Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 184 of 184

Thread: Don Iveson "dangerous" for Edmonton

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Moahunter is trying to say that Calgary has stopped its sprawl because a few years back Nenshi said "no more sprawl" but yet, outward expansion continue unabated in Calgary.
    I haven't looked at Ivesons campaign funding, I hope he is not being funded by sprawl developers. We know Nenshi isn't, in fact, at least one developer was activley conspiring with their cash against him and Councilors who support him. Its not because he is pro sprawl, but rather, the contrary. Calgary is changing under Nenshi (it will take decades to correct mistakes made in the past though), I hope Edmonton changes away from the 'make money for the old boys/girls club' mindset which has lead to the problems that exist.

    Ald. Jim Stevenson said he’s only seen a clip of a video aired by Global News showing Cal Wenzel, founder of Shane Homes, detailing a plan to back municipal election candidates that are friendlier towards home builders.
    “Everybody is entitled to their opinion,” said Stevenson, who admitted he received campaign donations from Shane Homes.
    http://m.calgarysun.com/2013/04/23/c...video-surfaces
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-10-2013 at 12:13 PM.

  2. #102
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    ^^ Sprawl can't be dealt with until there is a regional agreement on planning. If Edmonton makes changes to reduce sprawl but the surrounding municipalities do nothing, then it ultimately accomplishes nothing.
    Some might argue that while is accomplishes nothing for the region overall, it would still provides some benefits for the city of Edmonton. If you accept recent assertions that suggest spending on servicing new communities exceeds the property tax revenue they generate, redirecting the sprawl outside of the city limits will save us money.

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    ...um...from my office window view this am...calgary's still sprawling...

    ...calgary's infill is more an economic equation...it has an ROI...
    No, like Toronto and Vancouver, the lack of new sprawl opportuniities within Calgary propper (the alternative is a long commute to a bedroom) is helping to drive infill much faster. East Village didn't take off until Nenshi arrived, quarters won't take off unless the new mayor and council have similar courage to stand up to the old boys/girls club and actually enforce implementation of the municiple plan (eg restricting building permitts in line with its goals). Yeah that might lose them campaign funding next time, but doing the right thing for the city can transcend personal gain (funding for the next election, or a future job with a old boys/girls club member)..

    ^agreed, if other cities outside COE want to sprawl, let them, at their long term cost to their residents.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-10-2013 at 12:27 PM.

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Some might argue that while is accomplishes nothing for the region overall, it would still provides some benefits for the city of Edmonton. If you accept recent assertions that suggest spending on servicing new communities exceeds the property tax revenue they generate, redirecting the sprawl outside of the city limits will save us money.
    Allowing the bedroom communities to sprawl and restricting Edmonton's growth patterns would be one way to do it, and it might be easier in the short term, but it'll only cause bigger economic, environmental and social problems in the long run. Think more ring roads, snow clearing and expensive infrastructure that isn't efficient for moving people around

    It is a much better option to work together to create a region that is denser and on the same page. If there's something that everyone should consider, it's that in the long run, cooperation is economically beneficial for everyone. It will save tax money. Furthermore 85% of the costs associated with driving/maintaining an automobile leave the local economy. Less sprawl in the Capital Region = More money in Capital Region. Beyond that, even if it's not costing us more money at the municipal level, it'll cost more for the province, which also hurts us.

    I could talk about this for hours. But instead here's a good TED talk explaining some of the reasons why I think this is so important.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_...able_city.html
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Moahunter is trying to say that Calgary has stopped its sprawl because a few years back Nenshi said "no more sprawl" but yet, outward expansion continue unabated in Calgary.
    I haven't looked at Ivesons campaign funding, I hope he is not being funded by sprawl developers. We know Nenshi isn't, in fact, at least one developer was activley conspiring with their cash against him and Councilors who support him. Its not because he is pro sprawl, but rather, the contrary. Calgary is changing under Nenshi (it will take decades to correct mistakes made in the past though), I hope Edmonton changes away from the 'make money for the old boys/girls club' mindset which has lead to the problems that exist.
    Do you just make ***** up?
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ires-1.1867339

    Naheed Nenshi's list of donors includes big money from the development industry, despite his war of words with some homebuilders.

    Homebuilders, property developers and even billionaires have contributed to mayoral re-election campaign, with 43 cheques ranging between $2,500 and $5,000.

    However, Nenshi says Calgarians shouldn't be surprised to see developers backing his campaign.

    "The vast majority of the development industry is hugely supportive of the direction this council has gone," Nenshi said.

  6. #106

    Default

    Calgaryhunter, even in 2010 Nenshi has major backers from sprawlmakers. http://www.calgary.ca/CA/City-Clerks...f?noredirect=1

    Maybe its time you stop drinking so much Calgary-flavour koolaid.

    Here's 2013 http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net...osure_9-15.pdf

    Stop making stuff up dude. You have a lengthy track record of being absolutely completely wrong.

  7. #107
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,188

    Default

    We know that Don is in the back pockets of developers as well.

    It's an integral part of civic politics it seems.
    Parkdale

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240glt View Post
    we know that most all popular civic politicians running is in the back pockets of developers as well.

    It's an integral part of civic politics it seems.
    ftfy.

  9. #109
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,188

    Default

    ^ yes exactly

    My comment was more directed at those foolish enough to believe that this is not the case with Don specifically
    Parkdale

  10. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    I could talk about this for hours. But instead here's a good TED talk explaining some of the reasons why I think this is so important.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_...able_city.html
    Its been talked about and talked about for probably decade now, and what has happened? Have bedrooms agreed to a greenbelt? This 'talk' with no action by anyone aside from the odd denial of a project or two (and there never will be meaningful action while the big city annexes land and PCs or WR are in power), is exactly what the land seculators want. Its time for COE to lead, if others don't follow (generate long term costs for their residents), that's a shame, but there is no way to change that in the capital region despite all the talk. If COE started instead setting a positive example by looking after its taxpayers (instead of neighboring sprawl speculators), it might be a different story.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-10-2013 at 01:12 PM.

