Urban Design in Edmonton

[mcc16]

Hillside and Crawford block couldn't be more different. The only thing I would worry about is sound proofing.

This is no different than wondering why some one would pay 400000 for under a thousand square feet in the icons or foxes when they could get 1400 sqft for less in mcdougal place south of 100ave on 104th as well. Different product/age/location/feel of immediate surroundings. Options are good. Shitting on others because the option they choose is different then your preference doesn't make much sense.

[noodlenoodle]

^^ I don't have any issue with Downtown & core communities being promoted for what they are. I have an increasingly harder time with the "urban-uber-alles" contingent's constant myopia & delusional stance of force-creating an urbanist utopia in the least-dense major city in Canada, populated by people who quite like things how they are for the most part.

I own 3 condos in Oliver, one of which I live in. I'm not pro-suburb, anti-core. I'm pro-reality.

I know all about the advantages of living centrally. I'm just cognizant that it's not for everyone & constantly throwing money at it isn't the answer (although some of the best progress on Downtown was when the City literally paid people to build in the core), nor is acting high & mighty and looking down on those that have other priorities.

(Even more infuriating is some of the posters' almost preachy sanctimony about how the unwashed masses would flock to Downtown if only they were shown the One True Way like some sort of urbanista missionary.)

[mcc16]

Examples of this money constantly being thrown at downtown?

and going back to your previous point of seeing what's happening in other cities and copying it here... Edmonton is a young North American city with lots at available vacant developable central land. Why shouldn't we visit other cities and see what works and try to bring back the best of what we experience and replicate it here?

yes Edmonton is one of Canada's least dense urban centres. But it is experiencing infill and developments at levels I haven't seen before in my lifetime. Downtown isn't going to stop growing. Even if it grows at a slower pace, it is still growing...and a diversity of housing or hospitality options can only be a positive thing. Your passionate hatred of petty things like patio heaters is a little odd lol. Perhaps your hatred of one poster is leading to exaggerating your stance on certain issues.

[noodlenoodle]

There's been more than a billion dollars worth of construction in the Downtown core over the last 10 years paid primarily by taxpayers from all three levels of government. Or did you not notice the Arena, the RAM, or the AGA? What about the streetscape improvements on Jasper Ave? Or the Armature? Or Capitol Boulevard? Forget those? How about the Funicular? The $5M pocket park for pocket dogs that is Alex Decoteau Park?

And no, sorry, Downtown isn't growing, relatively speaking. It's population is sloooooooowly increasing, true, but not at a rate that keeps pace with the rapid growth seen in the suburbs.

I don't hate patio heaters, or Ian. You must think I take this inconsequential little timewaster of a forum far more seriously than I do. I don't care about Ian enough to hate him, or even dislike him as an individual. I just disagree vehemently with his opinions, priorities & values along with disliking the way he communicates them to the public. Past that I couldn't care less about him.

As to patio heaters, I just know they're a huge energy consumer & find their use anathema to our collective goals of reducing energy consumption. That's it.

I've got far too much going on to waste time & energy on hating people I barely know nor inanimate objects. I mean, I generally don't even bother to check the forums on my own time, just as a mid-day brain break at work.

[mcc16]

Ok, so RAM, AGA, and arena would be built regardless of location, so has nothing to do with direct costs to downtown. And I think you're failing to account for the amount of dollars spent upgrading roads/curbs/sidewalks in the city as a whole...as well as maitenance/snowplowing/ street sweeping/Boulevard watering...At least the downtown street scape improvements are serving the large buildings fronting them paying much more in taxes than commuter roads on the outskirts. No?

[Coldrsx]

Indoor and outdoor space is important for great cities and certainly the basis of good urban design. Elements of design or ways to extend seasons can be beneficial, but yes, at a cost.

The idea that we should not be investing in the heart of our city or for park space, street-scapeing, public buildings, civic amenities is confusing Noodle. We most certainly should be and the heart of out city certainly deserves that investment.

[McBoo]

This just in:

104 Street mega-bar appeal withdrawn.

[noodlenoodle]

Originally Posted by McBoo

This just in:

104 Street mega-bar appeal withdrawn.

Because they've got a pretty solid plan to get what they want while doing an end run around the NIMBYs.

