Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

City eyes expansion south to airport

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

  • City eyes expansion south to airport

    City eyes expansion south to airport

    --Annexation should wait for regional plan, argues Leduc County manager

    Gordon Kent, With files from Scott McKeen, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: 6:13 am July 22, 2008


    Edmonton has quietly reopened the controversial annexation issue with a move to take over a large chunk of Leduc County that includes the Edmonton International Airport.

    City councillors authorized staff to start informal annexation negotiations with the county and other interested groups following a private meeting last month to discuss the idea.

    According to a confidential city report obtained by The Journal, south-central Edmonton needs more room to grow because it doesn't have a 30-year supply of land.

    Article Link:
    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...d-a2a44cdb8c29

  • #2
    The southern fuse has been officially lit
    Still waiting for the Arlington site to be reborn .......

    Comment


    • #3
      Had to happen some time, best to get it over with now so that real negotiations can then begin.
      Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SteveB View Post
        Had to happen some time, best to get it over with now so that real negotiations can then begin.
        Good - hope Sherwood Park is next, it would be nice to bring all the industry in the East on stream to city coffers.

        In saying that - the logic for annexation - that we need new sprawl sububrs in the South, doesn't really thrill me, I guess that's just an excuse to get the airport though. It would sort of be nice if the QEII was filled with houses all the way from airport to Edmonton too (wouldn't seem so far away then).

        Comment


        • #5
          IMO - the main reason is to ensure transit to YEG. That has been stalled for years now with the petty infighting between the C of L and Edmonton.

          The residential component and the potential industrial is also a good boon. Port Alberta anyone? Who do you think has done the most work on this concept, the C of L or Edmonton? 3 guesses, first two don't count.
          President and CEO - Airshow.

          Comment


          • #6
            For $1.7mil a year in taxes, let them keep it.
            Seriously though the city can only grow one way and the natural migration is south to the airport. A no brainer.
            I wonder if the provincial government will see it that way?
            “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Glenco View Post
              For $1.7mil a year in taxes, let them keep it.
              Seriously though the city can only grow one way and the natural migration is south to the airport. A no brainer.
              How about growing denser instead of out? With rising gas prices, isn't that a no-brainer too?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                Originally posted by Glenco View Post
                For $1.7mil a year in taxes, let them keep it.
                Seriously though the city can only grow one way and the natural migration is south to the airport. A no brainer.
                How about growing denser instead of out? With rising gas prices, isn't that a no-brainer too?
                except we - particularly from a regional perspective - are already "out there". the airport exists. the industrial development on the east side of the highway already exists. henday already exists. and the current respite in the housing market won't last another year.

                there are some large infrastructure investments needed for the city's near-term growth needs that are not going to disappear. this is about making decision surrounding those investments so that as much as possible they support more density than they would otherwise. what's happening downtown and at the quarters or with vftc and strathern will go up but nothing everything can go up. if you work at nisku or the airport, living close to where you work can in fact be a smaller footprint solution. as would the construction of lrt and transit links that work in both directions during both rush hours rather than just one-way twice a day.
                "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kcantor View Post
                  as would the construction of lrt and transit links that work in both directions during both rush hours rather than just one-way twice a day.
                  I guess our city is destined to look like a lolipop, with the AHD ringing the bulk of it, and a stick to the South. I'm not saying it is wrong, I realize also that this is probably the reality to a large extent already, and will make the airport "feel" closer with a bit of luck, at least people will actually land at Edmonton's airport, not Niskus. It is still interesting though that we could be approving yet more land for new suburbs (which will happen if this is to facilitate LRT expansion) - when there is already a reasonably significant supply of land approved for development on other edges of the city. We continue to grow out, I guess that is just irreversible destiny though, given the extent of industry on the edge's.
                  Last edited by moahunter; 22-07-2008, 02:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                    Originally posted by kcantor View Post
                    as would the construction of lrt and transit links that work in both directions during both rush hours rather than just one-way twice a day.
                    I guess our city is destined to look like a lolipop, with the AHD ringing the bulk of it, and a stick to the South. I'm not saying it is wrong, I realize also that this is probably the reality to a large extent already, and will make the airport "feel" closer with a bit of luck, at least people will actually land at Edmonton's airport, not Niskus. It is still interesting though that we could be approving yet more land for new suburbs (which will happen if this is to facilitate LRT expansion) - when there is already a reasonably significant supply of land approved for development on other edges of the city. We continue to grow out, I guess that is just irreversible destiny though, given the extent of industry on the edge's.
                    part of the constraints surrounding where development will occur is not just "land approved for development" but the infrastructure necessary to develop/service it. if there is no capacity in our existing servicing for water and sewers and roads and transit, you can't develop the land without building that infrastructure. you then have to recognize that most of that infrastructure is linear, not circular so the "densist", most efficient way to use it will also be linear. you want new development to be as close as possible to it if it is existing and at the same time if you have to build new infrastructure you want it where it where it will support as much additional density as possible in as short a time as possible without duplication. you're "lollipop" won't retain that shape for long.
                    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                      Originally posted by Glenco View Post
                      For $1.7mil a year in taxes, let them keep it.
                      Seriously though the city can only grow one way and the natural migration is south to the airport. A no brainer.
                      How about growing denser instead of out? With rising gas prices, isn't that a no-brainer too?
                      No!
                      Many of the outlying communities are also annexing land. If all the future growth goes to these burbs that will be greater sprawl than if it were adjacent to Edmonton.
                      An adequate supply of serviced land will help keep the cost down. A limited supply will drive up costs.
                      Last time the provincial government handed out infrastucture grants it was partly bases on the number of roads within the municpality. More roads more grants.
                      The grants were also partly based on non residential tax base. Edmonton has to take advantage of the industry that could be generated by Port Alberta, we cannot allow that tax revenue to go to another municipality again. Edmonton is better positioned to promote and help develop YEG than the C of L.
                      The city should continue to promote densification but it should not try and dictate it.
                      Last edited by Glenco; 22-07-2008, 10:45 PM. Reason: spelling
                      “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Until the city is governed by a single planning body and all communities are growing inward, you cannot expect to hold Edmonton to one standard and the rest to another. That two-faced approach is the main reason this debate has gone on for so long and embittered so many.

                        As for this stretch, to alleviate your car concerns moahunter, there is an LRT spine along this entire sector..
                        President and CEO - Airshow.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RichardS View Post
                          As for this stretch, to alleviate your car concerns moahunter, there is an LRT spine along this entire sector..
                          I don't have car concerns Richard. It doesn't even need LRT likely, as a good portion of anyone who is going to be living in these areas are going to be working out there as well. Why else would you want to live next to an airport with planes buzzing over all the time? (Actually, I know that isn't fully true - there are many people who commute from Leduc to Edmonton downtown).

                          As I mentioned above, I'm not that worried about this, it is what it is, I realize the horse has bolted on Southern sprawl, so the city might as well profit from it IMO (and all the commerce we can pick up, given they feed to a large extent off the population of Edmonton). It is not the only growth option though, and it is not a "no-brainer" that it is the only growth option (I have lived in cities with a green-belt, which is a different model, that does not cause the sky to cave in, as some on here would suggest).
                          Last edited by moahunter; 22-07-2008, 05:15 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm thinking Edmonton should annex everything to Highway 19/625, and the Airport itself.

                            Minus Nisku, Beaumont, and Devon. Or including if they want it.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Am I the only one who thinks this "leak" is a negotiation ploy? I'd rather see Edmonton and Leduc co-operate on a regional transit plan that serves YEG. Isn't that one of the purposes of the regional board?
                              “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

                              Working...
                              X