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^ yes exactly

    My comment was more directed at those foolish enough to believe that this is not the case with Don specifically
    Don and Karen both have some of the same backers. Although Diotte has chosen not to release his numbers yet, I'm sure he has many of the same backers.

    Hedge your bets.

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    I could talk about this for hours. But instead here's a good TED talk explaining some of the reasons why I think this is so important.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_...able_city.html
    Its been talked about and talked about for probably decade now, and what has happened? Have bedrooms agreed to a greenbelt? This 'talk' with no action by anyone aside from the odd denial of a project or two (and there never will be meaningful action while the big city annexes land and PCs or WR are in power), is exactly what the land seculators want. Its time for COE to lead, if others don't follow (generate long term costs for their residents), that's a shame, but there is no way to change that in the capital region despite all the talk. If COE started instead setting a positive example by looking after its taxpayers (instead of neighboring sprawl speculators), it might be a different story.
    I've told you time and time again, and I'll tell you again. This wont get fixed by 'talking to Edmonton's neighbours' This has to be legislated through changes to the MGA .... And we are about to start looking at amending the MGA in a lot of ways from green belts to how municipalities are funded. http://www.auma.ca/live/MuniLink/Com...ontentId=15941

  13. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Do you just make ***** up?
    No, I expect many east village and other infill developers are supporting him, perhaps even some sprawl ones. A lot aren't though. It would be nice if we could cut this out of local politics. Regardless though, unlike the **** you spin, Nenshi is making real change in Calgary, I hope Iveson has the guts and energy to make real change to COE.

  14. #114

    Default

    Its so funny how quickly you are to defend Calgary and put down Edmonton. Your pure Calgary bias shines through again like on every post.

    Nenshi hasn't made any real changes that havent also been made in Edmonton. If anything, Nenshi has started further discussion of changing the MGA and that came with Mandel backing and support too.

    The change needs to happen at the MGA, and both Nenshi, Iveson and Mandel all know that. Even Karen knows that too.

    You don't though. Grab a clue. I've offered you this carrot many times...

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I've told you time and time again, and I'll tell you again. This wont get fixed by 'talking to Edmonton's neighbours' This has to be legislated through changes to the MGA ....[/url]
    If you paid attention to my post you will see that I say that he PCs and even main opposition won't do anything that pisses off their core constituants, bedroom communities and rural residents, this talk is a waste of time without that. It might be different if someone lead, other more progressive towns might follow, but that's up to them.

    I predict on here quite confidently that just like the last decade, there will be no regional power that will create a greenbelt in the next. We could however have a city that decides to look after its residents instead of speculators. I hope its COE, a big change in attitude is needed though from the brainless and in conflict with own growth plan, 'let's annex everything to YEG'.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-10-2013 at 01:31 PM.

  16. #116
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post

    if you want to calculate edmonton's density, you have to deduct the areas of our entire river valley and ravine system that are unavailable for residential (or other) development; you should deduct areas that are not yet developed (most of the northeast, much of the southwest, some of the southeast); you should deduct all of those areas that are unavailable for residential development (most of the northwest, much of the southeast and some of the northeast) because it is already occupied by non-residential uses; and maybe even deduct our major transportation and utility corridors as well.

    once you've done that, you can then compare real densities and have a meaningful discussion.
    sorry ken but i am calling BS on this. you often bring this up but it is very disingenuous.

    are you going to take out the underdeveloped areas in the other cities as well?
    as far as i know Edmonton is not the only city with preserved natural areas or industrial areas without development.
    Edmonton is now the only city that has TUC's? you gotta be joking man.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    if you want to calculate edmonton's density, you have to deduct the areas of our entire river valley and ravine system that are unavailable for residential (or other) development; you should deduct areas that are not yet developed (most of the northeast, much of the southwest, some of the southeast); you should deduct all of those areas that are unavailable for residential development (most of the northwest, much of the southeast and some of the northeast) because it is already occupied by non-residential uses; and maybe even deduct our major transportation and utility corridors as well.

    once you've done that, you can then compare real densities and have a meaningful discussion.
    Interesting consideration and important to remember that any such comparisons are apples and oranges.

    I have a hard time comparing Edmonton and Calgary densities for this and other reasons. For instance Edmonton being situated on prairies but bordering and including remnants of Northern boreal forest and aspen parkland. Edmonton also having a lot of greenbelts even aside from River valley or ravine. Edmonton certainly having much more of its mass taken up by trees whether it be private or public property.

    Edmonton in many suburban areas has also designed several storm runoff lakes that double as some grassland habitats.

    On the other side of the equation and considering Calgary one must consider Glenmore reservoir, but also that Calgary is undulating foothills habitat rather than flat. The latter of which runs me into a wall. I don't have the mathematical framework to calculate whether undulating moderate slopes allow for more, or less ground area in which to subdivide. Certainly the surface area would be greater and possibly significantly greater.
    Given that moderate up or down slope offers more surface area a typical 50 by 120 lot is horizontally speaking less than that. Assuming lot size is calculated on surface, rather than horizontal plane area. (I'm really not sure) If this makes any sense.
    But just to be clear population density and land area is calculated on horizontal, i.e. map sq ft area. Without taking account the actual surface area. The two not being the same.

