Page 28 of 30 FirstFirst ... 1824252627282930 LastLast
Results 2,701 to 2,800 of 2976

Thread: Blatchford | Neighbourhood Master Plan | Discussion/Rumours

  1. #2701
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,245

    Default

    I deleted my post below as CBC has now reported the mayor has changed his position and stated "You've persuaded me to take a second look at this building and see whether there's an opportunity to be creative in a way that honours the history, but also maybe brings some partners to the table to cover the cost," Iveson said during the meeting of the executive committee".

    http://bit.ly/2PJXcGr
    Last edited by EdmTrekker; 28-08-2018 at 02:05 PM.

  2. #2702

    Default

    ^This. Why was this not decided before the new streets and utilities were laid out? "OK, so what stays" would be pretty much the first question when designing something like this.
    There can only be one.

  3. #2703

    Default

    Just read that Donald Luxton flew to here to talk heritage and history and preservation to council. We need stronger rules like Vanocuver does in regards to heritage buildings.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  4. #2704

    Default

    ^^^Specifically he said on TV interviews after the meeting however that he thought the Aviation Museum was enough, and this would cost taxpayers $20m (how I'm sceptical...the land with Norquest could just be swapped and nothing immediately needs to be done with the hanger).
    www.decl.org

  5. #2705
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,801
    Last edited by IanO; 10-10-2018 at 09:39 AM.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  6. #2706

    Default

    I know this project has had (and continues to have) its problems and disappointments, but I remain optimistic. I am certain there is a market for new homes with this type of location. Currently the only option for those looking to buy a new house anywhere close to downtown is to purchase a skinny house in an established neighbourhood, which usually costs at least $700k. If they can sell brand new three bedroom rowhouses/duplexes/etc for around $500k I think they will have people lining up to purchase.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  7. #2707
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,424

    Default

    And that's my biggest concern: price-point hurting the marketability of the development. I think people are going to get sticker shock when they start releasing pricing.

  8. #2708

    Default

    Perhaps my sense of cost is skewed, but I have seen prices on new duplexes and triplexes in my central neighbourhood that are quite reasonable given their location. Without purchasing and demolishing an existing house I imagine their prices would be even lower. Blatchford is on my radar, and I look forward to seeing what pricing will be.

  9. #2709
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    I am certain there is a market for new homes with this type of location. Currently the only option for those looking to buy a new house anywhere close to downtown is to purchase a skinny house in an established neighbourhood, which usually costs at least $700k. If they can sell brand new three bedroom rowhouses/duplexes/etc for around $500k I think they will have people lining up to purchase.
    There are lots of 3BR duplexes, brand new, for sale at the 450-520 price point in central areas like Bonnie Doon, Forest Heights, Ritchie, etc. I can't say they'll win any design awards, but there are some nice ones. Yes, skinny SFH is usually 650K and up, depending on the neighbourhood. They seem to have no problem selling at those prices.

    Given the price of the land, utilities, and the design level that the city will accept, I think a rowhouse/townhouse is going to be 600K in Blatchford and up.

  10. #2710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GizmoForMayor View Post
    I am certain there is a market for new homes with this type of location. Currently the only option for those looking to buy a new house anywhere close to downtown is to purchase a skinny house in an established neighbourhood, which usually costs at least $700k. If they can sell brand new three bedroom rowhouses/duplexes/etc for around $500k I think they will have people lining up to purchase.
    There are lots of 3BR duplexes, brand new, for sale at the 450-520 price point in central areas like Bonnie Doon, Forest Heights, Ritchie, etc. I can't say they'll win any design awards, but there are some nice ones. Yes, skinny SFH is usually 650K and up, depending on the neighbourhood. They seem to have no problem selling at those prices.

