Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 387

Thread: Muttart Lands | Mixed Use Urban Village | Proposed

  1. #1
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    71

    Default Muttart Lands | Mixed Use Urban Village | Proposed

    January 15, 2015

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    NEW PROJECT SETTING THE STAGE TO ENHANCE URBAN LIVING IN EDMONTON

    EDMONTON, ALBERTA (January 15, 2015) — Brookfield Residential is proud to announce it will develop in central Edmonton in an area known as the Muttart Lands. The site is located immediately south of the Stadium LRT station and situated between Commonwealth Stadium and Jasper Avenue (map attached).

    With the land sale recently completed, work on the community vision and design is underway and will be unveiled this spring. “This community is being designed with the daily needs of the future resident in mind. Through a great collaborative working relationship with the City of Edmonton, we are designing a very special place that is welcoming, vibrant and urban- all located just one LRT stop outside of downtown,” said Jaydan Tait, Brookfield’s Vice President of Infill Communities. “The development will be ‘mixed-use’, meaning there will be a diverse mix of housing types and retail/commercial space, which is essential for creating an area where people can work, play and live,” Tait said.

    Muttart Lands is a nine-acre site at 10950 – 84th Street. The site is an ideal location to create a walkable community close to key amenities that include the LRT line, Commonwealth Stadium, Commonwealth Recreation Centre and Edmonton’s picturesque River Valley.

    City Councillor for the area Scott McKeen calls the project an attractive option for future residents. “Given the proximity of this development to the LRT, Commonwealth Stadium, Commonwealth Rec Centre and the river valley, it holds great potential to create a dynamic new community on the edge of downtown. This is another step forward for urban living in our city,” says McKeen.

    Brookfield Residential has been a partner in shaping Edmonton’s landscape for more than 50 years. It has developed more than 30 communities - many of which are award winning.

    Further information on the Muttart project, including the name and expected start date for construction, will be provided at an official launch later this spring.

    About Brookfield Residential
    Brookfield Residential is a leading North American land developer and homebuilder with operations in 11 major markets. We entitle and develop land to create master-planned communities and build and sell lots to third-party builders, as well as to our own homebuilding division. We also participate in selected, strategic real estate opportunities, including infill projects, mixed-use developments, infrastructure projects, and joint ventures. Brookfield Residential is listed on the NYSE and TSX under the symbol BRP. For more information, visit www.brookfieldrp.com.

    -30-

    Attachment: Map showing the Muttart Lands

    For information, contact:
    Name: Lori Cote, Manager, Communications and Community Relations - Alberta.
    Cell: 403-837-8894
    Email: [email protected]

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,358

    Default

    Spectacular! This is a huge chunk of land and a major barrier for movement from the high density areas in the immediate surrounding areas of Cromdale an Boyle Street. Can't wait to see a plan

  3. #3
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,016

    Default

    Sounds good. These guys have experience in development. Even if it's normally cookie cutter burb stuff, it's a positive change for the area.

  4. #4
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,517

    Default

    I hear their new guy in Edmonton is going to push for some great ideas and urban design options. Great to see this in Brookfield's hands.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  5. #5
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,644

    Default

    "diverse mix of housing types and retail/commercial space"

    row houses and duplexes maybe? hopefully a high-rise or something over 6 storey as well

  6. #6
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Should be way too valuable for duplexes, even row houses.

    I believe Brookfield was Carma, who's Aurora development didn't start in 2007 as promised. I hope that their vision for this location is at least as ambitious and a lot better timed.

  7. #7
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,644

    Default

    I don't know anything about the builder but their other sites are not downtown. I wish they could match or surpass the Edgewater development but it's foolish to think that at this point. Very happy for the neighbourhood. Stadium will be the first successful TOD area in the city if this works out.

  8. #8
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Should be way too valuable for duplexes, even row houses.

    I believe Brookfield was Carma, who's Aurora development didn't start in 2007 as promised. I hope that their vision for this location is at least as ambitious and a lot better timed.
    This'll be a multi tower development, with some low rises mixed in most likely

  9. #9

    Default

    If we're lucky, think Bridgeland in Calgary.
    www.decl.org

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    I don't know anything about the builder but their other sites are not downtown. I wish they could match or surpass the Edgewater development but it's foolish to think that at this point. Very happy for the neighbourhood. Stadium will be the first successful TOD area in the city if this works out.
    They may not go as high as The Edgewater towers but from the initial info we heard, they were talking about 2500 residents. The Muttart property is roughly twice as big as the Edgewater land

    I've long thought that Stadium had some of the best TOD potential of most of the other current and future sites.

    There are three single tower sites still available along Jasper ave in that immediate area. Hopefully this makes them a more attractive option for developers. The Edgewater project moving forward was likely and influential factor in Brookfieild's decision to purchase the land
    Last edited by 240GLT; 15-01-2015 at 05:53 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    ^ sounds great to me, absolutely agreed about the area's potential.

    Will this be accompanied by the City's street design and LRT crossing?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    I don't know anything about the builder but their other sites are not downtown. I wish they could match or surpass the Edgewater development but it's foolish to think that at this point. Very happy for the neighbourhood. Stadium will be the first successful TOD area in the city if this works out.
    They may not go as high as The Edgewater towers but from the initial info we heard, they were talking about 2500 residents. The Muttart property is roughly twice as big as the Edgewater land

    I've long thought that Stadium had some of the best TOD potential of most of the other current and future sites.

    There are three single tower sites still available along Jasper ave in that immediate area. Hopefully this makes them a more attractive option for developers. The Edgewater project moving forward was likely and influential factor in Brookfieild's decision to purchase the land
    Twice the size? Unless I'm looking at the wrong place, or existing buildings are getting razed, Muttart appears to be less than half the size of Edgewater. Maybe someone can explain to me if in case I'm missing something.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,358

    Default

    ^ The land is triangle shaped, and extend from where 84th and 85th streets meet, up to the LRT tracks. It includes the self storage complex and two small commercial buildings

  14. #14

    Default

    ^OK cool, did not know it included the self storage and those buildings. It's still not twice the size, but it's bigger.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Should be way too valuable for duplexes, even row houses.