    I daresay calculus would probably be required to calculate the density bearing components of undulating vs flat strata. Rolling hills afford more "Lebensraum" used in this context as "lifespace" or habitat.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-10-2013 at 01:50 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  18. #118
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    Just to go off a little further:
    Ken, do you have access to and would you publish a map that depicts the available areas (broad strokes only) for some of the viable regions and closed or unusable areas ?
    Still waiting for the Arlington site to be reborn .......

  19. #119
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    We know that Don is in the back pockets of developers as well.

    It's an integral part of civic politics it seems.
    It takes a lot of money to fund a campaign for the Mayor's (and Councillor's) seat(s). Developers provide some funding as do other companies/individuals. Given the fund raising restrictions for elections, the allowed amounts aren't enough to buy a "politician" (we would hope).

    Most contributors (from my experience) donate so the recipient will be more willing to listen to their point of view. When the time comes to actually vote, the "politician" should vote (we hope) in the best interests of the municipality.

    People always complain about companies contributing to someone's campaign. The fact of the matter is that most individuals don't.

    It costs a lot of money to do mailers, signs, etc. Unfortunately (IMO) most voters decide who to vote for based on mailers, signs, etc. If you don't do them, chances you aren't getting elected. The system might be flawed (again, IMO) but it is what we have.

  20. #120
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,469

    Default

    If Edmonton annexed all surrounding areas what would happen...?

    We would actually be able to control 'sprawl'. We could direct, completely, growth patterns.

    A multi-centric governance structure, on the other hand, invites sprawl. Let's be clear here.

  21. #121
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    151

    Default

    I will probably get ripped a new one for suggesting this but .....

    Instead of everyone (politicians) saying how "urban sprawl is bad" and then not doing anything about it (for various reasons), why don't they consider SPRAWL FACTOR on their taxes.

    Mature Neighbourhoods = 0.8 * tax rate
    Regular Neighbourhoods = 1.0 * tax rate
    Sprawl Neighbourhoods = 1.3 * tax rate

    This way people could live where they want and pay their tax rate on a sliding scale. Lower for mature neighbourhoods to encourage revitalization, higher for sprawl neighbourhoods to help pay for the additional support costs.

    Just a thought.

  22. #122

    Default

    How do you qualify a sprawl neighborhood? Why not a distance to job site tax instead? If I lived in a mature or regular neighborhood it would take me longer to get to work and I would not be able to walk or cycle to work

  23. #123
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    ^^ While property tax reform that includes factors other than just market value might be a good idea, the simplest way to stop losing money on sprawl would be to force developers to build more infrastructure. That way the costs of servicing new communities would be passed on to those who buy houses there.

  24. #124
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,400

    Default

    Put an improvement levy for all City incurred capital costs on new neighbourhoods until paid off.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  25. #125
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Build new areas better, with mixed use, good direct transit main streets, and density (they've got density, mostly)

    -stop taxing rental apartments at the higher business rate. All things being equal, apartment dwellers use less services, not more.

    -reduce residential zones to two: a front door zone, and an apartment zone. Make side setbacks easily waived with the agreement of the adjacent property owner only. Watch redevelopment and densification take off.

    -eliminate parking minimums for all uses. Price street parking so it's not overrun.

    -if a stick is still needed, add a land value or land area component to the tax rate. Or even built floor area. Anything would result in a less sprawl-oriented tax than the current property value model.

  26. #126
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reportsyourpost View Post
    How do you qualify a sprawl neighborhood? Why not a distance to job site tax instead? If I lived in a mature or regular neighborhood it would take me longer to get to work and I would not be able to walk or cycle to work
    Hmmm . . . I'm retired. Ergo, no job, no distance to job site. No tax, then? Sounds good to me. When are you running for mayor?
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  27. #127

    Default

    Maybe I already am, see the multiple user thread

    The idea wouldn't work for many reasons what if i work from home or out of town?
    Last edited by reportsyourpost; 17-10-2013 at 06:29 PM.

  28. #128
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,496

    Default

    Sherwood Park is also debating about infill, as it's close to capacity.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  29. #129
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reportsyourpost View Post
    How do you qualify a sprawl neighborhood? Why not a distance to job site tax instead? If I lived in a mature or regular neighborhood it would take me longer to get to work and I would not be able to walk or cycle to work
    I believe the City already has definitions for Mature and Sprawl neighbourhoods.

  30. #130
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    -reduce residential zones to two: a front door zone, and an apartment zone. Make side setbacks easily waived with the agreement of the adjacent property owner only. Watch redevelopment and densification take off.

    -eliminate parking minimums for all uses. Price street parking so it's not overrun.

    -if a stick is still needed, add a land value or land area component to the tax rate. Or even built floor area. Anything would result in a less sprawl-oriented tax than the current property value model.
    If "front door zone" = freehold zone and "apartment zone" = condominium zone, I like that idea. There will need to be some way of incorporating location-specific height regulations into the condo zone though.

    I think 50% of taxes based on land area and 50% based on building value would work well.

  31. #131
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    151

    Default

    The point that I was trying to make was the City will continue to sprawl and we need to be creative in how we handle that issue. We can't necessarily stop all development in sprawl areas but we can perhaps control it better and charge appropriately.

    If I want to live in the sticks, let me. It isn't fair for the rest of Edmonton to pay the higher cost to provide me access to City services. I need to take some responsibility and the best way to do that might be to build it into the costs.

    Tighter controls, different tax models, more responsibility on the developers, etc. Time for the City to stop the free for all and start performing their job; Managing.

  32. #132
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    If "front door zone" = freehold zone and "apartment zone" = condominium zone, I like that idea. There will need to be some way of incorporating location-specific height regulations into the condo zone though.

    I think 50% of taxes based on land area and 50% based on building value would work well.
    Interesting concept. If the net result was no loss to City coffers, might be something to look at.