    Given the price of the land, utilities, and the design level that the city will accept, I think a rowhouse/townhouse is going to be 600K in Blatchford and up.
    Brand new in Bonnie Doon for $450-520k? Can you send me some links? I'm honestly curious as I've recently undertaken a house hunt with my wife and have never come across something like this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  11. #2711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    And that's my biggest concern: price-point hurting the marketability of the development. I think people are going to get sticker shock when they start releasing pricing.

    Price will be key, for sure. I hope the prices won't be as high as you fear.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  12. #2712
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post

    Really?

    Because all I have heard from the builders that are going through the builder selection process is that the numbers in their proformas don't make this viable on their end. I don't think we can say it is happening until there is an occupied unit...and we are still a long way from that.

  13. #2713
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,801

    Default

    My understanding was that they had over 20 interested parties, that's healthy.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  14. #2714
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gizmoformayor View Post
    brand new in bonnie doon for $450-520k? Can you send me some links? I'm honestly curious as i've recently undertaken a house hunt with my wife and have never come across something like this.
    mls:
    E4131333
    e4126119
    e4125998/e4126303
    e4118211
    e4131612/e4126744
    e4131177
    e4128421
    e4123046
    e4128216

  15. #2715
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    577

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    My understanding was that they had over 20 interested parties, that's healthy.
    I haven't spoken to all 20, so maybe there is a lot of enthusiasm I am not aware of.

    But the ones I have spoken to were interested...to receive all the information. And now that they have it, they feel the numbers do not work for them.

  16. #2716
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,645

    Default

    Land swap leads to tentative city deal with NAIT to move on to Blatchford

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4539506/e...and-swap-nait/

  17. #2717
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    8,170

    Default

    ....and, if the city were smart, they would allow developers to start building student housing and apartments on airport land as well. Put they're pie in the sky ideas in the trash can and wake up to reality.

  18. #2718

    Default

    If the city were smart, they'd extend the Metro lone to the final NAIT location and start building around there. Get the people used to taking transit instead of waiting until it's partly built up and people are getting set in their ways.

  19. #2719
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    876

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If the city were smart, they'd extend the Metro lone to the final NAIT location and start building around there. Get the people used to taking transit instead of waiting until it's partly built up and people are getting set in their ways.
    Very good point - But this city is not very smart

  20. #2720
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    8,170

    Default

    This land NAIT swapped must be the land where the Ralph Klein Campus was going to be built on the east side of Gateway south of ellerslie rd. I hope so because this should get developed, itís an eyesore when you come into the city. A very large weed patch. I could be wrong though.

  21. #2721
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    This land NAIT swapped must be the land where the Ralph Klein Campus was going to be built on the east side of Gateway south of ellerslie rd. I hope so because this should get developed, itís an eyesore when you come into the city. A very large weed patch. I could be wrong though.
    I hope your right. That could easily see commercial development. A single larger NAIT campus will be more efficient to operate and maintain in the long term.

  22. #2722
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,541

    Default

    Does NAIT have plans for any other new buildings for their Blatchford Space? Their new building on 118 Ave is really nice. Not sure why the construction fence is still up but I hope itís gone before permanent snow comes. The landscaping surrounding the building is one of the best parts. Also love the coloured LED lighting in the atrium.

    Anyway... theyíve moved as Far East as possible so now theyíll expand to the west boundary into Blatchford. Hopefully we hear news of some plans soon.

  23. #2723

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    This land NAIT swapped must be the land where the Ralph Klein Campus was going to be built on the east side of Gateway south of ellerslie rd. I hope so because this should get developed, it’s an eyesore when you come into the city. A very large weed patch. I could be wrong though.
    Ah yes, Klein Kollege. Glad that never came to pass.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  24. #2724

    Default

    Not sure if this should go in here or the NAIT thread.

    Just saw on Twitter that NAIT has purchased 32 acres of land from Blatchford for future development of their campus.

    Sorry, don't have the tweet or a link right now.

