Edmonton Construction Part 14 (October 2023)

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by Airboy

Spawl is still more damaging to budgets IHO. Services have to go out to those newer areas but you sill have to maintain or upgrade existing in the older parts.

Blatchford is not the expense sink people believe. The LRTs are all funded by 3 levels of Gov.

Lets stop building out and redevelop older underused areas.

But thats just my opinion.

Agreed, people living way the heck out near 41 Ave SW or the new Marquis area in the NE or bordering Enoch should have to pay more for City services since it's way more expensive to get services out there then serve people living in established, older areas. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by Harrison

Agreed, people living way the heck out near 41 Ave SW or the new Marquis area in the NE or bordering Enoch should have to pay more for City services since it's way more expensive to get services out there then serve people living in established, older areas. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

And what if these people work at YEG or in Nisku or in Fort Sask/Heartland industrial? Isn't an important part of developing a 'sustainable' city locating housing 'closer' to existing/developing employment nodes? At what point did it become 'uneconomical' to support the development of low density housing neighbourhoods - was it the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's??? Should the lower density neighbourhoods with a very homogenous housing typology 'pay more' versus newer, a lot more dense neighbourhoods with a variety of housing types? My point is that it is not a 'this or that' answer. It's much more complicated and one that is the result of a myriad of factors such as reduced funding and offloading of responsibilities from the provincial level of government to municipalities WITHOUT giving them the ability to control more of their finances to help pay for these new responsibilities.

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by CMD UW

And what if these people work at YEG or in Nisku or in Fort Sask/Heartland industrial? Isn't an important part of developing a 'sustainable' city locating housing 'closer' to existing/developing employment nodes? At what point did it become 'uneconomical' to support the development of low density housing neighbourhoods - was it the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's??? Should the lower density neighbourhoods with a very homogenous housing typology 'pay more' versus newer, a lot more dense neighbourhoods with a variety of housing types? My point is that it is not a 'this or that' answer. It's much more complicated and one that is the result of a myriad of factors such as reduced funding and offloading of responsibilities from the provincial level of government to municipalities WITHOUT giving them the ability to control more of their finances to help pay for these new responsibilities.

Fair points, maybe we just need to make infill development cheaper relative to suburban growth to drive more investment inside the Henday.

As we know with the City's current finances, they cannot fund any more large infrastructure projects in the suburbs or anywhere else for that matter for the forseeable future. People moving to newly developed/developing areas need to not expect those same services that are available in established neighbourhoods for the next while, especiallly if the next Council puts pauses on major new Capital spending.

[Xelebes]

Big brownfield developments, as far as I can tell, takes decades to carry out. Century PArk is still building out and it has been nearly two decades since it started. Stadium lands has been five decades in the work and is nearing built out. Blatchford is a decade in. It's got some development but I expect it will take another four decades for it to fill in. And then we have Northlands to deal with.

[TimB09]

Originally Posted by Harrison

Agreed, people living way the heck out near 41 Ave SW or the new Marquis area in the NE or bordering Enoch should have to pay more for City services since it's way more expensive to get services out there then serve people living in established, older areas. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

How's it my fault that the City decided to keep sprawling so I should pay more because I chose to live there with my family for numerous reasons?

What a weird take.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Big brownfield developments, as far as I can tell, takes decades to carry out. Century PArk is still building out and it has been nearly two decades since it started. Stadium lands has been five decades in the work and is nearing built out. Blatchford is a decade in. It's got some development but I expect it will take another four decades for it to fill in. And then we have Northlands to deal with.

Grisbaugh is around 20 as well.

[ciudad_del_norte]

I don't think it's about punitively trying to get people to pay more because we're mad at them or that something is "their fault". Instead it's an attempt at recognizing that of the various reasons people chose to live where they may, the true cost of maintaining that development as part of the city usually isn't one of them because that costs has been masked and subsidized. Our choices are generally removed from the shared consequences of those choices.

I also don't think it's fair to act like the city has grown the way it has because it is something that "The City" wants . It's people making choices because they can be removed from the true cost, and those choices contributing to demand, which makes continued outward development profitable, which creates a political pressure for the city to "choose" to support. Your choices, do - in the collective sense inform how the city chooses to develop.


I'd argue though that this form of development has always been unecomical, but the true cost of it takes decades to have it's impact as infrastructure ages and costs rise. So yes, it may be unfair to solely call out the farthest out of the suburbs when we've been in a financial spiral for over half a century that has cumulatively created the current situation we are in. The reality is that apart from a few dense areas, the majority of the residential developing in the city is subusidized by those central areas along with commercial/industrial properties.

It's a systemic failure more than a personal one. People in the suburbs (and I mean the suburbs in the sense that most of Edmonton is suburbs) are not bad people, but for the most part probably don't realize how expensive their lifestyle is and that the current reckoning is partially due to a need to cover those costs.

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by TimB09

How's it my fault that the City decided to keep sprawling so I should pay more because I chose to live there with my family for numerous reasons?

What a weird take.

I don't think it's about punitively trying to get people to pay more because we're mad at them or that something is "their fault". Instead it's an attempt at recognizing that of the various reasons people chose to live where they may, the true cost of maintaining that development as part of the city usually isn't one of them because that costs has been masked and subsidized. Our choices are generally removed from the shared consequences of those choices.

I also don't think it's fair to act like the city has grown the way it has because it is something that "The City" wants . It's people making choices because they can be removed from the true cost, and those choices contributing to demand, which makes continued outward development profitable, which creates a political pressure for the city to "choose" to support it. Your choices, do - in the collective sense inform how the city chooses to develop.


I'd argue though that this form of development has always been unecomical, but the true cost of it takes decades to have it's impact as infrastructure ages and costs rise. So yes, it may be unfair to solely call out the farthest out of the suburbs when we've been in a financial spiral for over half a century that has cumulatively created the current situation we are in. The reality is that apart from a few dense areas, the majority of the residential development in the city is subusidized by those central areas along with commercial/industrial properties.

It's a systemic failure more than a personal one. People in the suburbs (and I mean the suburbs in the sense that most of Edmonton is suburbs) are not bad people, but for the most part probably don't realize how expensive their lifestyle is and that the current reckoning is partially due to a need to cover those costs.

[TimB09]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

I don't think it's about punitively trying to get people to pay more because we're mad at them or that something is "their fault". Instead it's an attempt at recognizing that of the various reasons people chose to live where they may, the true cost of maintaining that development as part of the city usually isn't one of them because that costs has been masked and subsidized. Our choices are generally removed from the shared consequences of those choices.

I also don't think it's fair to act like the city has grown the way it has because it is something that "The City" wants . It's people making choices because they can be removed from the true cost, and those choices contributing to demand, which makes continued outward development profitable, which creates a political pressure for the city to "choose" to support it. Your choices, do - in the collective sense inform how the city chooses to develop.


I'd argue though that this form of development has always been unecomical, but the true cost of it takes decades to have it's impact as infrastructure ages and costs rise. So yes, it may be unfair to solely call out the farthest out of the suburbs when we've been in a financial spiral for over half a century that has cumulatively created the current situation we are in. The reality is that apart from a few dense areas, the majority of the residential development in the city is subusidized by those central areas along with commercial/industrial properties.

It's a systemic failure more than a personal one. People in the suburbs (and I mean the suburbs in the sense that most of Edmonton is suburbs) are not bad people, but for the most part probably don't realize how expensive their lifestyle is and that the current reckoning is partially due to a need to cover those costs.

Good luck being the City Council that changes it to what some think it should be.

Part of that reckoning too is past City Council's not raising taxes appropriately over the years too.

Again, don't 🞵🞵🞵🞵 all over those of us that choose to live out there. And don't give me this junk that the City didn't want the sprawl. They annexed those lands over the years and had to do something when the demand came. Gotta keep that tax base coming from us homeowners because they aren't getting much from the business side, especially industrially, which is a big tax base for Sherwood Park, Nisku, etc.

[ciudad_del_norte]

I don't see anybody crapping all over anybody. It's not a personal attack that the majority of residential development doesn't pay for itself in taxes, it's just a reality of Edmonton and many other low density cities.

The annexation was more about regional dynamics and who gets control (and yes, revenue) off new development than it is that "The City" is actively invested in sprawl as a form of development. The city absolutely does want growth, but has been desperately trying to steer as much of that growth into existing areas as possible. Part of the argument for the annexation was actually to give Edmonton the ability to manage the sprawl to make more sustainable than it might have been otherwise, although I think it can be argued either way as to how successful that will be... but it was more about trying to mitigate the sprawl than embracing it.

Perhaps in the post war years there was an ideal of suburban development that was pushed through governance, but for most of recent history it has been driven by the market, and therefore politics. I could agree that the development structures set up at the city have encouraged sprawl by making other forms of development difficult, but over time it became clear that this wasn't actually the desired outcome and many cities are trying to work their way out of the bylaws and approaches of bygone eras. If anything most cities have been resigned to suburban development more than promoting it and instead have focused on trying to make it more feasible by increasing densities and adjusting infrastructure programs to build more and more of the infrastructure costs into the upfront cost of development.

I'd agree that being the city council that changes the pattern would be tough. The current council is probably the most on that side that we've seen but has to somehow manage what it would mean to be percieved as anti-development in the midst of record growth and housing crisis. But again, it's not the big bad city government that's going to make it difficult, it's economic and political relaties outside of their control.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Airboy

Grisbaugh is around 20 as well.

Little stairs (Grisbaugh) or grey brook (Griesbach)?

[Coldrsx]

MacEwan SOB

Glenco on SRC
https://edmonton.skyrisecities.com/forum...an-university.30580/page-16#post-2138722

[Coldrsx]

Beljan Old Strathcona
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/historic-edmonton-school-set-for-redevelopment-1.7321388

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

Little stairs (Grisbaugh) or grey brook (Griesbach)?

Griesbach

[Harrison]

Nice to see multiple cranes on a single develpoment site downtown again, I wonder if both will stay for the duration of construction?

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Beljan Old Strathcona
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/historic-edmonton-school-set-for-redevelopment-1.7321388

When they say west and south I assume that means they own and are redeveloping the parking lot too?

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by GenWhy?

When they say west and south I assume that means they own and are redeveloping the parking lot too?

Yes, ECSB owned that parking lot.

[Payd1964]

Edmonton had second most housing starts in the country in August.

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/media-newsroom/news-releases/2024/housing-starts-august-2024

[Coldrsx]

The Hat Old Strathcona flying now.

Credit - Corner Garden on SRC
https://edmonton.skyrisecities.com/forum...s-cidex-group.28909/page-24#post-2140380

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by Payd1964

Edmonton had second most housing starts in the country in August.

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/media-newsroom/news-releases/2024/housing-starts-august-2024

That's some huge numbers. I hope they're all within the AHD ring. Preferably, in Grisbach and Century Park...

On a side note, it looks like Premier Smith's dream of Red Deer being at a 1,000,000 people is a long way off. 6 housing starts in August.