  33. #133
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    744

    Default

    No wonder our "friend" Tedfriends has one and only one post ......... just saying

  34. #134
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mroilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tedfriends View Post
    don would destroy this city with his lack of life experience.

    ha ha. I think it's hilarious when people use the term "life experience", as if it actually means anything.

    You don't even have to be good at anything to earn it - all you have to do is live long enough.
    +10000000000!!!!

    So sick of people saying he lacks life experience because he is 34 yrs old. We don't know what he's been through. 34 is just his age

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    If Edmonton annexed all surrounding areas what would happen...?

    We would actually be able to control 'sprawl'.
    I think it would make it harder to control. You would essentially have more taxpayers with a vested interest in a low density lifestyle, so they would vote for politicians who support that. Also, there will always be a neighboring town that might do something different from what you want no matter how much you annex and no matter how much of a regional planning zone there is. COE can choose to give its taxpayers a break by starting to say no (at least in proportion to the municiple growth plan). The talk of region and siimilar is just a deflection by those who want to maintain the status quo, because we all know it can never work under a PC or WR government who won't **** off key constituents.

  36. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shane Bergdahl View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by reportsyourpost View Post
    How do you qualify a sprawl neighborhood? Why not a distance to job site tax instead? If I lived in a mature or regular neighborhood it would take me longer to get to work and I would not be able to walk or cycle to work
    I believe the City already has definitions for Mature and Sprawl neighbourhoods.
    They have a definition for mature neighbourhoods, that I know... but sprawl? And if your only definition of 'sprawl' is 'new' well... that's not going to get you very far as many people live in 'new' neighbourhoods to be 'closer' to work... like me for example. So, by moving to a 'new' neighbourhood, I'm closer to work, and less dependant on an extensive road network and commuting longer distances... So do I live in a sprawl neighborhood? (South Terwillegar, in case you wanted to know, work in Ambleside/Windermere)

  37. #137
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    The real way to judge sprawl vs normal suburbs would have to be based on density. Just being farther from downtown, or newer, would be misleading, and as you say, it would often be a very poor proxy for actual cost to the city.

  38. #138
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    They have a definition for mature neighbourhoods, that I know... but sprawl? And if your only definition of 'sprawl' is 'new' well... that's not going to get you very far as many people live in 'new' neighbourhoods to be 'closer' to work... like me for example. So, by moving to a 'new' neighbourhood, I'm closer to work, and less dependant on an extensive road network and commuting longer distances... So do I live in a sprawl neighborhood? (South Terwillegar, in case you wanted to know, work in Ambleside/Windermere)
    I have no idea of a good definition of 'sprawl'. If the City doesn't have one, then one would have to be developed.

    IMO, a "sprawl" neighbourhood is new (or newer) where the City has higher costs to support (police, fire, buses, roads, etc) than more established neighbourhoods. I don't think it would have anything to do with where you work, even though I do support the "Living Local" initiative.

    Maybe it is everything that is outside of the Henday to the south and west; everything to the east of 17th st. Someone far smarter than I would need to determine that.

  39. #139

    Default

    please dont get me wrong - I see merit in your idea, but I'm not sure how a sprawl tax could work, and I think in some ways, we already have a hidden sprawl tax, as the city is not the one who pays for the local roads and sewers, and only pays for part of the main roads in a new area. The developer pays for most in the new areas already.

    How long does a community last as labelled sprawl? If these communities fill up, like many of them have or will, it costs the same for the city to fund those services (ems/police/fire/etc) as other pre-existing areas of the city. The local roads&sewer are already paid for by the developer who offsets this cost on to the new home buyer, and the main roads of the new area paid in part as well.
    Would business and industry also be charged a sprawl tax if they locate out here? Or out there?

    In my mind, neither a sprawl tax or 'distance to work' tax will work for many various reasons and massive complexities in determining what is sprawl, or what is distance to work.

    To kill or really slowdown sprawl, we should look to the municipal government act of alberta which governs all our urban areas, and see that it implements either a proper green belt around the region and forces growth inwards, sets proper land use for the next 50-100 years. The city best option is its to go at this problem alone would be infill incentives and bonuses, but I dont think its in the city best interest to go at this problem alone as the problem/affects and solutions doesn't lie only in our borders.

  40. #140
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,178

    Default

    One of the improvements I've seen in civic design in recent decades is a move away from monoculture communities where one had to drive for absolutely everything. More and more of the recent developments seem to try to incorporate various usages within the community like retail, parks and workplaces.

    Back in my younger days, I remember many a fight in some of these communities as to whether someone should be allowed to set up a daycare (which was badly needed in some of these family communities) or a corner store or even a granny suite in the basement.

    Eve

  41. #141
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    please dont get me wrong...
    No worries, Medwards. Any plan starts with frank and sometimes heated discussions.

    I am tired of hearing people saying that "sprawl" is bad but nothing gets done about it. As more and more people move to cities, those cities will grow. That growth needs to be manageable. Up to now, it appears that it is mostly the developers that are managing the city's growth. That can be a dangerous path to go.

    Conversations need to be had to determine if there is really a problem, how big of issue is it, and how to correct any problems. Basically I am getting p!$$ed about hearing the phrase "sprawl" over and over again but nothing seems to be getting done about it.

    Someone needs to do something. I think our Councillors and Mayor need to champion the cause but we, the voters, need to hold their feet to the fires. Otherwise we'll be hearing the same song in 4 years and nothing will be done.

  42. #142

    Default

    Well I do enjoy get enlightened everyday...