    I believe Brookfield was Carma, who's Aurora development didn't start in 2007 as promised. I hope that their vision for this location is at least as ambitious and a lot better timed.
    Who you going to get to buy nice town houses in that area?

  16. #16

    Default

    offtopic, but in the general vicinity, can anyone tell me what this building is? https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Edmont...19.83,,0,-0.41

  17. #17
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    No idea of the history, but it's part of a city of Edmonton maintenance yard.

  18. #18
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny199r View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Should be way too valuable for duplexes, even row houses.

    I believe Brookfield was Carma, who's Aurora development didn't start in 2007 as promised. I hope that their vision for this location is at least as ambitious and a lot better timed.
    Who you going to get to buy nice town houses in that area?
    You, because compared to mythic Blatchford it has a running train only 1 stop from downtown, great river valley and ravine access, commonwealth rec centre is right there, and you might get to move in before 2020.

    But in all likelihood it will be mostly high rise apartments with only a few townhomes at grade.

  19. #19
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,221

    Default

    Minor (and perhaps silly) gripe here, but I wish they'd call it something other than "Muttart Lands". I'm sure that more than a few Edmontonians will be fooled into thinking that the Muttart Conservatory was being redeveloped into residential lots!
    “You 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.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny199r View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Should be way too valuable for duplexes, even row houses.

    I believe Brookfield was Carma, who's Aurora development didn't start in 2007 as promised. I hope that their vision for this location is at least as ambitious and a lot better timed.
    Who you going to get to buy nice town houses in that area?
    You, because compared to mythic Blatchford it has a running train only 1 stop from downtown, great river valley and ravine access, commonwealth rec centre is right there, and you might get to move in before 2020.

    But in all likelihood it will be mostly high rise apartments with only a few townhomes at grade.
    You specifically ignore the biggest factor - it's a high crime area.

  21. #21
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny199r View Post
    You specifically ignore the biggest factor - it's a high crime area.
    Once upon a time, 104 St and the warehouse district was a high crime area. 25 years ago it was rife with hookers, drug dealers, Cecil Hotel clientele and what have you.
    124 St was iffy about that time.
    Alberta Ave - maybe it still has crime issues but not as bad as years past.
    It's called revitalization, son.
    Last edited by Sonic Death Monkey; 15-01-2015 at 09:34 PM.
    “You 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.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny199r View Post
    You specifically ignore the biggest factor - it's a high crime area.
    Once upon a time, 104 St and the warehouse district was a high crime area. 25 years ago it was rife with hookers, drug dealers, Cecil Hotel clientele and what have you.
    124 St was iffy about that time.
    Alberta Ave - maybe it still has crime issues but not as bad as years past.
    It's called revitalization, son.
    "Son" right up there with someone saying "bud" at the end of a post. Very mature way to get one's point across. Well played.

  23. #23
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    The crime map for Cromdale doesn't look too different from other central apartment neighborhoods. 17 crime in the last 60 days. Similar per block to low-rise oliver, better to my eye than spruce avenue *right next to blachford and far better than Boyle Street/the quarters.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny199r View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny199r View Post
    You specifically ignore the biggest factor - it's a high crime area.
    Once upon a time, 104 St and the warehouse district was a high crime area. 25 years ago it was rife with hookers, drug dealers, Cecil Hotel clientele and what have you.
    124 St was iffy about that time.
    Alberta Ave - maybe it still has crime issues but not as bad as years past.
    It's called revitalization, son.
    "Son" right up there with someone saying "bud" at the end of a post. Very mature way to get one's point across. Well played.
    im assuming you took insults to that. I know you're newer to the city and not cognizant of your area's history. I think he was refering to that aspect metaphorical as i would have articulated in that manner. I'm also well knowleged and witnessed the history he has extolled of 104st.'s past. It was not pretty in any and all aspects.

  25. #25
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,644

    Default

    High crime area my butt. I had to deal with more ******** living on Jasper in Oliver than on Jasper here.

  26. #26

    Default

    IMHO the significant majority of crime in Edmonton is committed against acquaintances of the perpetrator. Don't associate with losers, and the chances of being a victim to a crime are near zero.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  27. #27

    Default

    This part of Cromdale has one single concern about crime, which will be demolished as part of this very project.

    It will be a super place to live with this project deleting the liquor store and adding some nice places for restaurants, and a direct walking link to Commonwealth Recreation Centre.

    I still would prefer closer to the Arts District, but definitely not due to crime concerns.

    With this project I'd not be surprised to see North Cromdale rise into the top 10% safest neighbourhoods in the region.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    IMHO the significant majority of crime in Edmonton is committed against acquaintances of the perpetrator. Don't associate with losers, and the chances of being a victim to a crime are near zero.
    With the exception of B+E's and getting your stuff stolen, ie bikes...

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,358

    Default

    ^ Your attitude is most decidedly very small town.

    You're no more likely to get your bike stolen in Cromdale than you are in any other mature neighoburhood... or any neighbourhood for that matter if you're dumb enough to leave your stuff laying around

    You're obviously trolling this thread .. so stop.

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    This part of Cromdale has one single concern about crime, which will be demolished as part of this very project.

    It will be a super place to live with this project deleting the liquor store and adding some nice places for restaurants, and a direct walking link to Commonwealth Recreation Centre.

    I still would prefer closer to the Arts District, but definitely not due to crime concerns.