  25. #2725
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    6,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ridgeman View Post
    Very good point - But this city is not very smart
    True, but what it lacks in smarts it more than makes up for in determination to prove the entire population wrong.
    ... gobsmacked

  26. #2726

  27. #2727
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,877

    Default

    Its just 33 acres, nothing that would compromise the Blatcford project. I can't believe the city is still promoting Blatchford as 100% carbon neutral.

    The entire Blatchford community is 536 acres. The goal is for the area to be a sustainable community that uses 100 per cent renewable energy, is carbon neutral, significantly reduces its ecological footprint and supports sustainable lifestyles.
    https://globalnews.ca/news/4930748/e...lands-airport/

    just trying to figure this out but in what way will Blatchford be 100% carbon neutral?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  28. #2728
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,491

    Default

    I like that NAIT will find its way into the area rather than just being on the edge of the neighborhood. I hope the land they bought is near the LRT.

  29. #2729
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,877

    Default

    The LRT through Blatchford will have a stop near the NAIT lands they purchased called the Blatchford North Station. Its pretty close if not right on top of the future Nait development
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  30. #2730

    Default

    On Global News, NAIT expounded all consolidation to main campus will require four student housing towers to be built within 10-15 years. Perhaps the city and NAIT can kuck start together and commence development in the same area.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  31. #2731
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,877

    Default

    ^ Just saw that. Would be pretty cool if these towers were like Fox towers in height.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  32. #2732
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I like that NAIT will find its way into the area rather than just being on the edge of the neighborhood. I hope the land they bought is near the LRT.
    Uhm...duh
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  33. #2733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I like that NAIT will find its way into the area rather than just being on the edge of the neighborhood. I hope the land they bought is near the LRT.


  34. #2734
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    The plan from the beginning is that NAIT would expand onto the airport lands. So the specific parcels NAIT will expand on to have now been identified, and financing for the purchase the lands obtained through the province.

    More details on NAIT's expansion plans here: https://blatchfordedmonton.ca/blatch...ait-land-sale/

    This is the best news about the Blatchford lands I've heard in a long time.

  35. #2735
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmcowboy11 View Post
    I like that NAIT will find its way into the area rather than just being on the edge of the neighborhood. I hope the land they bought is near the LRT.
    Uhm...duh
    Well it may be an obvious assumption but I've learned long ago that when things make the most common sense, that is the time that something that doesn't make sense is what actually happens.

    Also on a separate but related note, does anyone know has this land purchase affect the Jefferson Armoury?
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  36. #2736

    Default

    No according to the news. The city has planned something for the landmark.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  37. #2737
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    The plan from the beginning is that NAIT would expand onto the airport lands. So the specific parcels NAIT will expand on to have now been identified, and financing for the purchase the lands obtained through the province.

    More details on NAIT's expansion plans here: https://blatchfordedmonton.ca/blatch...ait-land-sale/

    This is the best news about the Blatchford lands I've heard in a long time.
    IIRC, the current NAIT station was only ever intended to be temporary. Is that right?
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  38. #2738

    Default

    That is my understanding. I would assume a new station would be in order soon if student res is in the equation now. TBH, I rather that station be left and another station added somewhere along the NAIT property ( close to northern end) before it separate grade onto the crossing bridge or tunnel.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  39. #2739
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,784

    Default

    Yep, I think there'd be enough ridership with the campus plus a compact residential area to warrant your suggestion, ctzn-Ed.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  40. #2740
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,491

    Default

    Well if with this new announcement from NAIT the permanent NAIT station can be built, one major thing that will happen is that trains on this line will finally be able to be full length.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  41. #2741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    That is my understanding. I would assume a new station would be in order soon if student res is in the equation now. TBH, I rather that station be left and another station added somewhere along the NAIT property ( close to northern end) before it separate grade onto the crossing bridge or tunnel.
    In earlier documents there were three stations: Nait, Batchford and Blatchford North. The middle station got cut in the latest design but I'm guessing the City will build the line such that it could be added in the future when the need is there.

  42. #2742

    Default

    You can see the LRT stations in my post #2733. The current, temporary station is in yellow. The two permanent Blatchford stations are along the dotted purple line.

  43. #2743

    Default

    Sounds like the phase 1 developers have been selected, targeted starting prices will be around 450k, although I don't know what units that will be for. Official launch should be around April 1st.

  44. #2744

  45. #2745
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    389

    Default

    Wow, I just love this image so much. Reminds me of Berlin. I would be absolutely ecstatic if this were built.

  46. #2746
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,877

    Default

    I like the bridge in the background there. Looks cool.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  47. #2747
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,525

    Default

    Hmm, that doesn't look like the original drawings for Blatchford, does it?

    They might need to change it again..jmho.

  48. #2748
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,491

    Default

    If they do this, I'd be pretty happy.

  49. #2749

    Default

    That looks more realistic at least.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  50. #2750

    Default

    Very West Coast.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  51. #2751

    Default

    the width of that boulevard reminds me of the Vegas Strip
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  52. #2752
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Interesting picture.

    ...ever notice they never show the scene that is here for 4-6 months every year...snow?

    This will be an interesting development. I too am glad it is starting to get more realistic than the fantasyland it was originally encumbered with.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  53. #2753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason403 View Post
    Wow, I just love this image so much. Reminds me of Berlin. I would be absolutely ecstatic if this were built.
    Very European flare with a modern twist, yet a very cozy ambience. I like what I see here. This has potential to easily integrate in with all elements and components from the winning contest design should they decide to incorporate any part of that into the finalized plan. I'm all for this.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  54. #2754

    Default

    sidewalks 100 feet from each other separated by traffic and LRT lanes doesn't seem very "cozy"
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  55. #2755
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    That looks more realistic at least.
    maybe... except it appears that you canít get to any of those lobbies or shops or restaurants or cafes and patios except by walking from the lrt platform or from somewhere (where?) else or by bicycle. you canít drop off your great aunt at the front door, she canít take dats or a taxi or uber. you canít take or send deliveries and you better not need an ambulance or a fire truck or other emergency services. while it is a realistic looking rendering, iím not convinced it depicts a realistic street and canít imagine what it would have looked like about a month ago (actually i can and i donít think it would have been a pleasant street to try and use).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  56. #2756
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    sidewalks 100 feet from each other separated by traffic and LRT lanes doesn't seem very "cozy"
    There is a bicycle lane on the left side of the LRT ROW. But I'm not seeing the traffic lanes you're seeing.

  57. #2757

    Default

    There are two lanes that don't seem to be part of the sidewalk to the right of the LRT.
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  58. #2758
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Spruce Grove
    Posts
    467

    Default

    Yes please!

  59. #2759

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    That looks more realistic at least.
    maybe... except it appears that you can’t get to any of those lobbies or shops or restaurants or cafes and patios except by walking from the lrt platform or from somewhere (where?) else or by bicycle. you can’t drop off your great aunt at the front door, she can’t take dats or a taxi or uber. you can’t take or send deliveries and you better not need an ambulance or a fire truck or other emergency services. while it is a realistic looking rendering, i’m not convinced it depicts a realistic street and can’t imagine what it would have looked like about a month ago (actually i can and i don’t think it would have been a pleasant street to try and use).
    Good point. It looks like vehicle access to all those condos, shops etc would only be from the other side of those buildings, maybe even the streets in between those buildings. But limited access yes.

