity
            7. Engineering Teaching and Learning Complex
            8. National Institute for Nanotechnology
            9. The Timms Centre for the Arts
            10. The Telus International Centre
            11. The Edmonton Clinic North
            12. The Edmonton Clinic South
            13. Jubilee Parkade (haw haw)
            14. Cooling Plant
            15. The Mazankowski Heart Institute
            16. The Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Research Innovation
            17. Katz Group Centre for Pharmacy and Health Research


            You have to ask yourself how in the hell did they suddenly find all that land under those buildings. Answer - damn right LRT reduces parking pressure. Massively.
            Yes, a lot of the new buildings downtown have parking beneath them. However, the entrances to the parkades and the rates (which are usually higher than surface lots) are not always evident to those going downtown occasionally and not all the buildings have public parking or can accommodate all types of vehicles. Also, as the number of surface lots decrease, the rates go up. I remember when I was parking on the surface lot on 106 St. for 1/3 or 1/4 of what the daily rate is now.

            I am all for eventually building new multi story buildings on some of the surface parking lots (which has been the general trend downtown for the last 20 years), but I think creating a big central park may restrict parking too much, too quickly. We already have utilization issues around the River Valley parks and the city struggles to keep access open in the winter.

            Sometimes I think the city is just looking for new ways to spend money. We seem to have a city government which seems overly attracted to the shiny new idea, rather than making what exists already work or work better.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dave
              but I think creating a big central park may restrict parking too much, too quickly.


              On what basis are you making that claim? For one thing, a timeline for expropriation/acquisition is being worked on but I don't think has been firmly established. No detailed planning has begun for the park itself. The park has already been on the radar for nearly 10 years. It's unlikely we see actual construction on it for another several years. Is 10-15 years "too quickly"? On what basis are you making your assumption that all of the lots will be taken out of circulation at the exact same time, and not staged?

              And in any case, unreserved parking in that area can be found for $180/month or less. That's hardly an indication that parking is in short supply in the area.

              This whole discussion is simply bizarre, in my opinion.

              "Hey guys, we're thinking of building a nice central park, which will replace a wasteland of poorly maintained, unsightly parking lots on abandoned building foundations. What do you think?"

              "What about parking?! We need more parking!!! Oh god, there's so little parking!!!!"

              "Uh, well actually, parking rates are pretty cheap in the area, which would indicate parking is not in short supply."

              "But at some indeterminate point in the future, parking may well be in short supply. Ergo, the city should spend tens of millions of dollars on a parking structure underneath this park. Market conditions be damned!"

              "Wait. What?"

              The city "investing" in an underground parkade in this location would be an absolutely horrible investment, given the cost of building it vs. the likely revenue. It. Makes. No. Sense.
              Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 13-12-2016, 02:47 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                Originally posted by Dave
                but I think creating a big central park may restrict parking too much, too quickly.


                On what basis are you making that claim? For one thing, a timeline for expropriation/acquisition is being worked on but I don't think has been firmly established. No detailed planning has begun for the park itself. The park has already been on the radar for nearly 10 years. It's unlikely we see actual construction on it for another several years. Is 10-15 years "too quickly"? On what basis are you making your assumption that all of the lots will be taken out of circulation at the exact same time, and not staged?

                And in any case, unreserved parking in that area can be found for $180/month or less. That's hardly an indication that parking is in short supply in the area.

                This whole discussion is simply bizarre, in my opinion.

                "Hey guys, we're thinking of building a nice central park, which will replace a wasteland of poorly maintained, unsightly parking lots on abandoned building foundations. What do you think?"

                "What about parking?! We need more parking!!! Oh god, there's so little parking!!!!"

                "Uh, well actually, parking rates are pretty cheap in the area, which would indicate parking is not in short supply."

                "But at some indeterminate point in the future, parking may well be in short supply. Ergo, the city should spend tens of millions of dollars on a parking structure underneath this park. Market conditions be damned!"

                "Wait. What?"

                The city "investing" in an underground parkade in this location would be an absolutely horrible investment, given the cost of building it vs. the likely revenue. It. Makes. No. Sense.
                Actually the $180 is three times what I paid to park there some years ago, so clearly rates have risen considerably over the years. If the economy starts to improve, I expect the rates will increase even more.

                Yes, I forgot the city can't do anything very quickly or implement it well. There will be 10 years of consultation and planning and in the end perhaps nothing will happen, except the opportunity will be taken away for private developers to build some nice buildings in the area.

                I don't object to buildings gradually replacing the surface lots (as has already been happening over the years downtown). I don't even mind a few smaller parks, but I don't support some grandiose scheme that isn't needed.

                Really, City of Edmonton for once just focus on existing problems and making things that we already have work better or properly.

                Comment


                • These lots are filled up daily. I don't see why we wouldn't try to accommodate or at least think about the displaced vehicles.
                  We have residents in Riverdale complaining about downtowners parking in their neighbourhood and at the exact same time, we have people who think parking is not needed.

                  The car isn't going anywhere.

                  1) Until Transit gets reformed in Edmonton, car is king.

                  2) Autonomous/ green vehicles. The next push isn't about getting rid of the car, but rather increasing their efficiency.