[Hallsy's Toupee]

How a family of 4 stays sane in a 1-bedroom condo in Toronto
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/tiny-condo-hacks-1.3828968

Same hacks could apply in downtown of any city.

[ue]

Originally Posted by noodlenoodle

^^ I don't have any issue with Downtown & core communities being promoted for what they are. I have an increasingly harder time with the "urban-uber-alles" contingent's constant myopia & delusional stance of force-creating an urbanist utopia in the least-dense major city in Canada, populated by people who quite like things how they are for the most part.

I own 3 condos in Oliver, one of which I live in. I'm not pro-suburb, anti-core. I'm pro-reality.

I know all about the advantages of living centrally. I'm just cognizant that it's not for everyone & constantly throwing money at it isn't the answer (although some of the best progress on Downtown was when the City literally paid people to build in the core), nor is acting high & mighty and looking down on those that have other priorities.

(Even more infuriating is some of the posters' almost preachy sanctimony about how the unwashed masses would flock to Downtown if only they were shown the One True Way like some sort of urbanista missionary.)

Oh, FFS...

I think I've been clear in the past that I accept that the suburban lifestyle is popular and that I am ok with it continuing, albeit with major modifications to its sustainability. I am not one to think everyone everybody should be living Downtown and I don't honestly think any of the "urban-uber-alles" crowd you refer to thinks the same.

If you were truly pro-reality, however, you'd have realized this and realized something even more important -- the context through which the current paradigm has evolved.

Let's look at why Edmonton is the least dense major city and why suburbia became so popular in the first place. It was through enormous public subsidy in the post-WWII era that suburbia became a viable option that continues through to this day. We still have minimum parking requirements, we're still building freeways through tax dollars, we're still incentivizing suburban sprawl which just allows the lifestyle to continue unchecked, which is incredibly expensive, unsustainable, not to mention does not give people options. The trend is towards more walkable communities, be they mature or greenfield development, and yet we're still building front-car garages like they're going out of style.

We have been conditioned through government incentivization to accept the suburban lifestyle as convenient and aspirational at the expense of walkable, compact (not necessarily hyper-dense) communities. It's absolutely ludicrous that people such as yourself are bitching about the fact that we're just "throwing money" at Downtown, while completely ignoring the fact we were and continue to still throw money at sprawling lifestyles. At least we are now going back to investing in a different lifestyle and environment that will allow for options. Why are you bitching about a new arena and a new museum when we also just completed a 5 billion dollar ring road, despite all evidence pointing to the fact that you cannot build your way out of congestion with more freeway and more lanes in the long term. It's not like suburbia is being ignored.

Perhaps suburbia has reigned supreme for much of Edmonton's history, but that does not mean there isn't a part of our population that aspires for something a bit different from that norm and I don't see why there is such hooplah over finally investing in that part after decades of neglect. Like it or not, as Edmonton continues to grow and mature, there will be more of those urbanistas walking around that you so despise and if we're to remain competitive, we need to ensure we're building a city that will keep them here.

[kcantor]

^

it's not quite that simple... if you want to look at edmonton's overall densities, you need to look at those areas which are available for residential development.

so...

deduct the river valley and ravines which are not developable.

deduct the two main highway corridors and the two tuc corridors.

deduct the two major railroad right of ways networks.

deduct the industrial areas inside the city limits.

deduct the large tracts inside the city that will accomodate decades of future growth that aren't less dense, they're undeveloped.

then rerun your numbers to see if edmonton is still "the least dense major city".

edmonton isn't perfect from an efficiency perspective but 3 decades of non-growth and lack of intensification is economically partly responsible for the current state of the city as well.

[ue]

Oh, absolutely. I think that things such as railyards and freeways don't really need to be detracted, as they're something most cities have and don't make comparisons unfair. But we do have a massive river valley parkland system, a spacious TUC, and big chunks of greenfield land.

I don't really buy the argument that we are the least dense, except in the official sense, because of these reasons. That being said, Edmonton still is very low-density and is overall a sprawly city and that goes into the overarching histories within governance and planning that has affected all North American cities. Because of the argument, I have to scoff whenever people claim that we are subsidizing downtown revitalization and because of that I fully support our shifting investment choices.

[240glt]

This thread needs it's own buzzword bingo card lol

[feepa]

"least dense major city" is such a fallacy.

Edmontonians are their own worst enemies. Hardly ever do we praise the great things our city does and is, and always negative about everything, always looking over the fence as if the grass is always greener somewhere else. Self-defeatists.
Some of you must not travel much. You all act as if we have american style sprawl up here. Some of you might be in for quite a shock to see what real sprawl looks and feels like. It's nothing like what we consider sprawl up here in good old Edmonton. Our 'sprawl' if we are going to use that term, is fairly compact, and land use well thought out.

[240glt]

^ yup that's why as soon as the word "unsustainable" starts getting thrown around it's pretty much just an idealistic argument, not a factual one

[noodlenoodle]

Realizing the implied connotations & loaded meanings with "least dense", I hereby change my phrasing to "most widely distributed". We have people & jobs all over the place, with a relatively lower concentration found in the urban core than other Canadian cities (despite decades of work & massive efforts to prop it up).

Apologies for muddying the waters with poorly phrased, buzzword compliant verbiage. My bad.

[Daveography]

Originally Posted by feepa

Edmontonians are their own worst enemies. Hardly ever do we praise the great things our city does and is, and always negative about everything, always looking over the fence as if the grass is always greener somewhere else. Self-defeatists.
Some of you must not travel much. You all act as if we have american style sprawl up here. Some of you might be in for quite a shock to see what real sprawl looks and feels like. It's nothing like what we consider sprawl up here in good old Edmonton. Our 'sprawl' if we are going to use that term, is fairly compact, and land use well thought out.

Why so black-and-white? I won't speak for everyone, but my wanting to see our city improve certain things doesn't mean I think everything is terrible. Quite the opposite, the city does many things right which is what helps to keep me here, and it's my love of this city that drives me to want it to always strive for better.

Complacency breeds mediocrity.

[Coldrsx]

^this guy, this guy knows what he is talking about and we certainly are doing a lot of good things of late.

[feepa]

We do ourselves a disservice by repeating bullshit like "least dense major city" and other negative false reputations we should be aiming to correct, not further perpetuate.

We've been doing a lot of good things for a long time, and many just thing we are some sprawl wasteland, implying our city build is in similar fashion to the crap you see in most major cities down south.

[mcc16]

Comparing ourselves to America shouldn't be a reason to congratulate ourselves for being not as bad as them...should that be our new city slogan? "Edmonton: ok compared to American cities."

It's more complicated than building up a downtown and forcefully limiting sprawl on the outskirts... We've seen in other cities that this approach leads to just as many problems. Vancouver doesn't have better traffic than Edmonton despite being "densely populated". Edmonton seems to be copying the trajectory of Toronto, and that also isn't a good thing. The biggest issue is people not living where they work. And I understand that it's impossible to think that everyone can or should live close to work. People change jobs or dont want to move their kids from school, or want to be near where their families live...and so on.

But it is impossible to think Edmonton can just keep building outwards. Places like Windermere are not that bad if they work the way they should. If most of the people living here were to use local services or work in local offices then this area would be no different than a central neighbourhood. But it's clearly not working this way.

We've made it way to easy to drive in this city which has caused people to make poor choices on where to live. So while everyone cheers the opening of the henday, I'm thinking how long until the henday is our 401 or gardiner: a parking lot of people stuck in traffic because we thought that building giant roads would solve all our problems.

I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again. Copenhagen! Definately not my favourite city I've ever been to, but clearly a very well planned example of how a city should function if quality of life is your main concern. And compenhagen has neither of the things everyone seems to be at odds with eachother about here. It has neither a built up central business district with centralized office towers or residential towers, nor does it have sprawling low density suburbs. And although its office towers and mid rise residential is spread out throughout the city, it still had an amazing central pedestrian shopping, eating, nightlife, and general entertainment zone...

So the suburb fetishists and the urbanistas here might do well to acknowledge the downsides of their own preferred lifestyle and work towards a balance that is better for everyone.

There is no global accepted right answer to what a city should look like, but we should acknowledge our deficiencies and look to other cities for what works...not congratulate ourselves for being better than a city that is failing.

And I should add, I'm a maths and sciences guy and find it extremely difficult to put my thoughts into writing...lol. So sorry if this makes no sense. I'll have to come out to one of those pint nights when I'm back in Edmonton to try to better explain...