Edmonton Construction 11 (November 2011) - Page 321

SHOFEAR · #**6401** Posted **Mar 5, 2013, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee

From the http://www.9triple8jasper.com/ website

I like that.

Coldrsx · #**6402** Posted **Mar 5, 2013, 10:24 PM**

^sure... but nightime renderings are often the most misleading.

240glt · #**6403** Posted **Mar 5, 2013, 11:15 PM**

I know there's piping in mechanical rooms but this is ridiculous

Ba-dum-bum.

Airboy · #**6404** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 12:02 AM**

I remember there was a piper using the tunnels at YYC when I was working there.

CMD UW · #**6405** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 3:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by s211

I applaud this type of development, but placed near a freeway intersection, where higher densities should prevail?

Cheap land for that type of land intensive use.

CMD UW · #**6406** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 3:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

3 new CRUs is a good thing.

(http://www.9triple8jasper.com/images/uploads/14/retail_floor_plan_main__large.jpg)

A very good thing. This will help activate the streetscape in that area. Great to see some reinvestment coming to that building.

Coldrsx · #**6407** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 5:05 AM**

And I should really say 5 CRU total...

edmontonoilers89 · #**6408** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 7:56 AM**

Council voted down the Hawrelak park beach concept, and instead insisted they come up with a spray park alternative for one-fifth the cost.

As a young professional who recently moved from Edmonton to Calgary this city's decisions really bother me sometimes. I know tons of people who wanted this to go through as it would have been a great place to chill in the summers, for people of all ages. A spray park? Ridiculous. Community leagues will probably have better spray parks than what council will approve.

Keats82 · #**6409** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 8:11 AM**

I hear ya, but they are already quite over extended already with the new commitments for the arena and downtown. A spray park can be removed in the future if the entire site is to be turned into a beach.

s4.audios · #**6410** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 1:45 PM**

I don't agree with the beach concept nor this spray park. Hawrlack is already a great place to chill for everyone. It doesn't really need anything, this whole idea is a waste. How about they just focus on adding new park space or adding life to less used space. IMO they should fast track the plans for the park East of Kinsman that we seen a few months ago. That area is a jewal hidden and barely used (at least this is how it seemed every time I've been in the area)

Coldrsx · #**6411** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 2:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keats82

I hear ya, but they are already quite over extended already with the new commitments for the arena and downtown. A spray park can be removed in the future if the entire site is to be turned into a beach.

Actually I would argue that they are overcommitted with overall spending... including downtown/arena but not limited to. Keep in mind all of those rec centres, roads, fire halls, police stations and outside of the whitemud.

Harrison · #**6412** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 3:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Actually I would argue that they are overcommitted with overall spending... including downtown/arena but not limited to. Keep in mind all of those rec centres, roads, fire halls, police stations and outside of the whitemud.

The majority of spending is a result of this continued suburban growth, so this trend of stretching funding to its limits will definitely continue if the planned annexations and Horse Hills ASP are approved.
Whatever happened to compact development?

240glt · #**6413** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 4:07 PM**

Quote:

The majority of spending is a result of this continued suburban growth

I know this makes a great little sound byte but it is not really true.

Suburbs are expensive, yes. But the majority ? Come on man. not even the most idealistic, naive urbanist (and there's a lot of those) would believe that.

rapid_business · #**6414** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 4:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harrison

The majority of spending is a result of this continued suburban growth, so this trend of stretching funding to its limits will definitely continue if the planned annexations and Horse Hills ASP are approved.
Whatever happened to compact development?

I hear your planning ambition, but take it with a grain of salt. The planned annexation (which would include significant greenfield residential development), the approved "Horse Hills" ASP, and the spending priorities of the city exist because of market demand, demand for 'employment lands' AND the sway of UDI developers. It's not where I want to live, or where I work, but many people do.

Also take note that the new suburbs that are being built in Edmonton are 30+ units/ha. Not so low-density and significantly more dense than many existing central neighbourhoods (Ottwell, Hollyrood, etc.).

Until there is viable, market-driven alternative for residential units in infill neighbourhoods, at a range of price points, especially sub 500k, suburban growth will continue to be an attractive option. Take it from a guy who just moved back to Edmonton, set on living in a central neighbourhood, but saw the lure of cheaper, new, suburban units after countless failed home inspections on older units in centrally located neighbourhoods, bidding wars and special assessments on older condos. (We did find a place in a central neighbourhood in the end though!)

In the end, it won't be a growth boundary that changes peoples mindset on where they want to live, and in turn, where development happens, but it will be the natural pressures of a growing city (increased commute times for example), the attractiveness of established infrastructure, growing popularity of our redeveloping commercial corridors (Jasper, Whyte, 124, 118, 107, etc), and most importantly, a range of housing type options at various price points!

SHOFEAR · #**6415** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 6:29 PM**

It looks like the city had some street cleaners out last night downtown. good sign.

240glt · #**6416** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 9:01 PM**

Little 4 story infill by Red Brick on 112th ave and 85th street looks very promising. This is one of their first and they're looking to make a good impression it seems. They're talking about some features & ammenities that we have yet to see in Edmonton. Hopefully will have something I can post publicly shortly

rapid_business · #**6417** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 9:03 PM**

Saw some plans for a very cool duplex(?) on 142 st. I can bet it won't be cheap.

GreenSPACE · #**6418** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

Little 4 story infill by Red Brick on 112th ave and 85th street looks very promising. This is one of their first and they're looking to make a good impression it seems. They're talking about some features & ammenities that we have yet to see in Edmonton. Hopefully will have something I can post publicly shortly

Great to product for that area.

GreenSPACE · #**6419** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 9:31 PM**

'#Yegdt Notes' for March 6, 2013 - http://www.decl.org/2013/03/06/yegdt-notes-march-6-2013/

Keats82 · #**6420** Posted **Mar 6, 2013, 10:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldrsx

Actually I would argue that they are overcommitted with overall spending... including downtown/arena but not limited to. Keep in mind all of those rec centres, roads, fire halls, police stations and outside of the whitemud.

Oh I hear that, you're preaching to the choir - but at least they said "no" to the beach. Now we just need to start convincing the suburban communities that they aren't paying their fair share of taxes...