                  3) Even in cities with the most advanced transit, automobile traffic/parking is still an issue


                  I'm not going to say explicitly that parking is warranted under this park. But consideration, and a feasibility, cost/benefit study wouldn't hurt either

                  Comment


                  • I feel perfectly assured in saying parking will not be any more of an issue than presently.


                    What difference would it make if we put underground parking under this supposed park?
                    Less than 1% lower than the daytime rates would be otherwise. I'd predict virtually zero impact on evening/weekend rates.

                    And call-off the shrill paranoia. The car isn't going anywhere and nobody is forcing anybody at gunpoint to ride the LRT. Just think of it this way "25% of those other idiots on the road will be off the road. More space for you."
                    Let's make Edmonton better.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JayBee View Post
                      I feel perfectly assured in saying parking will not be any more of an issue than presently.


                      What difference would it make if we put underground parking under this supposed park?
                      Less than 1% lower than the daytime rates would be otherwise. I'd predict virtually zero impact on evening/weekend rates.

                      And call-off the shrill paranoia. The car isn't going anywhere and nobody is forcing anybody at gunpoint to ride the LRT. Just think of it this way "25% of those other idiots on the road will be off the road. More space for you."
                      I don't have a feeling of paranoia, I just feel this is efficient use of space; conveniently located near a landmark destination which will allow surrounding lots to develop with absolutely zero above ground parking. You're right, we have lots of parking right now. But seeing as this is my own community I want to see 3 story density and retail surrounding this park with no need for surface parking. I don't think it'll get built; but for this particular city I think it's wise to anticipate parking requirements increase as the core's population goes from 10 to 20 to 30000 people. The volumes of people using these stalls right now is absolutely nothing in comparison to what it will be one day. And with developers requesting less stall requirements it's wise to think ahead over the coming decades.

                      That's just my opinion; I get yours on current oversupply.
                      There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

                      Comment


                      • Keep in mind though that residential increases will have limited impact on non-accessory lots as most will have their own parking. The bigger impact will be growth of retail, restaurant, entertainment options. We certainly need to ensure Downtown remains easily accessible and have options for all types of modal choice.


                        Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by B.ike
                          We have residents in Riverdale complaining about downtowners parking in their neighbourhood and at the exact same time, we have people who think parking is not needed.


                          People are not parking in Riverdale because there is no parking downtown. They're parking in Riverdale because there is no free parking downtown. I don't see why the city should waste taxpayer dollars to subsidize these people.


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                            They're parking in Riverdale because there is no free parking downtown.
                            Yup. Parking your car 8-10 blocks away and then walking to work can save hundreds per month on parking.

                            Neighborhoods near hospitals deal with the same thing these Riverdale residents do, and for the same reason.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
                              Originally posted by B.ike
                              We have residents in Riverdale complaining about downtowners parking in their neighbourhood and at the exact same time, we have people who think parking is not needed.


                              People are not parking in Riverdale because there is no parking downtown. They're parking in Riverdale because there is no free parking downtown. I don't see why the city should waste taxpayer dollars to subsidize these people.


                              Thing is, the spillover into Riverdale represents a hundred or so cars...yes they are probably the early and frugal type. But it's not like the Quarters sits barren. The lots there are filled up daily as well.



                              And as I said, the lots this park replaces are not barren wastelands either:



                              You build it, and they will come. I'm not exactly championing for subsidies for the commuters, but rather having options for people who occasionally come down to downtown.
                              I have no issue going downtown, any time of day, and any time of the year (except maybe parade days). But lots of people view it as a traffic quagmire and parking nightmare. You're going to have a massive central park and it will be largely underutilized. Have parking options and people will come.

                              Parking is not an issue that will go away or "adapt". Yes it adapts but it just puts stresses in other areas (like Riverdale) - you're merely relocating the problem. It's no different that what the Ice District is doing - gentrification of the area. Lots of people just assumed Ice District has cleaned up the area and the marginalized have disappeared. They've just been displaced. Neighbourhoods like Chinatown now bear a much heavier burden from the marginalized.


                              Anyhow. I don't actually think parking lot is necessary here - but I'm not against it. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing because some people here just jumped on the folks who suggested parking and I feel like all angles have not been considered before those remarks.

                              I'm just in the boat that it would be a waste of space underneath to have a large park on the surface and non-utilized space underneath. It doesn't have to be parking. Maybe some massive storm-retention tanks or hey maybe a storage business.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by B.ike View Post
                                . You're going to have a massive central park and it will be largely underutilized. Have parking options and people will come.
                                I get that it's a "big" park for Downtown, but it's not a big park. It's 2.8 acres. About two football fields in its entirety. It's the size of my parents' back yard (I grew up 5 minutes S of Sherwood Park, near Salisbury Greenhouses). It's 1/8th of 1 percent of the size of the river valley parks system. I get that it's very important to Downtown, and might be a draw for the immediately surrounding neighborhoods, but I don't really think that it's going to somehow become a recreation Mecca in the Government District. It's a large amenity being hyped up beyond its actual impacts in order to garner support & generate hype. That's how the COE rolls.
                                Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X