    1) Sprawl

    Quote Originally Posted by Shane Bergdahl View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    They have a definition for mature neighbourhoods, that I know... but sprawl? And if your only definition of 'sprawl' is 'new' well... that's not going to get you very far as many people live in 'new' neighbourhoods to be 'closer' to work... like me for example. So, by moving to a 'new' neighbourhood, I'm closer to work, and less dependant on an extensive road network and commuting longer distances... So do I live in a sprawl neighborhood? (South Terwillegar, in case you wanted to know, work in Ambleside/Windermere)
    I have no idea of a good definition of 'sprawl'. If the City doesn't have one, then one would have to be developed.

    IMO, a "sprawl" neighbourhood is new (or newer) where the City has higher costs to support (police, fire, buses, roads, etc) than more established neighbourhoods. I don't think it would have anything to do with where you work, even though I do support the "Living Local" initiative.

    Maybe it is everything that is outside of the Henday to the south and west; everything to the east of 17th st. Someone far smarter than I would need to determine that.
    Not directed at the above posters and meant to be quite general.

    Seems from what I see on this particular thread we can't define sprawl, but we are against it whatever it is.

    Lord knows we can argue about it and demonize it...but can;t define it.

    2) Medwards

    please dont get me wrong - I see merit in your idea, but I'm not sure how a sprawl tax could work, and I think in some ways, we already have a hidden sprawl tax, as the city is not the one who pays for the local roads and sewers, and only pays for part of the main roads in a new area. The developer pays for most in the new areas already.

    How long does a community last as labelled sprawl? If these communities fill up, like many of them have or will, it costs the same for the city to fund those services (ems/police/fire/etc) as other pre-existing areas of the city. The local roads&sewer are already paid for by the developer who offsets this cost on to the new home buyer, and the main roads of the new area paid in part as well.
    Would business and industry also be charged a sprawl tax if they locate out here? Or out there?

    In my mind, neither a sprawl tax or 'distance to work' tax will work for many various reasons and massive complexities in determining what is sprawl, or what is distance to work.
    As rare as it seems I believe this is the second time in a short period that I agree with your post.

    Times they are a changing

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  43. #143

    Default

    Stictly speaking, sprawl can be defined as the creation of a new neighbourhood that causes the population density of the entire community (city), of which it is a part of, to decrease.


    IE. Any new development that has a lower population density that the existing community is defined as sprawl.
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    As rare as it seems I believe this is the second time in a short period that I agree with your post.

    Times they are a changing

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    We probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on I'd bet... if we ignore a few hectares of land near the center of the city.

  45. #145
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,178

    Default

    ^^ Yes, but over which area. And how to define density. Some areas are income generators (University campus, industrial enterprises) which take up many acres, may be on the edge of town but are certainly not sprawl.

    I prefer a definition that includes how much travelling a family unit has to do to maintain normal function (work, school, recreation), but even that is a bad definition with many exceptions.

    Eve

  46. #146
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Well I do enjoy get enlightened everyday...

    1) Sprawl

    Not directed at the above posters and meant to be quite general.

    Seems from what I see on this particular thread we can't define sprawl, but we are against it whatever it is.

    Lord knows we can argue about it and demonize it...but can;t define it.
    Here is the definition of 'urban sprawl' according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl).

    Urban sprawl or suburban sprawl is a multifaceted concept centered on the expansion of auto-oriented, low-density development. Topics range from the outward spreading of a city and its suburbs, to low-density and auto-dependent development on rural land, examination of impact of high segregation between residential and commercial uses, and analysis of various design features to determine which may encourage car dependency.[1] The term "sprawl" is most often associated with US land use; outside the US (and especially outside the Anglosphere), the term "peri-urbanisation" is often used to denote similar dynamics and phenomena.
    Not sure if this fits or not but it can be a good starting point.

  47. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Stictly speaking, sprawl can be defined as the creation of a new neighbourhood that causes the population density of the entire community (city), of which it is a part of, to decrease.


    IE. Any new development that has a lower population density that the existing community is defined as sprawl.
    So the new neighbourhoods that are being built - which tend to have higher population density than most of the neighbourhoods built between say 1950 to 1985 or so... those wouldn't be considered sprawl then - outside of the first couple years while they are under construction? Edmonton would then have a mature middle, sprawl ring, then a ring of 'smart growth' and then the bedroom communities and exurbs???

  48. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shane Bergdahl View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Well I do enjoy get enlightened everyday...

    1) Sprawl

    Not directed at the above posters and meant to be quite general.

    Seems from what I see on this particular thread we can't define sprawl, but we are against it whatever it is.

    Lord knows we can argue about it and demonize it...but can;t define it.
    Here is the definition of 'urban sprawl' according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl).

    Urban sprawl or suburban sprawl is a multifaceted concept centered on the expansion of auto-oriented, low-density development. Topics range from the outward spreading of a city and its suburbs, to low-density and auto-dependent development on rural land, examination of impact of high segregation between residential and commercial uses, and analysis of various design features to determine which may encourage car dependency.[1] The term "sprawl" is most often associated with US land use; outside the US (and especially outside the Anglosphere), the term "peri-urbanisation" is often used to denote similar dynamics and phenomena.
    Not sure if this fits or not but it can be a good starting point.
    The problem with this definition is that it covers everything built from 1955/1960 to today, or say just about 80% of the residential areas? Edmonton being a young city still, was mostly developed in the auto-centric planning era when it grew up

  49. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Stictly speaking, sprawl can be defined as the creation of a new neighbourhood that causes the population density of the entire community (city), of which it is a part of, to decrease.