    With this project I'd not be surprised to see North Cromdale rise into the top 10% safest neighbourhoods in the region.
    The nice thing is that this plot falls under the Quarters CRL overlay, so the substantial increase in tax revenues from this project should go a long way to helping that area along

  30. #30
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Alberta Ave, McCauley, St Albert and Spruce Grove
    Posts
    96

    Default

    That is very uplifting news. This project will be a welcome addition to the already exciting momentum of this part of the city.
    Luck is the collision that occurs when preparation and opportunity run into each other.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny199r View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    IMHO the significant majority of crime in Edmonton is committed against acquaintances of the perpetrator. Don't associate with losers, and the chances of being a victim to a crime are near zero.
    With the exception of B+E's and getting your stuff stolen, ie bikes...
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^ Your attitude is most decidedly very small town.

    You're no more likely to get your bike stolen in Cromdale than you are in any other mature neighoburhood... or any neighbourhood for that matter if you're dumb enough to leave your stuff laying around
    He's not trolling... I just took a look at the crime map for the last 60 days and that area doesn't fare so well with B+E and theft from vehicle stats. It's high. Now, Strathcona is also high, which is a decidedly "nicer" area overall. However if you look at your more typical communities, they are close to zero. So it IS a higher crime area for those types of crimes, and those types of crimes are opportunistic as opposed to targeted.

    As mentioned, the removal of that liquor store will likely solve a lot of that, as those are likely thefts to fuel addictions. I suspect the same thing would happen if the Transit Liquor Store was removed from Belvedere.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  32. #32
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    You should expect an area with 10 the population density to have 10 the crime density, No? That's why a map form isn't always the most useful.

    Anyway, since most of the crime is theft from/of vehicles and respectable people don't seem to mind parking at the P&R or at Stadium Rec Centre. Maybe they'll feel the same way about parking in their secure undergound parking under their condo building.

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,358

    Default

    ^^ he's absolutely trolling. This isn't about crime, it's about bias and bad attitude

    Look at the stats for Oliver. It would most definitely fall into the category of a "high crime" area. So does Strathcona. Yet those who choose to live there seem to get by with all this crime going on. No different in Cromdale. Welcome to living in a central area of a big city.

    I know lots of professional folks who already live in the immediate vicinity in Cromdale. Their biggest gripe about the area ? Other peoples' misconceptions of it.

  34. #34

    Default

    Anyhow...

    The whole point of this thread and whole point Brookfield purchased the land is because of it's future potential, not where it is today.
    www.decl.org

  35. #35
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    32,221

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^ The land is triangle shaped, and extend from where 84th and 85th streets meet, up to the LRT tracks. It includes the self storage complex and two small commercial buildings
    https://twitter.com/jarrettcam/statu...056448/photo/1
    “You 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.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  36. #36
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Edmonton, south central
    Posts
    610

    Default

    As density rises, crime drops. has little to do with "niceness" of the area. crime loves areas where there aren't eyes around to see it.

  37. #37
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,358

    Default

    ^^ It's a big chunk of land

    It'll be interesting to see what sort of through access points are considered. Hopefully a pedestrian access basically in the middle of the north flank for easy movement across the LRT tracks

  38. #38
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by makenosmallplans View Post
    As density rises, crime drops. has little to do with "niceness" of the area. crime loves areas where there aren't eyes around to see it.
    I'd be curious to see that sort of declines in crime have been seen since the Edgewater development got going, and now that there are 300+ units occupied in the low rises

    The vacant GWG lot contributed a lot to the disorder in the area.. as there as a lot of loitering, camping and that kind of thing happening there. Now that it is gone i'd think things have improved considerably.

    The Muttart land is almost all fenced off, so don't contribute to those issues in any significant way

  39. #39
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    483

    Default

    I wouldn't be surprised. More lighting and eyes on the area surrounding make for less crimes of opportunity.

    Now if the jerk who stole my bike a few months ago Downtown would have had more eyes on him/her...

  40. #40
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,358

    Default

    Look for a news piece on this on the Global news this evening

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^^ he's absolutely trolling. This isn't about crime, it's about bias and bad attitude

    Look at the stats for Oliver. It would most definitely fall into the category of a "high crime" area. So does Strathcona. Yet those who choose to live there seem to get by with all this crime going on. No different in Cromdale. Welcome to living in a central area of a big city.

    I know lots of professional folks who already live in the immediate vicinity in Cromdale. Their biggest gripe about the area ? Other peoples' misconceptions of it.
    Not that I disagree about your thesis per se, but you're still not discussing crime in per capita terms or acknowledging per block or per hectare or per FAR or anything that would make crime stats pertinent. These stats NEED a common foundation or they don't make sense.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  42. #42
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Edmonton, south central
    Posts
    610

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^^ he's absolutely trolling. This isn't about crime, it's about bias and bad attitude

    Look at the stats for Oliver. It would most definitely fall into the category of a "high crime" area. So does Strathcona. Yet those who choose to live there seem to get by with all this crime going on. No different in Cromdale. Welcome to living in a central area of a big city.

    I know lots of professional folks who already live in the immediate vicinity in Cromdale. Their biggest gripe about the area ? Other peoples' misconceptions of it.
    Not that I disagree about your thesis per se, but you're still not discussing crime in per capita terms or acknowledging per block or per hectare or per FAR or anything that would make crime stats pertinent. These stats NEED a common foundation or they don't make sense.
    Recognizing that comparing statistics only tells you what has happened in the past and to extrapolate that to predict the future assumes all things stay mostly the same. I'd continue to argue that if you develop the area and increase density, things are not the same and per capita statistics wont' be terribly helpful any longer - at least not in the long run.

  43. #43

    Default

    ^ oh I'm not disagreeing that density is safer (ceteris paribus). Definitely you're right that higher density usually translates to greater safety, and definitely there is no predicting the future.

