HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2023, 4:42 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,863
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2023, 1:43 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,863
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2023, 1:54 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,863
But I do not expect much, if any change here, given that WE have been harping on this for 10-15 years or more.

Land owners have little motivation, the City honestly didn't seem to care and 311 requests were unresponsive.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2023, 12:03 AM
kcantor kcantor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,980
If Edmonton wants some options to deal with an abundance of downtown parking lot "eyesores", they need to consider doing something constructive and bold rather than simply complaining and relying on past practices that clearly don't work.

If it were up to me - and I know it's not even if I think it should be - the city would create a new land use designation called a public-private park. Any parcel of land that is landscaped to a minimum standard should be entitled to receive the designation and to maintain it until such time as the parcel is developed. To ensure that standard is maintained, the city might even retain the right to provide minimal maintenance if not done by the owner even if that has to be done at no cost to the owner.

All public-private park designated parcels should be property tax exempt or taxed at a nominal rate only so there is some incentive for the owner to accept the potential loss of revenue that is primarily used just to pay property taxes now anyway. Benefits to the city would include having more publicly accessible green space that the city does not have to acquire; reducing the maintenance needed on adjacent roadways and sidewalks as the sand and gravel and mud that is tracked off-site (or windblown throughout the core) is eliminated. The lack of cheap parking will see revenues for other parking options increase whether that's on street parking sold by the city or on private "legal" surface parking lots or in parkades all of which would see increased revenues that in turn would pay higher property taxes and offset some of the loss.

Minimum landscaping standards for both the public-private parking parcels and for "legal" parking lots should also include "free" access/use for a minimum number of food trucks and performance space for buskers with licenses so that the spaces can be animated as well as no longer being eyesores.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ores-1.6968984
__________________
"If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.