    IE. Any new development that has a lower population density that the existing community is defined as sprawl.
    So the new neighbourhoods that are being built - which tend to have higher population density than most of the neighbourhoods built between say 1950 to 1985 or so... those wouldn't be considered sprawl then - outside of the first couple years while they are under construction? Edmonton would then have a mature middle, sprawl ring, then a ring of 'smart growth' and then the bedroom communities and exurbs???
    I'm not saying they're good neighbourhoods, just that's how I've seen sprawl "officially defined" by some academics - although the term has been used liberally taken on a much broader meaning now. I think what people are talking about here is curvilinear suburbs...

    The sprawl definition I was using doesn't distinguish between the different densities of existing neighbourhoods but counts them as a whole, and contrasts them with new neighbourhoods.
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  50. #150
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Then, perhaps, this is why people talk about it but never take steps to solve it. No one can define it?

    If that is the case, perhaps we need to push our newly elected City leaders to strike a committee to do that so everyone can determine if there really is a problem.

  51. #151

    Default

    Well even cul du sacs have changed over the years..... Most cul du sacs built these days only restrict movements of vehicles - there's usually a walk/bike path to bypass all the curvilinear roads found in newer subdivisions.

  52. #152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Well even cul du sacs have changed over the years..... Most cul du sacs built these days only restrict movements of vehicles - there's usually a walk/bike path to bypass all the curvilinear roads found in newer subdivisions.
    The problem with these neighbourhoods though, is that they're extremely difficult to densify, or rezone. Also, it costs between 15%-50% more to maintain/remove snow compared to a gridiron street pattern neighbourhood.
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  53. #153

    Default

    Grid street patterns use up more space for roadways though... roadways which have to still be maintained... so with cul du sacs, you lose a bit of cost with maintanence, but grids you lose a lot initially...

  54. #154

    Default

    Ok...we can't define sprawl or how to apply the term.

    Imagine if I tried to get a definition of vibrancy!

    Imagine if you had been in a coma for 15 years and coming out you wanted to know what vibrancy was...

    What definition could you give yourself that would make sense to someone who had not been part of the buzzword discussion and had no background to give it context?

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  55. #155
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,188

    Default

    ^ It's the same as when the term "walkable" is tossed around.

    What.. your legs fall off more than 100M from a Starbucks ? What is that.


    It's why I usually put parentheses around terms like that. They're just meant to convey an idea or perception, not something tangible or real.
    Parkdale

  56. #156
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Ok...we can't define sprawl or how to apply the term.
    That's right, Thomas. We're screwed.

    Ok, now how do we fix that or do we care? I don't mind having the discussion but if we can't fix it or cause it to be fixed, why bother?

    This is a general question to the forum, not just you Thomas.

  57. #157
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    just wondering how any of this conversation has anything to do with the original post?
    be offended! figure out why later...

  58. #158

    Default

    The original post didn't really make any sense. I prefer the way the conversation has turned.
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  59. #159
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,188

    Default

    ^^^ The problem is that terms mean different things to different people.

    Talking to a co-worker for example, I say I own a house right close to Commonwealth. They reply, "oh, you live downtown"

    Some of my urbanista friends think that the same location is "suburban"

    I've also heard the neighborhood classified as "inner city", a "Mature suburb" , "next to downtown" , a "central" area, a "streetcar suburb".. that's all I can remember at the moment.

    Some people think that sprawl starts at the ring road. Other think it starts at the Whitemud/ Yellowhead. Others again think it's anything that's not constrained within the 16 square blocks of the banking district.

    How are you going to classify anything like that when people have such widely ranging perceptions or definitions ?
    Parkdale

  60. #160
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    just wondering how any of this conversation has anything to do with the original post?
    I think it's relative, because it's a major plart of Don's platform

    I'd rather he answer these questions han anyone, really.

    And I agree with MN. It's a lot more cohesive than the way this thread started
    Parkdale

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    The sprawl definition I was using doesn't distinguish between the different densities of existing neighbourhoods but counts them as a whole, and contrasts them with new neighbourhoods.
    I'd define it as any neighborhood, regardless of its density, that destroys greenfield. Its sprawls over the land, destroying farms / nature.

  62. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    The sprawl definition I was using doesn't distinguish between the different densities of existing neighbourhoods but counts them as a whole, and contrasts them with new neighbourhoods.
    I'd define it as any neighborhood, regardless of its density, that destroys greenfield. Its sprawls over the land, destroying farms / nature.
    So pretty much all of urban Alberta than is sprawl? Even Glenora/westmount/mature neighbourhoods was once greenfield.

  63. #163

    Default

    ^^So by that definition, if a very dense, walkable, transit orientated community is built on farmland - then it's sprawl. Doesn't work.
    Go down a few dark alleys.

  64. #164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    ^^So by that definition, if a very dense, walkable, transit orientated community is built on farmland - then it's sprawl. Doesn't work.
    Downtown Calgary is sprawl!!!

  65. #165
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    The sprawl definition I was using doesn't distinguish between the different densities of existing neighbourhoods but counts them as a whole, and contrasts them with new neighbourhoods.
    I'd define it as any neighborhood, regardless of its density, that destroys greenfield. Its sprawls over the land, destroying farms / nature.
    so everything in the edmonton region going back to and probably including fort edmonton should not be allowed?

    at what point in time do you want to start to play "kitty bar the door"? 1880? 1910? 1940? 1970? 2010?

    the first time i moved here there were fewer than 500,000 residents in the edmonton region and people questioned "who would ever want to live that far out?" when blue quill was first being proposed... do you really think the region's population could have increased by almost 2 1/2 times without "destroying greenfield...farms/nature"?