  60. #2760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    sidewalks 100 feet from each other separated by traffic and LRT lanes doesn't seem very "cozy"
    Yup! I do see that. However, at this stage, this component has the ability to be refined. Who says it has to be built this way for the final outcome? The overall essence is what I'm liking. For the LRT concerns, could we easily mimick those European designed river channels. Instead of water, we have an LRT channel with incremental crossings along the way. Plants, trees and designer shrubs on on each side of the channel? We would dig how ever high the LRT and the wire network need to be so it is all below ground elevation. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting complete underground like downtown but a channel to allow sight lines of ground elevaction and neighboring views. I also noticed that our city has been busy taking Laneways away and designating them bike lanes, yet here is a future development based on the green thumb theme has failed to even implement what they're so gun ho on going. Hiw could planners not even show or thought of that. They're getting paid while we think for them. . Very interesting!
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  61. #2761

    Default

    I haven't seen any render but is 102 avenue through downtown going to look somewhat similar to this? No vehicles, but lrt in each direction, bike lanes and sidewalks?

  62. #2762
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,424

    Default

    One way (eastbound) car traffic will remain on 102 avenue.

  63. #2763

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ctzn-Ed View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    sidewalks 100 feet from each other separated by traffic and LRT lanes doesn't seem very "cozy"
    Yup! I do see that. However, at this stage, this component has the ability to be refined. Who says it has to be built this way for the final outcome? The overall essence is what I'm liking. For the LRT concerns, could we easily mimick those European designed river channels. Instead of water, we have an LRT channel with incremental crossings along the way. Plants, trees and designer shrubs on on each side of the channel? We would dig how ever high the LRT and the wire network need to be so it is all below ground elevation. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting complete underground like downtown but a channel to allow sight lines of ground elevaction and neighboring views. I also noticed that our city has been busy taking Laneways away and designating them bike lanes, yet here is a future development based on the green thumb theme has failed to even implement what they're so gun ho on going. Hiw could planners not even show or thought of that. They're getting paid while we think for them. . Very interesting!
    My apology to the bike path issue. Upon closer ( magnifying glass lol) observation, I did notice a bike path and kudos to that. One other position I would like to make; I think it would look better if they pull everything back south from that station where the southern end of the station abuts just north of the last development. That way a channel wouldn't be needed. That particuliar area encroaches an incline to meet the bridge elevation hence it's awkward divisiveness . For those that complain about facing the LRT, you can have this luxurious version, or you could have the stadium/coliseum/Belvedeer path. Seeing as how Im a little picker on standards, I'll take this new version over the northeast route view any day. This looks clean and futuristic. futuristic,
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  64. #2764
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,801

    Default

    I am liking what I am seeing, even if just conceptual.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  65. #2765
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GenWhy? View Post
    That looks more realistic at least.
    maybe... except it appears that you canít get to any of those lobbies (Ö)
    . you canít take or send deliveries and you better not need an ambulance or a fire truck or other emergency services. while it is a realistic looking rendering, iím not convinced it depicts a realistic street and canít imagine what it would have looked like about a month ago (actually i can and i donít think it would have been a pleasant street to try and use).
    problem solved....
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  66. #2766
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    I am liking what I am seeing, even if just conceptual.
    And I still wonder how much more if it would cost (if anything) to bury the LRT in a cut and cover tunnel through Blatchford, and then tunnel under Yellowhead Trail and the CN railyard instead of building what looks like an extremely expensive bridge structure.

    With the LRT buried, a proper pedestrian-oriented street with a vehicle lane in each direction could have been created, as well as provision for drop-off areas and on street parking. Not sure what the retail businesses fronting the street are supposed to do? Bring in their supplies and equipment by LRT?

  67. #2767
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    8,170

    Default

    Back doors

  68. #2768
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...need back alleys...
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  69. #2769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    and then tunnel under Yellowhead Trail and the CN railyard instead of building what looks like an extremely expensive bridge structure.
    It would be extremely expensive to tunnel a very active railyard

  70. #2770
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    ^An overhead bridge will have more impact on the railyard than a tunnel. A tunnel could be constructed with zero impact on the railyard or Yellowhead Trail. Think Canada Line under False Creek.

  71. #2771
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,424

    Default

    A friend of mine works for Suncor, and we were chatting recently talking about them wanting to do some pipeline work under a rail line I believe in Burnaby. CP basically told them to pound sand, even if there was zero disruption to their operations. Railroads are a pain in this country.

  72. #2772
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    9,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^An overhead bridge will have more impact on the railyard than a tunnel. A tunnel could be constructed with zero impact on the railyard or Yellowhead Trail. Think Canada Line under False Creek.
    The bridge itself has a $200m pricetag.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  73. #2773
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    A friend of mine works for Suncor, and we were chatting recently talking about them wanting to do some pipeline work under a rail line I believe in Burnaby. CP basically told them to pound sand, even if there was zero disruption to their operations. Railroads are a pain in this country.
    I was at a meeting five or more years ago at which CN officials expressed a clear preference for a tunnel under the rail yard, rather than a bridge over it. At the time, CN had recent experience with the City of Winnipeg which tunneled under one of the rail yards in that city for their Southwest Transitway Project. A tunnel or bridge were seen to be similarly disruptive during construction but a tunnel less disruptive once operations commenced.

    The City of Edmonton has insisted all along that the crossing had to be a bridge. I'm not aware the City ever bothered to study the relative costs of a tunnel under versus a bridge over the rail yard. Just like the City never seriously studied or considered putting the LRT in a tunnel through Blatchford and creating a streetscape on top. Wasn't in keeping with the urban style LRT vision.

  74. #2774
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,815

    Default

    Guaranteed once the bridge is finished CN will relocate their yards. ��
    ďCanada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,Ē-Marshall McLuhan

  75. #2775
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,624

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    A friend of mine works for Suncor, and we were chatting recently talking about them wanting to do some pipeline work under a rail line I believe in Burnaby. CP basically told them to pound sand, even if there was zero disruption to their operations. Railroads are a pain in this country.
    I was at a meeting five or more years ago at which CN officials expressed a clear preference for a tunnel under the rail yard, rather than a bridge over it. At the time, CN had recent experience with the City of Winnipeg which tunneled under one of the rail yards in that city for their Southwest Transitway Project. A tunnel or bridge were seen to be similarly disruptive during construction but a tunnel less disruptive once operations commenced.

    The City of Edmonton has insisted all along that the crossing had to be a bridge. I'm not aware the City ever bothered to study the relative costs of a tunnel under versus a bridge over the rail yard. Just like the City never seriously studied or considered putting the LRT in a tunnel through Blatchford and creating a streetscape on top. Wasn't in keeping with the urban style LRT vision.
    You don't need to study that lrt in a tunnel is orders of magnitude more expensive that surface lrt. Why would blatchford need that with all the space?
    As for the bridge vs. Tunnel, both are equally bad in my opinion... In that there is alot of risk to get those built on time and on budget.

  76. #2776
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    5,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    Guaranteed once the bridge is finished CN will relocate their yards. ��
    And how would that ever be possible - where are the tracks??

  77. #2777

    Default

    What are those two massively ugly, black Lego bricks in the middle of the render?

    Why would anyone think such monumentally ugly structures that cast a shadow over the entire area are appealing?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  78. #2778

    Default

    the LRT station? Speaking of ugly structures that cast shadows all over the place... Didn't you have a thread or two where you championed stuff that would put poles and guideways above ground all over the place casting ugly shadows all over the place? Two faced much?

  79. #2779

    Default

    Nice Red Herring on your part.

    There is a difference between an elevated transit system that requires overhead structures (Skytrain) and building oversized roofs that are unnecessary.

    From the render, they have about a 18 ft clearance and the roof structure is at least 6 ft thick.

    This existing example is more in proportion to the needs. In fact, why can't they just reuse the existing design plans and save money?

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  80. #2780

    Default

    Because the render wasn't made by ETS. It's not like ETS is legally obligated to use what station design is shown in the render.

  81. #2781

    Default

    Thanks KK. Hopefully they will use a more attractive design.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  82. #2782
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Because the render wasn't made by ETS. It's not like ETS is legally obligated to use what station design is shown in the render.
    technically i donít think thereís a single thing in that render that anyone is legally or otherwise obligated to use/build.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  83. #2783

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    A friend of mine works for Suncor, and we were chatting recently talking about them wanting to do some pipeline work under a rail line I believe in Burnaby. CP basically told them to pound sand, even if there was zero disruption to their operations. Railroads are a pain in this country.
    I was at a meeting five or more years ago at which CN officials expressed a clear preference for a tunnel under the rail yard, rather than a bridge over it. At the time, CN had recent experience with the City of Winnipeg which tunneled under one of the rail yards in that city for their Southwest Transitway Project. A tunnel or bridge were seen to be similarly disruptive during construction but a tunnel less disruptive once operations commenced.

    The City of Edmonton has insisted all along that the crossing had to be a bridge. I'm not aware the City ever bothered to study the relative costs of a tunnel under versus a bridge over the rail yard. Just like the City never seriously studied or considered putting the LRT in a tunnel through Blatchford and creating a streetscape on top. Wasn't in keeping with the urban style LRT vision.
    Don’t forget the snow clearing and drainage issues (can ice build up and fall and puncture rail cars?) and of course the suicide barrier costs. Or the impact of a bridge accident with say a truck landing on top of a rail load of hazardous chemicals, etc.

  84. #2784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Nice Red Herring on your part.

    There is a difference between an elevated transit system that requires overhead structures (Skytrain) and building oversized roofs that are unnecessary.

    From the render, they have about a 18 ft clearance and the roof structure is at least 6 ft thick.

    This existing example is more in proportion to the needs. In fact, why can't they just reuse the existing design plans and save money?

    Note the roof valley over the structure. (So they put the most likely spot to develop leaks over the spot most likely to suffer damage from leaks.) But hey, I’m no builder so what do I know.

  85. #2785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    A friend of mine works for Suncor, and we were chatting recently talking about them wanting to do some pipeline work under a rail line I believe in Burnaby. CP basically told them to pound sand, even if there was zero disruption to their operations. Railroads are a pain in this country.
    I was at a meeting five or more years ago at which CN officials expressed a clear preference for a tunnel under the rail yard, rather than a bridge over it. At the time, CN had recent experience with the City of Winnipeg which tunneled under one of the rail yards in that city for their Southwest Transitway Project. A tunnel or bridge were seen to be similarly disruptive during construction but a tunnel less disruptive once operations commenced.

    The City of Edmonton has insisted all along that the crossing had to be a bridge. I'm not aware the City ever bothered to study the relative costs of a tunnel under versus a bridge over the rail yard. Just like the City never seriously studied or considered putting the LRT in a tunnel through Blatchford and creating a streetscape on top. Wasn't in keeping with the urban style LRT vision.
    Donít forget the snow clearing and drainage issues (can ice build up and fall and puncture rail cars?) and of course the suicide barrier costs. Or the impact of a bridge accident with say a truck landing on top of a rail load of hazardous chemicals, etc.
    And tunnels can flood and if there's a fire, make it impossible for people to evacuate before being overcome by fumes. There's pros and cons to every design.

  86. #2786

    Default

    And as far as going over an active rail yard, may I present NYC's Hudson Yard project. Before and after. Yes, the yard is still there.







    I think CN can deal with a bridge over the Calder yards, seeing as 11th Avenue in NYC was already running three lanes of traffic over the Hudson yards without a major bridge like the one proposed here.

  87. #2787
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    13,060

    Default

    ^

    you could show similar things for boston's big dig or dallas' burying an interstate or even the union station project in toronto.

    the difference is adjacent development density and land values which support the investment. you won't have that for our lrt crossing above or below the cn main line for another century or two.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  88. #2788

    Default

    The point being that a single bridge is a much smaller impact than any of these projects and somehow the rail yards have managed to survive.

  89. #2789

    Default

    I don't think any of those trains in NYC are carrying petroleum fuels or hazardous goods.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  90. #2790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    A friend of mine works for Suncor, and we were chatting recently talking about them wanting to do some pipeline work under a rail line I believe in Burnaby. CP basically told them to pound sand, even if there was zero disruption to their operations. Railroads are a pain in this country.
    I was at a meeting five or more years ago at which CN officials expressed a clear preference for a tunnel under the rail yard, rather than a bridge over it. At the time, CN had recent experience with the City of Winnipeg which tunneled under one of the rail yards in that city for their Southwest Transitway Project. A tunnel or bridge were seen to be similarly disruptive during construction but a tunnel less disruptive once operations commenced.

    The City of Edmonton has insisted all along that the crossing had to be a bridge. I'm not aware the City ever bothered to study the relative costs of a tunnel under versus a bridge over the rail yard. Just like the City never seriously studied or considered putting the LRT in a tunnel through Blatchford and creating a streetscape on top. Wasn't in keeping with the urban style LRT vision.
    Donít forget the snow clearing and drainage issues (can ice build up and fall and puncture rail cars?) and of course the suicide barrier costs. Or the impact of a bridge accident with say a truck landing on top of a rail load of hazardous chemicals, etc.
    And tunnels can flood and if there's a fire, make it impossible for people to evacuate before being overcome by fumes. There's pros and cons to every design.
    Yikes. That makes the underground LRT stations downtown hazards.

  91. #2791

    Default

    About the same as a truck falling off the bridge and puncturing a rail car. Even more so since trucks won't be using the LRT bridge.

  92. #2792
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    14,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I don't think any of those trains in NYC are carrying petroleum fuels or hazardous goods.

    ...I wouldn't bet on that...

    ...open to be proven wrong, but I'd be pretty safe to say hazardous goods would be a yes...bitumen is a no.
    President and CEO - Airshow.

  93. #2793
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Why do I feel like this rendering is evoking the Normandy Bridge?


  94. #2794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    And as far as going over an active rail yard, may I present NYC's Hudson Yard project. Before and after. Yes, the yard is still there.







    I think CN can deal with a bridge over the Calder yards, seeing as 11th Avenue in NYC was already running three lanes of traffic over the Hudson yards without a major bridge like the one proposed here.

    It is North of "Chelsea" around the "garment district." You can't honestly be serious when comparing what they had to do just to find/make real estate. This is for offices and condos for the super world wealth whom are paying for it we be lucky if our LRT would ever break even of profit. I invite you to investigate the price tag of the project .
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  95. #2795

    Default

    Again, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm simply pointing out that it's entirely possible to have things that run over a rail yard without compromising said yard. If you look at the top picture, you'll notice 11th ave was already running over the yard long before the put the lid on it. These comments about how a bridge would negatively impact the yards or that a tunnel could do the same are apparently unaware of various projects like this one that are much larger in scope when spanning rail yards.

    It wasn't that many years ago that we had a bridge on 105 st that ran over the downtown yards.

    Once more for people that don't read from the top, I am in no way, shape or form suggesting that something like this be done over the Calder yards.

  96. #2796
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,491

    Default

    I just wonder how much more challenging it would be for a tunnel. It would definitely impact the yards whereas wasn't the style of bridge allowing the railyards to be untouched by any piers?

  97. #2797

    Default

    Any soil dug up would probably be pretty contaminated, which is another point for the bridge. Regardless, I don't think building Rathole v2.0 would make people very happy.

  98. #2798

    Default

    In addition to the other reasons, any sort of crossing would also warrant a multi-use path parallel to the LRT tracks I would expect.
    The user experience would be much more enhanced through the use of a bridge in my opinion.

    Would be an great observation point in the city as well.

  99. #2799
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,416
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  100. #2800
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    426

    Default

    ^poked my bear pretty good. just turn the thing into a nice, big municipal park.

Page 28 of 30 FirstFirst ... 1824252627282930 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •