Edmonton Construction 13 (November 2015)

[itom 987]

Here is a video of someone driving east down 104th Ave. towards Rogers Place in Edmonton. It will gives a good sense of the kind of impact this Rogers Place will have in the area.

• Video Link

Use this link if the youtube video doesn't work:
https://youtu.be/rf7P8nb7kdQ

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Albicaulis

What I have found lacking is the overall execution. The road are confusing mess of cul de sac's and crescents and the offices have been far too segregated, like the nearby commercial. Effort on retaining a more grid-like pattern to allow increase flow-through traffic, then orienting the offices along such streets in a more centralised neighbourhood location would go a long long way without (I think) altering the over livability of such development.

I've said it over and over again. Grids are horribly inefficient and costly.

We spend a significant amount of time running different road layouts in new neighbourhoods with one of the biggest goals to maximize frontage. In a grided neighbourhood you have half your roads in one direction that don't front any property its incredibly wasteful. You loose developable area and your paying to build roads that are useless.

I am willing to bet your would change your mind on buying in summerside if a lot cost 25% more because of the extra costs.

[MalcolmTucker]

You can have some roads in a grid to make things better for transit and for having modified main streets - arterials don't need to be loops.



CMHC pushes the fused grid model https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/pdf/62486.pdf?fr=1471274815099 . Not as efficient in develop-able land to begin with, but for actually servicing it with transit?

[Landlocked]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

You can have some roads in a grid to make things better for transit and for having modified main streets - arterials don't need to be loops.



CMHC pushes the fused grid model https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/pdf/62486.pdf?fr=1471274815099 . Not as efficient in develop-able land to begin with, but for actually servicing it with transit?

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating, don't forget about extending the time from every EPS, AHS, FRS station to these homes when you go to windy roads with more dead ends and fewer access points from collectors. This increases the number of stations you'll need to serve the communities adequately, and increase the tax dollars necessary to support them.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Landlocked

I've said it before, but it's worth repeating, don't forget about extending the time from every EPS, AHS, FRS station to these homes when you go to windy roads with more dead ends and fewer access points from collectors. This increases the number of stations you'll need to serve the communities adequately, and increase the tax dollars necessary to support them.

you probably also have to consider the higher costs of things like snow removal and garbage pickup when you move from grids to culs de sac.

i'm also not sure that the increases attributed to shifting from grids to culs-de-sacs isn't better attributed to the loss of lanes when making that shift and wonder if maintaining the grids without lanes might generate similar increases in efficiency (possibly combined with some of the "wide/shallow" product currently being offered).

[seamusmcduff]

I think it really depends on how you look at it. If you go purely based off of how much of the land is paved then yes the cul-de-sac design is more efficient. But if you look at the overall layout of the sites and lots you could make a strong argument for the ineffiency. Look at any Cul-de-sac neigbourhood and you will notice that there is always going to be spaces that are not able to be used. Sharp angled corners, rounded edges, you get a lot of land that is owned and paid for, but is not really usable space. It also severely restricts future development as the odd lot sizes and block configurations prevent anything other that single family homes from being built. It's also inefficient in terms of transportation options, severely limiting the efficiency of buses. It creates problems with walking/biking as you need paths cutting through your development to interconnect things, decreasing the amount of usable/sell-able land.

It also creates a situation where the roads within the neighbourhoods might take up less land, because all traffic is directed to the main thoroughfares between subdivisions no matter the length of the trip, you end up with larger right of ways to deal with that traffic, taking up a lot of room. I don't think these are usually built by the developers though so it doesn't really affect their profits. If I'm wrong on that you can correct me, it's conjecture on my part I admit.

I guess it just shows that both street designs are inefficient in different ways, which one you think is better depends on what you consider important to you. For the developer I can see why it's an attractive option, but for someone who wants to build a well planned, connected and diverse city not so much.

I know I'm not a developer so I haven't seen the numbers, but it is generally agreed upon in recent planning theory that cul-de-sac design is undesirable.

[s211]

Is it perhaps the case that the warped, loops and lollipops designs are better suited for following natural topography, particularly when the ground is anything but flat?

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by s211

Is it perhaps the case that the warped, loops and lollipops designs are better suited for following natural topography, particularly when the ground is anything but flat?

they managed to do west vancouver in a grid...

i think most of the concerns with managing elevation changes relate to the underground services and not surface transportation options.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

I think it really depends on how you look at it. If you go purely based off of how much of the land is paved then yes the cul-de-sac design is more efficient. But if you look at the overall layout of the sites and lots you could make a strong argument for the ineffiency. Look at any Cul-de-sac neigbourhood and you will notice that there is always going to be spaces that are not able to be used. Sharp angled corners, rounded edges, you get a lot of land that is owned and paid for, but is not really usable space. It also severely restricts future development as the odd lot sizes and block configurations prevent anything other that single family homes from being built. It's also inefficient in terms of transportation options, severely limiting the efficiency of buses. It creates problems with walking/biking as you need paths cutting through your development to interconnect things, decreasing the amount of usable/sell-able land.

