Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Edmonton vetos development at Villeneuve

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

  • Edmonton vetos development at Villeneuve

    Edmonton vetoes Villenueve development:

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...634/story.html
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  • #2
    Submit a plan that adheres to the land use plan of the region and maybe they will support it!

    It's pretty simple! The town of Villanueve thinks they are above the rules of the region and I applaud st Albert an Edmonton for their strong stands!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

    Comment


    • #3
      ^Villeneuve is not a town, but rather an unincorporated hamlet in Sturgeon County.

      Congratulations to the City of Edmonton (with St. Albert's support) for using its veto (finally!) to block unplanned sprawl in a surrounding rural county.

      Comment


      • #4
        ^now if they would only use power veto to block sprawl in Edmonton and St albert, but for another thread I guess.

        Comment


        • #5
          .. here are the red flags for me...

          “We truly did our homework (on this project),” she added, describing it as several years of committee work and negotiations with the county and developer as they fought to define a style of growth current hamlet residents would accept.

          the plan for mostly single-family homes doesn’t fit the board’s growth policy, which demands a mix of housing with apartments and higher density to reduce sprawl.

          “It’s OK for Edmonton to have 28-foot lots, but at a minimum they want a 42-foot lot?” Gibbons said. “It’s OK for Edmonton to have all the affordable housing? …
          and the quote that really hits home...

          “If you have a plan, do you follow it? Or do you change the plan every time there’s an exception?” said board chair and St. Albert Mayor Nolan Crouse, noting this is the first plan the board has turned down in several years.
          "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by moahunter View Post
            ^now if they would only use power veto to block sprawl in Edmonton and St albert, but for another thread I guess.
            Our sprawl meets the planning guidelines... however. Our suburbs are MUCH denser than some exburb where the smallest lot is almost 200% bigger than our standard one.
            "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

            Comment


            • #7
              It's time to introduce some new terminology that we done use on C2E but is well used by many others..

              exburb or exurb as it started out in 1955

              The expression exurb (for "extra-urban") was coined by Auguste Comte Spectorsky in his 1955 book The Exurbanites to describe the ring of prosperous communities beyond the suburbs that are commuter towns for an urban area.[1] Most exurbs serve as commuter towns, but most commuter towns are not exurban.

              or

              A commuter town is an urban community that is primarily residential, from which most of the workforce commutes out to earn their livelihood. Many commuter towns act as suburbs of a nearby metropolis that workers travel to daily.

              or as i put it... a suburb of a suburb.
              Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 04-09-2012, 11:08 AM.
              "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
                Our sprawl meets the planning guidelines... however. Our suburbs are MUCH denser than some exburb where the smallest lot is almost 200% bigger than our standard one.
                Yeah its beautiful:



                http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Disch&itbs=1

                Comment


                • #9
                  Counties have finally figured out they can't just do whatever they want regarding growth. All these exurbs impact our services negatively and cost Edmonton taxpayers more money.
                  www.decl.org

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                    Originally posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
                    Our sprawl meets the planning guidelines... however. Our suburbs are MUCH denser than some exburb where the smallest lot is almost 200% bigger than our standard one.
                    Yeah its beautiful:



                    http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h...%3Disch&itbs=1
                    well it's prettier than this (courtesy of wiki):



                    sprawl is not only a matter of what it is but also where it is. what's interesting is that the neighborhood you're putting forward as an example of urban sprawl not only isn't, it's denser than the "inner city" neighborhood you live in.

                    unfortunately the real loss in this decision isn't a few country residential city sized lots but the fact that it's taking down the much needed villeneuve airport improvements with it and we will all be the poorer for that part of the decision. all because something that never should have been linked (imho) was linked and with disastrous results for the entire region in regard to what should be going forward.
                    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      How is turning Villeneuve into a mega-hamlet of 5,400 linked to making improvements to the Villeneuve airport? Why can't the latter proceed without the former?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by East McCauley View Post
                        How is turning Villeneuve into a mega-hamlet of 5,400 linked to making improvements to the Villeneuve airport? Why can't the latter proceed without the former?
                        i didn't make the link and i don't particularly agree with the link being drawn. personally i see no reason why the airport improvements couldn't have proceeded without linking them to anything else other than a lack of willingness and support to do just that.
                        "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The only trouble with the development on in Villeneuve is that:

                          (1) Roads like Highway 44 and SH 633 would have significantly more traffic, ultimately spilling onto Highways 2 and 16. Roads like Ray Gibbon Drive might have to be extended to Highway 2.

                          (2) How long before a community of 5,000 becomes one of 10,000. It's very possible in a suburban community. With Villeneuve unincorporated, how long until it becomes a town, especially if it falls under the jurisdiction of Sturgeon County?

                          (3) While it's great to have the goal of expanding the Villeneuve airport for various aviation uses, I think it might be better to coordinate a strategy with Edmonton Airports.
                          "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ray Gibbon Drive is going to be extended to Hwy 2, it's the plan. But that's a problem because...?
                            “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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kcantor View Post
                              (...) other than a lack of willingness and support to do just that.

                              I know we're not supposed to just say bingo...so does my preamble count...oh "quality of post overlords"?
                              President and CEO - Airshow.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X