    I'm only maintaining that one must at minimum take population differences into account when comparing crime rates between neighbourhoods
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  44. #44
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Edmonton, south central
    Posts
    610

    Default

    we are in violent agreement. :>)

  45. #45

    Default

    Infill community to be built on industrial land near Commonwealth Stadium
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...148/story.html
    www.decl.org

  46. #46
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,565

    Default

    Outstanding verbal here:

    “We’re really trying to do something very urban and take into account the best practices of urban design, place-making and walkability,” said Jarrett Campbell, development manager for Brookfield Residential.

    “We’re hard at work putting some plans together so I don’t want to give away too much, but we are looking at a main street that goes through the site, across the LRT tracks and connects with Stadium Road.”

    The main street will be a walkable feature with retailers and provide access to the Commonwealth Recreation Centre from Jasper Avenue.
    Looking forward to the details, Jarrett!

  47. #47

    Default

    ^ agreed. Saying very good things. Of course that's not the same as doing them, but far better than not saying them.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  48. #48
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    71

    Default

    ^^ Stay tuned.

    I appreciate all the positive comments. We're still in the planning stages so if anyone has any ideas or suggestions for thing that would be good to see on the site I'd like to hear them!

  49. #49

    Default

    I am actually more excited about this project than the Blatchford development.

    You have great views, occasional fireworks, and walking distance to: LRT, River valley, Commonwealth Rec Center, Save-ons...

    Maybe we'll see something that actually resembles a TOD in Edmonton.

    I'm hoping for a series of mid to high rises with the taller ones fronting along the LRT line to buffer against noise. And maybe be able to watch an Eskies game from the balconey

  50. #50
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jarrettcam View Post
    ^^ Stay tuned.

    I appreciate all the positive comments. We're still in the planning stages so if anyone has any ideas or suggestions for thing that would be good to see on the site I'd like to hear them!
    On site??
    Businesses that bring people out into the neighbourhood. Grocery coffee pub restaurant financial convenience health fashion government ANYTHING. Build some towers and stick some businesses at the bottom so i dont always have to go downtown or whyte ave or Southgate or kingsway. Opportunities here are endless. In toronto they build towers and leave nothing for street level businesses in the new areas. DON'T do that

  51. #51

    Default

    A mixture of forms, Towers with townhouse podiums, low rise, a real mixture. An absolute minimum of surface parking. A smallish performance space for concerts,comedy, plays, etc. as opposed to a bar with a band, although there should be that too. Think of what you's have in a small town and bring that. Small grocer, drug store, pub. The ground level retail should be places that are open past 5 pm. Put offices on the second floor.

    Connect with the surrounding area. Don't forget your neighbours. If you have retail in the centre, make sure it's easy to walk to. Scale it towards the people, not vehicles.

  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jarrettcam View Post
    ^^ Stay tuned.

    I appreciate all the positive comments. We're still in the planning stages so if anyone has any ideas or suggestions for thing that would be good to see on the site I'd like to hear them!
    Thank you for giving us the opportunity to enhance our community with you and your respective company! More developers need to interact in this way.

  53. #53
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,517
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  54. #54
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    There's no need to provide vehicle access within the site. Keeping cars on the perimeter plus a couple of parkade accesses will allow a better pedestrian environment and a better environment for townhouse front-doors.
    Rather than working with the city on a car crossing of the LRT tracks, a pedestrian-only crossing plus a new Multi-use path on the SE side of the tracks to compliment the one on the NW would be better for local access. Focus retail on 84st, and get LRT station traffic.

    Looking at your post history here I have to say, I hope that you have lots of say in the design here.

  55. #55
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,405

    Default

    I hope that they can look upon this project and only consider underground parkades for the residential buildings and the only parking for the retail is just street parking. This has such great potential with the LRT right there and a rec center there too. I hope and pray this is done right. They could really help improve the multiuse trail along the LRT to make it a bit more of a place that more people can use to commute by bike into the core.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    There's no need to provide vehicle access within the site. Keeping cars on the perimeter plus a couple of parkade accesses will allow a better pedestrian environment and a better environment for townhouse front-doors.
    Rather than working with the city on a car crossing of the LRT tracks, a pedestrian-only crossing plus a new Multi-use path on the SE side of the tracks to compliment the one on the NW would be better for local access. Focus retail on 84st, and get LRT station traffic.

    Looking at your post history here I have to say, I hope that you have lots of say in the design here.
    No, make it a road crossing to Stadium Road. Nothing annoys me more than those inward-facing townhouses that mimic fenced-off suburban condos. Line the streets with front-facing townhouses. Street parking for visitors. Anything else creates little enclaves that scream "OURS! Stay out!".
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  57. #57
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,517

    Default

    Concur ^in full.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  58. #58
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    There will likely need to be an internal road within the Muttart site, but no need for a vehicular crossing of the LRT tracks. This would only encourage short-cutting from Jasper Avenue to the park and ride lot. A vehicle crossing would also interfere with the use of the multi-use trail by cyclists and pedestrians. There are already enough crossing roads (e.g. 95 St, 92 St. and 111 Ave) that create barriers along the NE LRT ROW.

  59. #59

    Default

    If this is done well and is timely enough, it's an area I'll be seriously considering looking.

    What I would like to see:
    - traditional grid maintained. No mazes, or unnecessary cul-de-sacs.
    - mixed density housing, mostly mid-rise
    - separated cycletracks or at least wide MUTs
    - limited street parking and a real focus on active transportation options, not just lip service.
    - a playground and green space for kids, with good sight-line for "eyes on the street"
    And another thing:
    - A connection to Commonwealth causing 'Shortcutting' wouldn't bother me as long as there is good walking & cycling facilities included. It might actually make a nice street for some retail space.

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    There's no need to provide vehicle access within the site. Keeping cars on the perimeter plus a couple of parkade accesses will allow a better pedestrian environment and a better environment for townhouse front-doors.
    Rather than working with the city on a car crossing of the LRT tracks, a pedestrian-only crossing plus a new Multi-use path on the SE side of the tracks to compliment the one on the NW would be better for local access. Focus retail on 84st, and get LRT station traffic.

    Looking at your post history here I have to say, I hope that you have lots of say in the design here.
    No, make it a road crossing to Stadium Road. Nothing annoys me more than those inward-facing townhouses that mimic fenced-off suburban condos. Line the streets with front-facing townhouses. Street parking for visitors. Anything else creates little enclaves that scream "OURS! Stay out!".
    Yeah, as an urban development, it has to be URBAN. It would be pretty hard to both be open to surrounding neighborhoods offering great connections but also trying to keep closed to keep the riff-raff out. Good Street calming is imperative.

  61. #61
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,685

    Default

    "Active transportation options”, this is a few city blocks big. It's maybe a three block walk to the LRT.

  62. #62
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,644

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    There will likely need to be an internal road within the Muttart site, but no need for a vehicular crossing of the LRT tracks. This would only encourage short-cutting from Jasper Avenue to the park and ride lot. A vehicle crossing would also interfere with the use of the multi-use trail by cyclists and pedestrians. There are already enough crossing roads (e.g. 95 St, 92 St. and 111 Ave) that create barriers along the NE LRT ROW.
    This. Thank you. You understand the area.

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    "Active transportation options”, this is a few city blocks big. It's maybe a three block walk to the LRT.
    I know what you're saying, and I don't know the area that well yet, but what I'm getting at.. distance isn't always what kills active transportation, there are other factors. Think if neighborhood built in U-shaped road and you lived at the back of the U, with the only connection the new Jasper-Commonwealth Road. That would be fine if you're driving but if you're trying to walk to Save-On Foods on 112th, it becomes a pain in the but and you probably would just end up driving anyways.

  64. #64
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,685

    Default

    I don't see a need to do much road work on that parcel of land. Continue 106A Avenue to 110 Avenue and most of the land can be serviced from that. If a corridor is needed for pedestrians and bikes across the LRT 110 Avenue can be extended directly west to the south end of the LRT parking lot. That simple road design will maintain a grid pattern and give the best access for people to walk to where they want to go.

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    There will likely need to be an internal road within the Muttart site, but no need for a vehicular crossing of the LRT tracks. This would only encourage short-cutting from Jasper Avenue to the park and ride lot. A vehicle crossing would also interfere with the use of the multi-use trail by cyclists and pedestrians. There are already enough crossing roads (e.g. 95 St, 92 St. and 111 Ave) that create barriers along the NE LRT ROW.
    This. Thank you. You understand the area.
    I think if you want mixed-use urban development, it means you need to be accessible to car traffic, provide some parking (not too much, metered best). I'm not a traffic expert, but I think there's a fine balancing act here.

    The extra crossing would be a pain to some cyclists and PEDs using the MUT, but also a plus for many more who not feel vulnerable along a dark eye-less corridor. I'm dreaming here, but some day, I'd love to see that MUT below-grade at a few of those intersections.

  66. #66

    Default

    Also, if a main street with front-facing housing was cut through there, could a hotel work? Thinking about it..a hotel with attached pub/restaurant could cater to the sports crowds and act as an anchor to attract other retail there.

  67. #67

    Thumbs up

    I agree with East McCauley on this one, vehicular access for sure, but non-vehicular LRT crossing.

    If the development winds up looking like the City's designs, it will indeed be the best TOD in the region. I'm tempted to consider living here myself, but I keep hoping for something in or near the Arts District.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  68. #68
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,517

    Default

    Keep vehicular access, narrow the streets if you want, provide streetside parking and be sure to include a 2 lane vehicle connection to stadium rd.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  69. #69
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Eyes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DTrobotnik View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    There will likely need to be an internal road within the Muttart site, but no need for a vehicular crossing of the LRT tracks. This would only encourage short-cutting from Jasper Avenue to the park and ride lot. A vehicle crossing would also interfere with the use of the multi-use trail by cyclists and pedestrians. There are already enough crossing roads (e.g. 95 St, 92 St. and 111 Ave) that create barriers along the NE LRT ROW.
    This. Thank you. You understand the area.
    I think if you want mixed-use urban development, it means you need to be accessible to car traffic, provide some parking (not too much, metered best). I'm not a traffic expert, but I think there's a fine balancing act here.

    The extra crossing would be a pain to some cyclists and PEDs using the MUT, but also a plus for many more who not feel vulnerable along a dark eye-less corridor. I'm dreaming here, but some day, I'd love to see that MUT below-grade at a few of those intersections.
    The actual eyes provided by residents overlooking the corridor, as well as additional path users from this development will do far more for safety along the path than a few cars ever could.

    Actually, as crossings have been designed up to now pedestrians and cyclists are more vulnerable from cars at crossings (and from the horrible crossing design) than they are from bad guys elsewhere along the path.

  70. #70
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,358

    Default

    Agreed that we don't need a vehicle crossing. As 82 st gets backed up at rush hour from 112 ave, sometimes all the way back to Jasper, many might feel tempted to cut through to Stadium Road and up to 115th ave.. So that would not be great for Parkdale either. I don't think there'd be much community support for a vehicle crossing.

    A pedestrian crossing absolutely. In fact I'd say that's essential to the success of the project

    And of course good integration, especially on the east flank along 84st.

  71. #71
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    jasper east
    Posts
    1,644

  72. #72
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,517

    Default

    I don't mind the intentions of that so long as there are a ton of podium townhouses.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  73. #73
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Eyes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    There's no need to provide vehicle access within the site. Keeping cars on the perimeter plus a couple of parkade accesses will allow a better pedestrian environment and a better environment for townhouse front-doors.
    Rather than working with the city on a car crossing of the LRT tracks, a pedestrian-only crossing plus a new Multi-use path on the SE side of the tracks to compliment the one on the NW would be better for local access. Focus retail on 84st, and get LRT station traffic.

    Looking at your post history here I have to say, I hope that you have lots of say in the design here.
    No, make it a road crossing to Stadium Road. Nothing annoys me more than those inward-facing townhouses that mimic fenced-off suburban condos. Line the streets with front-facing townhouses. Street parking for visitors. Anything else creates little enclaves that scream "OURS! Stay out!".
    Yeah, as an urban development, it has to be URBAN. It would be pretty hard to both be open to surrounding neighborhoods offering great connections but also trying to keep closed to keep the riff-raff out. Good Street calming is imperative.
    Just to clarify, I don't mean no real public access through the site. Vehicle access does not equal public access, street parking does not mean public realm. Think of those suburban townhouse complexes: they all have townhomes facing onto parking that's screams "ours!, Get out!" just as loudly as the internal sidewalks at the sububan tower complexes by southgate and Meadowlark, maybe more.

    And far more loudly than this closed to traffic street in North Garneau

    That's the level of access that needs to be maintained through the site, as a minimum. It's public, open, inviting (well, not those swing bollards), provides emergency access and "front door" access to residents, but guess what: no cars, no car noise, no car danger, no parked cars cluttering up the limited public space.
    Last edited by highlander; 20-01-2015 at 09:56 AM.

  74. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    ]
    Just to clarify, I don't mean no real public access through the site. Vehicle access does not equal public access, street parking does not mean public realm. Think of those suburban townhouse complexes: they all have townhomes facing onto parking that's screams "ours!, Get out!" just as loudly as the internal sidewalks at the sububan tower complexes by southgate and Meadowlark, maybe more.

    And far more loudly than this closed to traffic street in North Garneau

    That's the level of access that needs to be maintained through the site, as a minimum. It's public, open, inviting (well, not those swing bollards), provides emergency access and "front door" access to residents, but guess what: no cars, no car noise, no car danger, no parked cars cluttering up the limited public space.
    I agree with this if it's going to be a purely residential area, which I'm fine with too.

    I'm also fine if there is mixed-use in the area. My interpretation of Jarret's quote was they were looking at a 'main street' type development with retail, which I think is a street that is ideally connecting Jasper to Commonwealth. Vehicular traffic, including pass-through traffic, is what would allow retail in these locations a chance to survive.

    I certainly wouldn't want the vehicular traffic to be prioritized at the expense of everything else -- I would hope for the exact opposite -- a narrow residential width street, or "cars are guests" style of street.
    Last edited by Snake Eyes; 20-01-2015 at 11:04 AM.

  75. #75

    Default

    ^
    Agreed. One lane of traffic each way, with parking alongside, but with tree planted bollards between every couple of stalls to keep people from shortcutting in the parking lane. Brick up the streets, to indicate the entire thing is one giant cross-walk. Rice Howard Way is a good example of this. I don't think too many people use it as a shortcut, since they know they'll have to deal with pedestrians and drivers holding up while parking.
    From Google Maps:

  76. #76
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^That's not even close to a "cars are guests" kind of street. In Rice Howard Way and in a completed Muttart Lands development the cars take away far more from the location than they add. Even that narrow street gives cars 40' of a 66' right of way, parked cars block visibility and take up a huge amount of space while contributing no more to the commercial viability of local retail than a pedestrian does. We tend to misjudge a place full of parked cars as a place that's busy just because they're big; they make places look full but the 3 or 4 pedestrians visible (but tiny) in the foreground of that view are doing at least as much to make that place viable, food truck excepted.

  77. #77
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Eyes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    ]
    Just to clarify, I don't mean no real public access through the site. Vehicle access does not equal public access, street parking does not mean public realm. Think of those suburban townhouse complexes: they all have townhomes facing onto parking that's screams "ours!, Get out!" just as loudly as the internal sidewalks at the sububan tower complexes by southgate and Meadowlark, maybe more.

    And far more loudly than this closed to traffic street in North Garneau

    That's the level of access that needs to be maintained through the site, as a minimum. It's public, open, inviting (well, not those swing bollards), provides emergency access and "front door" access to residents, but guess what: no cars, no car noise, no car danger, no parked cars cluttering up the limited public space.
    I agree with this if it's going to be a purely residential area, which I'm fine with too.

    I'm also fine if there is mixed-use in the area. My interpretation of Jarret's quote was they were looking at a 'main street' type development with retail, which I think is a street that is ideally connecting Jasper to Commonwealth. Vehicular traffic, including pass-through traffic, is what would allow retail in these locations a chance to survive.

    I certainly wouldn't want the vehicular traffic to be prioritized at the expense of everything else -- I would hope for the exact opposite -- a narrow residential width street, or "cars are guests" style of street.
    No street through this site will ever be a main street, in the North American type. There is no reason the pass through, no significant destination for anyone who's not in easy walking distance. Look more to the model of the European High Street, which can be perfectly viable with zero vehicle access except loading as long as they have a few thousand people living within walking distance (check) and are accessible via public transit (check).
    Or look at the North American Mall, where nobody expects to park right outside the store they want to visit: The closest parking stall to, say, Banana Republic at WEM is the equivalent of a 2 block walk away.

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    ^That's not even close to a "cars are guests" kind of street. In Rice Howard Way and in a completed Muttart Lands development the cars take away far more from the location than they add. Even that narrow street gives cars 40' of a 66' right of way, parked cars block visibility and take up a huge amount of space while contributing no more to the commercial viability of local retail than a pedestrian does. We tend to misjudge a place full of parked cars as a place that's busy just because they're big; they make places look full but the 3 or 4 pedestrians visible (but tiny) in the foreground of that view are doing at least as much to make that place viable, food truck excepted.
    Rice Howard Way has to be debated on it's own terms, but that was just as an example of streetscaping that could be used to calm traffic. You could add to that by making street more narrow, or having raised intersections. Vehicular traffic, and some convenient parking, is absolutely necessary for retail to survive there. The trick is finding the right balance.

  79. #79
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    There are 2,000 people in Cromdale, the majority of them right across the Street. There were 7000 people in Boyle Street in 2009, About 1/3 within an easy walk of this site, plus up to 1000+ in the 700 units at Edgewater. Another 1,000 or more will live on site, and another 20,000 passing through on the LRT, and say 800 visiting the Rec Centre are within easy walking distance every day without their cars or already parked.

    That's as many within easy walking distance as the population of Stettler or Vegreville and a whole lot of passers-by. Parking is not necessary here.

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    There are 2,000 people in Cromdale, the majority of them right across the Street. There were 7000 people in Boyle Street in 2009, About 1/3 within an easy walk of this site, plus up to 1000+ in the 700 units at Edgewater. Another 1,000 or more will live on site, and another 20,000 passing through on the LRT, and say 800 visiting the Rec Centre are within easy walking distance every day without their cars or already parked.

    That's as many within easy walking distance as the population of Stettler or Vegreville and a whole lot of passers-by. Parking is not necessary here.
    I think you underestimate how much small businesses in an emerging neighborhood, in sprawly Edmonton 2015, would depend on through traffic and some parking. They need the cheapest form of advertising there is, people passing by your business. They also need to serve the largest markets they can in order to be competitive. It's hard to compare to a place like Vegreville where you have virtually have no competition. (And Vegreville still has throughtraffic and street parking.)

    As the saying goes, congestion is like cholesterol for a city, you don't want too much, but you need a little bit to survive. An occasional traffic backlog of slow-moving traffic going to an Eskies game, mixed in with throngs of pedestrians, wouldn't be a bad thing. If we're comparing to small towns, I'm thinking like the main streets in Banff/Jasper/ even main street in Sylvan Lake.

    A normal street that has all traffic and attracts everyone, but because street is pedestrian and cyclist friendly, and neighborhood is dense, they are the dominate mode.
    Last edited by Snake Eyes; 20-01-2015 at 12:36 PM.

  81. #81

    Default

    One more thing to add to prevent this from being a short-cut, yet allowing some vehicular traffic, is giant speed bumps. Ada Boulevard has some truly monstrous examples; combined with a low speed limit, I suspect you don't get too many people using it as a thoroughfare

  82. #82
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,517

    Default

    Exactly, there are many ways to manage this.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    No street through this site will ever be a main street, in the North American type. There is no reason the pass through, no significant destination for anyone who's not in easy walking distance.
    Sorry, just to clarify, do you mean no valid reason to pass through or no desirable reason to pass through (from motorists perspective)? From the latter, it would be convenient way to get to Commonwealth from downtown and from south.

  84. #84
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    The thing is that there will be next to no through traffic no matter what kind of street you build, and no matter what kind of street you build, one that accommodates cars at all will be less pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists than one that doesn't.

    The Reason I mention Vegreville is this: The 5700 people there, plus just another 4400 in the entire county, supports 3 grocery stores and 3 hardware stores. Yes, they have parking and rely on it, but the same 6000+ people will be living so close to this commercial street that the walk will be about the same as the walk from the corner of the Clareview Superstore's parking lot to the Deli section at the back of the store. For the few who will drive there is street parking on 84st that could be metered, and a huge parking lot just across the tracks.

    Whatever retail goes in there will be local focused, and 6000 people within a very short walk is easily enough of a market for all the local things that you would

  85. #85
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Eyes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    No street through this site will ever be a main street, in the North American type. There is no reason the pass through, no significant destination for anyone who's not in easy walking distance.
    Sorry, just to clarify, do you mean no valid reason to pass through or no desirable reason to pass through (from motorists perspective)? From the latter, it would be convenient way to get to Commonwealth from downtown and from south.
    No valid reason. From downtown/south 92st does the same thing, just in case 95st or 97st or 101st or 105st to 107ave stadium road aren't good enough.

    As in, the itty bitty increase in convenience for motorists doesn't come close to equaling the negatives for adjacent residents.

  86. #86

    Default

    If you cannot walk the two blocks to the stadium then you should have no problem driving over to 92 st to cross the tracks. I love how a transit oriented development suddenly requires brand new ways to make it easier to take your car.

    Pedestrian connection - Yes. Car connection - no.

  87. #87

    Default

    Transit oriented for the people that live and work there. If you want retail to succeed, and the entire area to be vibrant, it will need good vehicle access.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  88. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post

    No valid reason. From downtown/south 92st does the same thing, just in case 95st or 97st or 101st or 105st to 107ave stadium road aren't good enough.

    As in, the itty bitty increase in convenience for motorists doesn't come close to equaling the negatives for adjacent residents.
    Ok, I agree if this street is built, it should not and *will not* serve as a main motor thoroughfare. I just don't agree it has to be all or nothing. My sister lives in a small town here in Alberta where it's possible to literally walk anywhere within a 5-10 minute walk, but virtually everyone still drives. As a TOD in a larger city, I don't think that'll be the case, but I think it would be a huge overestimate to think a retail district could survive on local foot traffic alone. If we're talking about a retail district, we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

    If we're not talking a retail district, I agree a couple neighborhood niche businesses could survive on their own without vehicle traffic and parking. A private gym, childcare facility, maybe one food establishment and a convenience store. These would serve non-residents too coming from Commonwealth, but not that many.

    So it really depends which direction the developers wants to go. If they want basically a centrally located suburban enclave with great transit and established facilities, open to other neighborhoods but designed first and foremost with local residents in mind, keeping it closed works. If they want more of a retail street, that offers more retail choices, more diversity, then in my opinion (and I recognize that's all that it is), they have to welcome vehicular traffic and allow throughfare vehicular traffic (but balance it through good streetscaping and traffic calming.)

    Honestly, both options would work for me personally.

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If you cannot walk the two blocks to the stadium then you should have no problem driving over to 92 st to cross the tracks. I love how a transit oriented development suddenly requires brand new ways to make it easier to take your car.

    Pedestrian connection - Yes. Car connection - no.
    I bicycle and walk more than I drive and people use this argument with me all the time when I argue for better cycle facilities. "Cycletrack? If you can't bike or walk the 3 blocks over to.." It's as much as about welcoming and encouraging the business as it is about providing access. If people don't pass your business, they don't know it exists. If they're on the way somewhere and make a quick purchase, they do it where they are, not where they have to go 3 blocks out of their way.

    Anyways, I'd be fine whether they open it or keep it closed.

  90. #90
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^^That makes sense, then. I'm not expecting a retail district, just a couple block faces with retail at grade, maybe 200-300m of retail frontage, with a daycare, a convenience store, a coffee shop, and a hair place as a minimum, with a handful of others. There is existing street parking in the area and a huge lot just across the tracks for visitors in cars.

  91. #91
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snake Eyes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If you cannot walk the two blocks to the stadium then you should have no problem driving over to 92 st to cross the tracks. I love how a transit oriented development suddenly requires brand new ways to make it easier to take your car.

    Pedestrian connection - Yes. Car connection - no.
    I bicycle and walk more than I drive and people use this argument with me all the time when I argue for better cycle facilities. "Cycletrack? If you can't bike or walk the 3 blocks over to.." It's as much as about welcoming and encouraging the business as it is about providing access. If people don't pass your business, they don't know it exists. If they're on the way somewhere and make a quick purchase, they do it where they are, not where they have to go 3 blocks out of their way.

    Anyways, I'd be fine whether they open it or keep it closed.
    I'm sure you understand (and tell your skeptical friends) that distances driving are a lot different than when walking or even cycling, and that unless you're telling an advanced senior to merge onto the Yellowhead for one block due to lack of alternatives there's no comparison to the safety issues that pedestrians and cyclists encounter.

    I wonder how much good that street exposure does for a typical business on a typical street. When you're driving you have a lot less time to look around. I found my barber using a phone app, I never would have noticed the place otherwise and I both drive the street and walk (the opposite) sidewalk somewhat regularly. There are several strip-malls that I drive past regularly that I have no idea what the tenants are.

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I wonder how much good that street exposure does for a typical business on a typical street. When you're driving you have a lot less time to look around. I found my barber using a phone app, I never would have noticed the place otherwise and I both drive the street and walk (the opposite) sidewalk somewhat regularly. There are several strip-malls that I drive past regularly that I have no idea what the tenants are.
    Oh absolutely. I'm sure of the many cars that speed down 111th ave, very few could list many of the businesses along it. The pathetic 2-3 street parking stalls do little to serve the motorists, and they're going too fast to care.

    But anyways, it's not all or nothing. Too little or too much will kill your business. It's a tricky balance, especially in a city like central Edmonton where transit-orientated development is still an emerging concept.

  93. #93
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Alberta Ave, McCauley, St Albert and Spruce Grove
    Posts
    96

    Default

    I believe that a street passing through, over, or under the tracks will be great, not only for this development but also to encourage positive development along stadium road. Stadium road has a lot of opportunity to become an extremely successful mixed use road and I believe that a road linking this new development could really help to kick start the momentum.
    Luck is the collision that occurs when preparation and opportunity run into each other.

  94. #94
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selohssa View Post
    I believe that a street passing through, over, or under the tracks will be great, not only for this development but also to encourage positive development along stadium road. Stadium road has a lot of opportunity to become an extremely successful mixed use road and I believe that a road linking this new development could really help to kick start the momentum.
    Are you saying existing development along Stadium Road including Canadian Linen, Lafarge, and a busy park and ride lot is not positive? Preferable to having more vacant land which is what I fear would happen were they to close or be forced out.

    Regarding the proposed "main street" through the Muttart lands, does anyone have an example anywhere outside of downtown where street-oriented retail along a non-arterial road has been successful? Even downtown, retail has struggled on non-arterials like 104 Street.
    Last edited by East McCauley; 20-01-2015 at 08:27 PM.

  95. #95
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Phase 1, 2 &3.
    Kinda successful, zero through traffic.

  96. #96
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Phase 1, 2 &3.
    Kinda successful, zero through traffic.
    Phases of what? Where?

  97. #97
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    West Edmonton car-free retail place.

  98. #98
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,358

    Default

    I get the impression that some think this parcel is bigger than it really is.. It's a large piece for sure, but not large enough for roads or cul-de-sacs as some are wondering

    I see an extension of 107ave into the property with a connection across the tracks mid point along the north edge. I can't see it being a straight shot north from Jasper.

    Still not supporting a vehicle crossing though. But we'll have to see what the community consensus is. Maybe people do want it. We'll find out shortly

  99. #99
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,405

    Default

    I would love to see pedestrian crossings but a vehicle crossing would bring a whole lot of traffic commuter traffic there and I don't think that is what they want to have.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post

    Are you saying existing development along Stadium Road including Canadian Linen, Lafarge, and a busy park and ride lot is not positive? Preferable to having more vacant land which is what I fear would happen were they to close or be forced out.
    I'm under the impression they are preparing to move out. Better than vacant land maybe, but still not great use of land near an LRT station.

    Regarding the proposed "main street" through the Muttart lands, does anyone have an example anywhere outside of downtown where street-oriented retail along a non-arterial road has been successful? Even downtown, retail has struggled on non-arterials like 104 Street.
    Yeah, i agree. Even if there are just a few retail locations, this is all the more reason to provide limited vehicle access to Stadium Road , and not restrict it.

Page 1 of 4 1234 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
  •