It also creates a situation where the roads within the neighbourhoods might take up less land, because all traffic is directed to the main thoroughfares between subdivisions no matter the length of the trip, you end up with larger right of ways to deal with that traffic, taking up a lot of room. I don't think these are usually built by the developers though so it doesn't really affect their profits. If I'm wrong on that you can correct me, it's conjecture on my part I admit.

I guess it just shows that both street designs are inefficient in different ways, which one you think is better depends on what you consider important to you. For the developer I can see why it's an attractive option, but for someone who wants to build a well planned, connected and diverse city not so much.

I know I'm not a developer so I haven't seen the numbers, but it is generally agreed upon in recent planning theory that cul-de-sac design is undesirable.

i don't have the detailed numbers you referenced handy but the overall planning - including transportation guidelines/requirements - is available here:

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/d...erence_Neighbourhood_Structure_Plans.pdf

when it comes to "major connectors", it's my understanding that the developer is responsible for the first two lanes of "whatever" (being the equivalent of a local collector roadway) and the city is responsible for the costs of roadwork in addition to that. some of that overage cost is recoverable from adjacent developable lands on a cost sharing basis (much like oversizing trunk lines) and some of which is considered a municipal and not a local development cost.

[Albicaulis]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

I've said it over and over again. Grids are horribly inefficient and costly.

We spend a significant amount of time running different road layouts in new neighbourhoods with one of the biggest goals to maximize frontage. In a grided neighbourhood you have half your roads in one direction that don't front any property its incredibly wasteful. You loose developable area and your paying to build roads that are useless.

I am willing to bet your would change your mind on buying in summerside if a lot cost 25% more because of the extra costs.

I do not doubt they are more efficient from a profitability point-of-view. Do you live in one of these neighbourhoods by chance? They do not have to be 100% like Oliver, but the current layouts are insane. I have watched first response vehicles lost around my house numerous times.

Maximising frontage at a loss of so much else is not a valid argument. As for lot prices, I did not see them drop once the zero lot lines came into effect so you park that argument.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Albicaulis

Maximising frontage at a loss of so much else is not a valid argument. As for lot prices, I did not see them drop once the zero lot lines came into effect so you park that argument.

that's because servicing costs and levy's keep rising.

[Coldrsx]

A very interesting project in the SW on some pretty amazing former lands to some pretty amazing folks.

[Albicaulis]

^
So from your perspective, would you say that the current layout of modern suburbs in Edmonton is ideal? good? good enough? (not asking sarcastically)

[s211]

Originally Posted by kcantor

they managed to do west vancouver in a grid...

Not to be too much of a wang, but yes the old part of West Van only, created when only the grid pattern existed. Anything west of 25th and north of Upper Levels is another story.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Albicaulis

^
So from your perspective, would you say that the current layout of modern suburbs in Edmonton is ideal? good? good enough? (not asking sarcastically)

It's affordable for the average family. That's what matters.

Transit connections, adaptability for future uses, walkability...and all the other stuff that you guys want these neighborhoods is not what the average buyer cares about.

[Coldrsx]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

It's affordable for the average family. That's what matters.

Transit connections, adaptability for future uses, walkability...and all the other stuff that you guys want these neighborhoods is not what the average buyer cares about.

Well, there we have it, mail it in, the champagne Toyota Corolla or Pontiac Aztec of planning/urban statements.

I normally dislike TED talks and hate his first opening words, but he is so damn bang on it sickens me.

https://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia?language=en

[240glt]

People have different priorities. Their values, choices etc are no less valid than anyone else's

[Albicaulis]

^
So, essentially as long as people keep buying what is offered, don't expect any improvements anytime soon. I think this is why the City needs to be stricter with their planning standards.

From living in and speaking with people in the suburbs, most of them would prefer a more walkable/mixed use experience and the use of transit in these neighbourhoods is higher than many would expect. People happily pay a lot premium for the lake in summerside, they would likewise pay a premium for a slightly better laid-out, slightly more mixed use neighbourhood. I think most people would like a couple stores within walking distance.

[240glt]

Budget and location are first & foremost on most people's minds when buying a house. You actually can buy a place that is close to a store, it's not that hard to find. Is that a priority for some ? Sure.. Was for us.. But obviously it isn't for many.

Our modern subdivisions look pretty much the same as the modern suburbs in any other city. It's not like we're bucking a trend here

[CMD UW]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

It's affordable for the average family. That's what matters.

Transit connections, adaptability for future uses, walkability...and all the other stuff that you guys want these neighborhoods is not what the average buyer cares about.

Here's where you're slightly wrong. You'd be amazed how many people who live in these new suburban communities care about walkability (particularly to parks) and access to transit. This is particularly true in neighbourhoods that have a large ethnic population where many people don't have a car or even a drivers licence.