    if you really expect your definition to be accepted and enforced, where do you realistically expect another 800,000 people to live in the edmonton region in the next 30 years? [statistics canada and alberta treasury board and finance estimates and projections for edmonton: 2011 - 1,238,756 2041 - 2,012,310 http://www.finance.alberta.ca/abouta...rojections.pdf ]
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  66. #166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    The sprawl definition I was using doesn't distinguish between the different densities of existing neighbourhoods but counts them as a whole, and contrasts them with new neighbourhoods.
    I'd define it as any neighborhood, regardless of its density, that destroys greenfield. Its sprawls over the land, destroying farms / nature.
    so everything in the edmonton region going back to and probably including fort edmonton should not be allowed?
    IMO more than enough land has already been destroyed to create COE, destroying more farmland and nature is totally uneccesary given the very low density of COE (even taking out all the parks). I realiize the municiple plan differs from this vision, I'd be comfortable as a start with just implementing those modest goals, which would mean only allowing farm/nature destruction permitts in ratio to infill permitts issued within mature neighborhhods per the goal of the plan. Implementing a growth plan? I know, because COE councilors haven't had the guts to say no / do this to date, it hasn't happened. I hope a more courageous council takes a more sustainable tack.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-10-2013 at 05:38 PM.

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shane Bergdahl View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Ok...we can't define sprawl or how to apply the term.
    That's right, Thomas. We're screwed.

    Ok, now how do we fix that or do we care? I don't mind having the discussion but if we can't fix it or cause it to be fixed, why bother?

    This is a general question to the forum, not just you Thomas.
    As part of the forum...

    1) We are not screwed but:
    -If we are going to seriously deal with a problem we need to define exactly what the problem (problems) is (are).

    So without using the term density or other buzz words define the problem(s).

    2) Once you define the specific problem or problems then you can start on solutions to the specific problem(s) that can be realistically implemented, likely in a staged fashion.

    You can't come up with solutions till you understand the specifics of the probelm and determine specific deliverables to create the solutions.

    Now as to why bother?

    That's a good question.

    Having been to Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Dallas, Houston and other major centres like them over the decades I have seen real sprawl and Edmonton ain't it.

    I've seen worse, abiet lower population levels, sprawl in the Midwest of the United States where a town of 50,000 cover unbelieveably massive area.

    Should we doing something to keep Edmonton from becoming like the "other" places...I think so, but it is not going to be simple, easy or fast.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  68. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^ It's the same as when the term "walkable" is tossed around.

    What.. your legs fall off more than 100M from a Starbucks ? What is that.


    It's why I usually put parentheses around terms like that. They're just meant to convey an idea or perception, not something tangible or real.
    Excellent post. I stopped by to say something like this but its already captured succinctly.


    But this segues of course into the discussion of why so much time and effort is put discussing, or furthering, objectives that have limited, or unclear meaning. Kind of concerned how much the City tosses around terms like vibrancy and creating it.

    About as tangible as creating a buzz.
    Last edited by Replacement; 18-10-2013 at 05:50 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  69. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Excellent post. I stopped by to say something like this but its already captured succinctly.


    But this segues of course into the discussion of why so much time and effort is put discussing, or furthering, objectives that have limited, or unclear meaning. Kind of concerned how much the City tosses around terms like vibrancy and creating it.

    About as tangible as creating a buzz.
    Thank you, Thank you...

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 18-10-2013 at 05:58 PM.

  70. #170

    Default

    ^ I thought that might capture the argument. Thanks back at ya.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  71. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Now as to why bother?

    That's a good question.

    Having been to Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Dallas, Houston and other major centres like them over the decades I have seen real sprawl and Edmonton ain't it.
    If you are 50 pounds overweight should you choose not to diet because other people are 100 pounds overweight? Edmonton is a winter city, each new greenfield suburb just digs a bigger infrastructure hole, a bigger debt. COE could instead make the choice many smart cities in the world have made, which is to grow sustainably. That others be they neighbours or whatever choose a less sustainable path with long term costs for them, is not a reason to do the same.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-10-2013 at 06:22 PM.

  72. #172

    Default

    Wow

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Now as to why bother?

    That's a good question.

    Having been to Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Dallas, Houston and other major centres like them over the decades I have seen real sprawl and Edmonton ain't it.
    If you are 50 pounds overweight should you choose not to diet because other people are 100 pounds overweight? Edmonton is a winter city, each new greenfield suburb just digs a bigger infrastructure hole, a bigger debt. COE could instead make the choice many smart cities in the world have made, which is to grow sustainably. That others be they neighbours or whatever choose a less sustainable path with long term costs for them, is not a reason to do the same.
    How about the rest of the quote moa?

    Should we doing something to keep Edmonton from becoming like the "other" places...I think so, but it is not going to be simple, easy or fast.

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    So sure we need to take steps...but so far on this thread we can't even get consensus to define the problem.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  73. #173
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,746

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blueline View Post
    Just to go off a little further:
    Ken, do you have access to and would you publish a map that depicts the available areas (broad strokes only) for some of the viable regions and closed or unusable areas ?
    i have requested actual calculations that reflect the broad statement on a consolidated basis and don't have it.

    pictorially however, it is easy to demonstrate at least some of the major pieces:

    city of edmonton map showing industrial areas:





    this image provides some indication of the "dedicated" park space as well as some indication of as yet undeveloped space in the region (noting that some of the areas extend past municipal boundaries and encompass st. alberta and sherwood park etc... the "developed" areas include the above industrial areas as well as residential land:



    a quick look at google earth would provide as much fine grain detail to the above as you could want...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  74. #174
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Grid street patterns use up more space for roadways though... roadways which have to still be maintained... so with cul du sacs, you lose a bit of cost with maintanence, but grids you lose a lot initially...
    This seems counterintuitive. Is there a place where one can find detailed land use statistics for Edmonton neighborhoods, including the total land area covered by roads, private lots and parks?

  75. #175
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,496

    Default

    Big data?
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  76. #176
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    T5J
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Personally I am tired of the old white straight guy ruling the world.
    Obama is black.
    Not really. Perhaps that's how he identifies himself, but the reality is that he's as white as he is black.
    If X self-identifies as Y and if other people who identify themselves as Y agree X is Y, no one who does not identify as Y can say X is not Y.

    End of argument.

    Now, once you have understood the logic there, let X be Obama and let Y be black.

    QED.
    Isn't it interesting, though, that the default seems to be to call someone who is half-white "black" as though he's somehow disqualified from being "white" even though it could logically go either way?

    Self-identify however you like, but the rest of the world is only too happy to foist their own presuppositions on you. Sad fact that all three top candidates are probably very familiar with, in their own way.

    Anyway.

  77. #177

    Default

    A main issue of the grid network is not space it supposedly takes up, whether more or less, it is the accessibility to easy network for all modes of transportation navigating a city. The ability to change zoning on grid systems is, I believe, easier, sprawl then, in a very very simple format, is I guess construction post 1955-65... the decline of the local Safeway/corner stripmall/conrner store and the rise of curved roads, limited neighbourhood access, malls, loss of boulevards, wider roads, and wider lots. However, and I stress the however, new developments in many outskirt neighbourhoods are an example of "smart sprawl". Sprawl in the sense of "far flung reaches of the city" and smart in the sense of design and function. The real issue that is the most difficult to deal with is transforming the 'hoods aged 1960's to 1990's, these are hard to change due to road patterns, connections through neighbourhoods and the issue of increased density and parking, zoning, density, lot size, and even road size due to most roads are cut off from arterials. If a new Mayor and council can fix this issue... then we might be okay. The issue is not hoods of the 40's and 50's, but the ones older than that.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  78. #178

    Default

    I wonder who the original OP is... I'd bet its the same person that called Iveson dangerous before...

    June 21, 2009, Diotte part of Edmonton Sun panel handing out grades to city counillors:

    On Don Iveson, was was given a “D” mark:

    Smart, young and dangerous … a better dressed Tooker Gomberg. Iveson wants everyone eating granola and riding bikes or taking public transit to work. During preliminary budget talks last year, Iveson flat-out stated he was tired of “this city cheaping out.” Ouch. Don’t put this rookie in charge of the finances. He’s organized too, defeating incumbent Mike Nickel in the last election.

    RECOMMENDATION: Move to Tofino.
    http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...-kerry-diotte/

  79. #179

    Default

    Yup! The correct political name is called "dirty politics." When you see that, that is who I will vote for... Why? That means that candidate is strong and has potential hence why I have finally contribute to this segment.

  80. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Moahunter is trying to say that Calgary has stopped its sprawl because a few years back Nenshi said "no more sprawl" but yet, outward expansion continue unabated in Calgary.
    I haven't looked at Ivesons campaign funding, I hope he is not being funded by sprawl developers. We know Nenshi isn't, in fact, at least one developer was activley conspiring with their cash against him and Councilors who support him. Its not because he is pro sprawl, but rather, the contrary. Calgary is changing under Nenshi (it will take decades to correct mistakes made in the past though), I hope Edmonton changes away from the 'make money for the old boys/girls club' mindset which has lead to the problems that exist.

    Ald. Jim Stevenson said he’s only seen a clip of a video aired by Global News showing Cal Wenzel, founder of Shane Homes, detailing a plan to back municipal election candidates that are friendlier towards home builders.
    “Everybody is entitled to their opinion,” said Stevenson, who admitted he received campaign donations from Shane Homes.
    http://m.calgarysun.com/2013/04/23/c...video-surfaces

    if you took the time to look at Leibo's grimace, you would understand it would have 'sprawl developers can buy me for any price' on it

  81. #181
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,338
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shane Bergdahl View Post
    Then, perhaps, this is why people talk about it but never take steps to solve it. No one can define it?

    If that is the case, perhaps we need to push our newly elected City leaders to strike a committee to do that so everyone can determine if there really is a problem.

    best post...


    ...for when it comes to the definitions..sprawl is in the eyes of the beholder...or the bias of the beholder...

    ...when I see such vitriol being spewed between anti-sprawl people - including on what "good" looks like...I know I am not far off...
    Onward and upward

  82. #182
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,338
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I wonder who the original OP is... I'd bet its the same person that called Iveson dangerous before...

    June 21, 2009, Diotte part of Edmonton Sun panel handing out grades to city counillors:

    On Don Iveson, was was given a “D” mark:

    Smart, young and dangerous … a better dressed Tooker Gomberg. Iveson wants everyone eating granola and riding bikes or taking public transit to work. During preliminary budget talks last year, Iveson flat-out stated he was tired of “this city cheaping out.” Ouch. Don’t put this rookie in charge of the finances. He’s organized too, defeating incumbent Mike Nickel in the last election.

    RECOMMENDATION: Move to Tofino.
    http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...-kerry-diotte/
    Ok, given that:

    a) Don is no more "dangerous" than any other person
    b) this converstaion has tangented to yet another sprawl debate
    c) the election is over
    d) the OP has not responded

    ...can I recommend this thread be closed and the sprawl conversation is moved?
    Onward and upward

  83. #183
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,798

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shane Bergdahl View Post
    Then, perhaps, this is why people talk about it but never take steps to solve it. No one can define it?

    If that is the case, perhaps we need to push our newly elected City leaders to strike a committee to do that so everyone can determine if there really is a problem.

    Oh yes.....a sure fire way to solve anything.

    Top_Dawg would even suggest throwing money at it.

    Last edited by Top_Dawg; 23-10-2013 at 12:45 PM.

  84. #184
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,493
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    I moved the sprawl conversation to THIS THREAD
    Ow

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •