Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 361

Thread: Renaming Connect2Edmonton to Connect2DowntownEdmonton

  1. #1

    Default Renaming Connect2Edmonton to Connect2DowntownEdmonton

    This place has lost its connection with most of the city. I feel its time to rename these forums "connect2downtownEdmonton" because apparently the rest of the city doesn't matter, and if you live/work anywhere but downtown, you opinion on this city doesn't need to be heard or respected.

    This forum has become further and further out of touch with anyone who doesn't live or work downtown that there just isn't much point to discussing anything here without the usual gang of super-elite-downtown-or-nothing-else boosters jumping down your throat.

    For the majority of Edmontonians, we don't work or live downtown. This city has a workforce close to 600,000 people, but yet... only about 80,000 of those work downtown.

    If this forum was a true collection of people from all walks of life, there would be more discussion on the city from a more holistic approach, instead, we have "downtown or **** off" approach... very productive to the 5% of the city that lives/works downtown, the rest of us? Just continue showing how far your in the sand your heads are...
    Last edited by Medwards; 26-10-2015 at 11:35 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    ^Rough monday morning?

    I don't think having a good downtown, means you can't have good suburbs. Great cities should have both. There are balance issues though, and different people will feel differently about which is the higher priority.

  3. #3
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,302

    Default

    Start some threads about your suburb and see if folks post in them. If people are interested you will have good and lively threads if not than you won't.
    I doubt anyone will go out of their way to pollute those threads with anything about downtown.
    Go for it or just keep trolling and complaining.

  4. #4
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,771

    Default

    I'll agree to a point. It's pretty trying when every time you try to discuss anything suburban, you're immediately met with 'well you shouldn't live so far from everything' or some comment about SUVs, Walmart, or McMansions.
    Last edited by Alex.L; 26-10-2015 at 01:41 PM.

  5. #5
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The success of downtown lifts all boats. The success of one suburb makes that one suburb nice.

    Suburbs are a great living environment for people who value that lifestyle. There are some issues (sprawl, monoculture development, cost of services and infrastructure etc), but I don't think anyone can legitimately say suburbs are intrinsically bad. They serve a purpose and they always will.

    That being said, the focus on downtown is for an obvious reason. The downtown is more important to the city than any one suburb. Urban cores are swiftly becoming the driver of all global cities, and it is imperative that we develop one to promote and protect our local economy.

  6. #6
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,926

    Default

    bad batch of corn flakes?

    don't like the downtown threads? don't read them.

    there's lots of threads on politics - municipal and provincial and federal - and transit - local and provincial, national and international - and on suburban shopping centres and suburban office buildings and sports teams and a host of other things to read and post in that aren't about downtown.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  7. #7

    Default

    I think the amount of continual discussion of WEM and EIA pretty much disproves the hypothesis here. Ft Ed, Northlands, T&T, Clareview, Meadows, Terwillegar, Commonwealth, Londonderry, Kingsway, Southgate, Capilano Mall, U of A, the Henday, the Yellowhead, Blatchford...

    Zero legitimate issue. People discuss what they want, several posters (frequent and infrequent) live and/or work in the burbs and bring their perspective (including me, by the way.) doesn't make us one anti-downtown team. Just the opposite, most of us are on the pro-Edmonton team, and it's perfectly fair to say Downtown has been a giant weakness tarnishing the image of the greater conurbation. Therefore most of us see the value of getting it competitive with the other five major cities we see.

    Perfectly reasonable that large buildings with large effects on the places we visit or have visited would be more interesting as well (see Clareview, Meadows, Terwillegar, Londonderry, Southgate, or any number of places Downtown).

    Even without planning to live on 103 Street, we can all see the effects of the tall residences on 104 Street, thus even residential projects like Ultima, Encore, Legends are clearly exciting too. (not to exclude tall projects on any other street, including Windermere.

    We're all discussing whatever interests us about Edmonton.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  8. #8
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post

    We're all discussing whatever interests us about Edmonton.
    True. I think the issue is when that posting turns into bashing another area, suburban or not. Nobody here can honestly deny that it has been happening more frequently.

  9. #9

    Default

    ???

    Honestly don't see it in the threads I keep up in (only about a quarter of active threads.) Can you point me examples?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post

    We're all discussing whatever interests us about Edmonton.
    True. I think the issue is when that posting turns into bashing another area, suburban or not. Nobody here can honestly deny that it has been happening more frequently.
    Actually Top_Dawg wishes there was a lot more hood bashing on C2E.

    Would provide a lot of amusing stereotypes and colorful anecdotes from around the Chuck.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post

    We're all discussing whatever interests us about Edmonton.
    True. I think the issue is when that posting turns into bashing another area, suburban or not. Nobody here can honestly deny that it has been happening more frequently.
    Medwards is normally the one to start the bashing and here he is whining about problems with people that he attacks any chance he gets.

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post

    We're all discussing whatever interests us about Edmonton.
    True. I think the issue is when that posting turns into bashing another area, suburban or not. Nobody here can honestly deny that it has been happening more frequently.
    Medwards is normally the one to start the bashing and here he is whining about problems with people that he attacks any chance he gets.
    I wasn't excluding him, or anybody else.

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    ???

    Honestly don't see it in the threads I keep up in (only about a quarter of active threads.) Can you point me examples?
    I'm not going to go digging, but it happens often. A lot of it in the form of little passive aggressive jabs. They add up though.

  14. #14

    Default

    I've long wondered if c2e couldn't increase its participation by creating starter threads for each neighbourhood in Edmonton.

  15. #15
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,505

    Default

    Medwards...Do you have a problem with C2E ?? if not, why bother change to connect2 downtownEdmonton ?

    Every member of this site here is very happy with the way in here.

    if you want the site to change the name, please create your own website or stick with it in here, that's your call.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Medwards...Do you have a problem with C2E ?? if not, why bother change to connect2 downtownEdmonton ?

    Every member of this site here is very happy with the way in here.

    if you want the site to change the name, please create your own website or stick with it in here, that's your call.
    Considering this city's population I've been surprised at the relatively low active membership. I think it's all about c2e's lack of exposure and not its lack of potential value to those who might log in.

  17. #17
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,167

    Default

    Is it low relatively speaking?

    As for a section for each community, we had looked at something like that a while back, simply not enough demand to warrant 97% of them.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Considering this city's population I've been surprised at the relatively low active membership. I think it's all about c2e's lack of exposure and not its lack of potential value to those who might log in.
    I'm actually surprised this place is still kicking at all, considering how poor the calibre of discussion & debate that takes place here combined with the ongoing legal issues & the Admin's health problems.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I'm actually surprised this place is still kicking at all, considering how poor the calibre of discussion & debate that takes place here...
    Well you will have to improve in that department. We look forward to improved contributions from you.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jagators63 View Post
    Medwards...Do you have a problem with C2E ?? if not, why bother change to connect2 downtownEdmonton ?

    Every member of this site here is very happy with the way in here.

    if you want the site to change the name, please create your own website or stick with it in here, that's your call.
    Hi Jagators63,

    Thanks for your post, but I highly disagree that every member is very happy with the way things are here. There's been a lot of posters that have simply been fed up with the constant "Downtown is everything, screw everyone else" attitude that is prevalent on many threads here and have stopped posting completely.

    As one of the original members of this site back in 2006 and a moderator of this site for most of those years, a lot has changed on these boards over those almost 10 years. There's a group of users that team up on anyone point of view that isn't downtown centric. There seems to be a common belief that the only point of focus any discussion should be is about downtown, and when someone tries to talk about anything else to improve this city, we are beaten down with "well you chose to not live downtown, so just suck on those eggs"
    this site has become so out of touch with the average Edmontonian that its just idling by with the same few users, and not attracting anyone new. The discussions become stale unless you support to given mantra of "downtown, downtown, downtown" and look down on anyone outside of downtown.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well you will have to improve in that department. We look forward to improved contributions from you.
    Ah, the ol' ad hominem attack. Proving my point in spades, PRT.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  22. #22

    Default

    So, here we have, yes, another downtown thread.

    Personally, I don't see a problem with downtown boosterism. It's where most of the big identifiable, landmark-style development and spending occurs and where the executive/bureaucratic (public and private) does their business. However the downtown boosters should recognize that they may be in a minority in their lifestyle 'choice' and that downtown is essentially anti-family and anti-industry so much of the city's real action occurs in the surrounding/suburban neighbourhoods and industrial areas.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Well you will have to improve in that department. We look forward to improved contributions from you.
    Ah, the ol' ad hominem attack. Proving my point in spades, PRT.
    Boy, some people can't take a joke. Do you know what this symbol is ?

    It is a wink, a poke, a jab, a funny. Chill
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    So, here we have, yes, another downtown thread.

    Personally, I don't see a problem with downtown boosterism. It's where most of the big identifiable, landmark-style development and spending occurs and where the executive/bureaucratic (public and private) does their business. However the downtown boosters should recognize that they may be in a minority in their lifestyle 'choice' and that downtown is essentially anti-family and anti-industry so much of the city's real action occurs in the surrounding/suburban neighbourhoods and industrial areas.
    I dont have a problem with smart* downtown boosterism either. The part I have problems with is where it leaks in to other threads, or where the usual gang of downtown boosters pollute other threads, or stifle conversation when a suggested improvement to our city is met with "it would be better downtown" or "You should live downtown if you want good (-) service" or "You should be punished for living where you live, since its not downtown"

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Boy, some people can't take a joke. Do you know what this symbol is ?
    "I can't be offensive! I added a smiley! See! Right there!"
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  26. #26
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Grandin 2014--, Garneau 2012-2014, North Downtown 2006-2012
    Posts
    3,230

    Default

    I see it most often when there is a rumour of a business building something that is not downtown. "That should be downtown!" people here say, whether or not the nature of the enterprise is entirely suitable for that (i.e., needs loading docks, uses lots of blue collar workers, etc.).

    There are reasons for various types of industries to want to be further out where they have less interference with their building design, etc. In fact, businesses building should be a source of celebration rather than a "that siding is the wrong colour", "too short" kvetching.

  27. #27
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,167

    Default

    I dont have a problem with smart* burb boosterism either. The part I have problems with is where it leaks in to other threads, or where the usual gang of suburban dwellers pollute other threads, or stifle conversation when a suggested improvement to our city is met with "we need a new freeway" or "that new power centre is going to be a great addition to our fair city" or "why live centrally with all of those needles, criminals, diversity, eclectic , no parking, bistros, gastropubs, river valley at your door front, who needs all of those festivals so close to you, you can't walk or use transit and must have a car everything'.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Boy, some people can't take a joke. Do you know what this symbol is ?
    "I can't be offensive! I added a smiley! See! Right there!"
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    I dont have a problem with smart* burb boosterism either. The part I have problems with is where it leaks in to other threads, or where the usual gang of suburban dwellers pollute other threads, or stifle conversation when a suggested improvement to our city is met with "we need a new freeway" or "that new power centre is going to be a great addition to our fair city" or "why live centrally with all of those needles, criminals, diversity, eclectic , no parking, bistros, gastropubs, river valley at your door front, who needs all of those festivals so close to you, you can't walk or use transit and must have a car everything'.
    Exactly IanO proving my point! Thanks for your contributions again, similar to the ones we find in suburban threads. Great post! Awesome!

  30. #30
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,167

    Default

    ... actually I was supporting your point in a few ways.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  31. #31

    Default

    I kinda feel the same as Medwards. I try to bring up topics that are important to me, while trying to be objective about what can make Edmonton a great city, and I feel like any suggestion that doesn't specifically improve downtown, access to downtown, or a car-free lifestyle gets a fair amount of unnecessary flak.

    Objectivity is often lacking across the entire forum, whether it be southsiders who dislike northsiders, fringe folks that don't care for downtown, the downtown boosters that laugh at the suburbanites, or the anti-gentrification folks that desire affordable eclectic neighbourhoods vs homogenized yuppie renewal.

    Everyone has different needs and desires. Isn't the goal to discuss ways to try and rationalize those instead of knocking them?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  32. #32
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Thinking about this topic more. I think we need more discussion on place-making in new areas. Particularly given that more and more fringe developments ARE high-density, and have the potential to be great mixed use areas with walkability.

    Many other cities have vibrant, interesting areas outside of the core. In Canada think Vancouver and Toronto. You can make suburbs great. They don't have to be bland, monoculture curvilinear swaths of amnesia-inducing sadness.

    So perhaps we need more discussions on place-making. How do you give suburbs and greenfield developments a sense of place? How do you make them into "that area", instead of just another greenfield community? For a start, I think more focus given to interesting mixed-use cores - think a mini-main street in every suburb. Smaller retail bays that fit in the community well instead of the single big-box outlet surrounded by parking lots.

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    They don't have to be bland, monoculture curvilinear swaths of amnesia-inducing sadness.
    The thing is, a lot of the people who live in these suburbs really don't see them that way, and the mindset above is exactly what I think Medwards was talking about when he created this thread.

    The idea that the suburbs are terrible and need to be fixed...when people are flocking here for exactly what they already are. They're a clean slate. Placemake all you want, but don't do it under the guise of making them more 'downtowny'.

    Also, maybe just leave the placemaking/community-building to the people who actually live in the area. I'm already working on it. Building a 'little free library' for an area where there are under-utilized benches, clearing snow from the pond so the community can go skating at their leisure, and the list goes on.

  34. #34
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I kinda feel the same as Medwards. I try to bring up topics that are important to me, while trying to be objective about what can make Edmonton a great city, and I feel like any suggestion that doesn't specifically improve downtown, access to downtown, or a car-free lifestyle gets a fair amount of unnecessary flak.

    Objectivity is often lacking across the entire forum, whether it be southsiders who dislike northsiders, fringe folks that don't care for downtown, the downtown boosters that laugh at the suburbanites, or the anti-gentrification folks that desire affordable eclectic neighbourhoods vs homogenized yuppie renewal.

    Everyone has different needs and desires. Isn't the goal to discuss ways to try and rationalize those instead of knocking them?
    The hard part is that there is no objective "Great".

    To some it's tall buildings downtown, to others it's impressive freeway interchanges or LRT lines, but to most of us it's mostly that we wish that more neighbourhoods/districts/destinations were more like how we like them.

    You "great" city might be busier than mine or grow faster than mine or have more new stuff. One person's "great" city would be more affordable while another's would have more attractions and fancier amenities. There are some for whom that great city is nothing more than a great place to have a job or invest and then escape to elsewhere.

    And yes, sometimes those great cities are in direct conflict and can't be rationalized or synthesized.

  35. #35
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    They don't have to be bland, monoculture curvilinear swaths of amnesia-inducing sadness.
    The thing is, a lot of the people who live in these suburbs really don't see them that way, and the mindset above is exactly what I think Medwards was talking about when he created this thread.

    The idea that the suburbs are terrible and need to be fixed...when people are flocking here for exactly what they already are. They're a clean slate. Placemake all you want, but don't do it under the guise of making them more 'downtowny'.

    Also, maybe just leave the placemaking/community-building to the people who actually live in the area. I'm already working on it. Building a 'little free library' for an area where there are under-utilized benches, clearing snow from the pond so the community can go skating at their leisure, and the list goes on.
    Suburbs certainly have no monopoly on sadness, and none is so monotonous as Jaerdo says, at least when you get down to the fine scale of neighbours, but people are not flocking here for our suburbs any more than they are for our downtown.

    And there really are larger scale design problems in many of our newer neighbourhoods that cannot be fixed with any number great neighbours, micro amenities or front-yards-in-bloom.

    Things like suburban street networks that are incompatible with efficient transit or poor quality crosswalks on too-wide neighbourhood collectors are absolutely everyone's business, both because we all pay for mitigation and because the alternative is to relegate some people or some neighbourhoods to second-class status and not care that whole swaths of the city are designed to be inhospitable to the poor, to seniors who can't drive, to people with mobility challenges.

    I suppose in many ways it is the clean slate that makes it somewhat urgent. It's not acceptable that we do things badly when we know better. My neighbourhood is full of heaved sidewalks and missing curb cuts, but those are 60 year old mistakes. It's when it's a new mistake that it hurts the most.

  36. #36
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    This place has lost its connection with most of the city. I feel its time to rename these forums "connect2downtownEdmonton"
    Downtown For Everyone forum, please and thank you!
    “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

  37. #37
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,853
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The name of the forum is not going to change to Connect2downtownedmonton or anything like that...


    However...

    Medwards brings up points that I have heard for years now...and Alex.L is also bringing up others that many people who want to, or would love to contribute, often say.

    They're tired of being treated like eco killers because they want single family detached homes with their piece of grass. They're tired of being called bland and boring when they see exactly the opposite. They're tired of being shouted down when they say they like a car. They're tired of being accused of being subsidized and somehow sucking the life out of the city...when it is the decisions of the city that have killed downtown more than any suburb or mall.

    They've tried...and they get treated like crap more often than not...so they leave.

    They've also had some of their own slags back...so it is not one sided...

    Don't even start with our rural neighbours...mention rural and they are derided and decried as subsidy laden, lazy, car loving rednecks.

    A metaphor for this forum vs the rest of the city/province is back in the election thread. If C2E were to determine the outcome of the last federal election, given the results of the poll included in the thread, we'd be an ocean of red and orange.

    ...we're not. Alberta is a big blue sea...

    So, while there are many other factors at play...that result alone tells me that this site needs to work harder at attracting others to it...for we are DEFINITELY not reflecting the diverse population that is Edmonton...
    Tired of being taken advantage of .

  38. #38

    Default

    ^In the words of the most profilic poster here: Bingo!

  39. #39

    Default

    I used to be one of the most rabid, pro-downtown urban advocates when I first joined the forum, but as time & life went on I kinda grew out of it. It's amazing what a little time & a little empathy can do to soften views & open eyes. Coming back after an extended absence from C2E was certainly jarring, but I think that's mostly due to my own changes as most of the posters (Matt being an exception) are banging the exact same drum at the exact same rhythm they always have. There's never any real debate or discussion, just the same bullet points repeated over & over. That's why I've got a good chunk of the "prime" posters on ignore, if only to stop hearing them hammer away at their same narrow point over & over.

    Now I'm looking for houses outside of the core for when my fiancée moves to town. I'm fortunate that my circumstances allow me to look at infill & developed neighborhoods or I'd likely be making the run to the "fringes" of town. Kids aren't ever going to be part of the equation but as much as I love Oliver, it can't provide me with the housing options we want going forward. Maybe Blatchford can, but I don't think my timelines are in sync with theirs. But I am not gonna come to C2E to discuss various neighborhoods, plans, builders or whatnot. I simply don't trust most of the posters to give me a rational, well-reasoned & relevant set of responses. Not any more & there's enough of them to pull any meaningful discussion off the rails in short order. There's not much of my Edmonton here to connect to & frankly the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

    Fun anecdote: When my father-in-law did some research on Edmonton he insisted on my other half not only getting her driver's licence, but getting it while she's still in Sweden & on his dime. He wasn't about to let her move to a place so utterly car-centric without the best preparation he could give her.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  40. #40

    Default

    I can't agree with Medwards. There's plenty of balance on this board. Sure, the arguments over "lifestyle" choices are rote in the extreme (and you can smell those coming within two posts) but I'm happy to gather plenty of info about parts of the city I rarely visit as a result of hanging around here.

    I enjoy Medwards for being a sharp stick. Much of the downtown boosterism that goes on can be navel gazing, New Urbanist, Richard Florida junk bond selling. That being said, nothing is worth a bigger laugh than to hear posters claim there is some grand anti-car, anti-suburb agenda. There has been no more catered to, fretted over, pablum fed special interest in the last fifty years than the auto-centric, single family home dweller.

    I guess what I'm saying is... Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya...

  41. #41

    Default

    Unfortunately, this site has greater structural problems than a real or perceived downtown bias.

    Boredom is contagious.

  42. #42
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post

    The thing is, a lot of the people who live in these suburbs really don't see them that way, and the mindset above is exactly what I think Medwards was talking about when he created this thread.

    The idea that the suburbs are terrible and need to be fixed...when people are flocking here for exactly what they already are. They're a clean slate. Placemake all you want, but don't do it under the guise of making them more 'downtowny'.

    Also, maybe just leave the placemaking/community-building to the people who actually live in the area. I'm already working on it. Building a 'little free library' for an area where there are under-utilized benches, clearing snow from the pond so the community can go skating at their leisure, and the list goes on.

    Sheesh guys, I was talking about the design, not the people. I grew up in a suburban area, I know the benefits and I know that the people can make it nice. That being said, it is ridiculous to suggest we don't have a problem with the design of suburbs. Just as it would be ridiculous to suggest that our downtown has no problems.

    I was trying to make a positive post suggesting that we should apply the same thought process as we do with downtown to all areas.

    Seems to me that you guys don't actually want to discuss suburbs at all.

    maybe just leave the placemaking/community-building to the people who actually live in the area.
    If you think that, why bother with threads like this? You either think there is too much focus on downtown, or you want to leave suburbs out of the discussion. You can't have it both ways. Like it or not, there ARE issues with suburbs involving bland placemaking (again, referring to the monoculture design), environmental issues, fiscal issues in servicing etc. Just like there are many, many problems downtown that we routinely discuss.

    Part of being constructive is looking critically at your area and suggesting how we can improve it. Given that Edmonton has a strong pressure on greenfield developments, I see this as a great place to try out new, pioneering ideas in suburban development. It isn't constructive or even reasonable to shut down every critique of suburbs. We don't shut down every critique of downtown. In fact, we're usually the ones bringing them up.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 28-10-2015 at 07:57 AM.

  43. #43
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,771

    Default

    My mistake. I read your post more like "let's make suburbs exciting destinations!" Rather than "let's fix the issues everyone understands are present in every neighbourhood built since 1970"

  44. #44

    Default

    Can we rename it after Stephen Harper? I hear it is all the rage.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    The name of the forum is not going to change to Connect2downtownedmonton or anything like that...


    However...

    Medwards brings up points that I have heard for years now...and Alex.L is also bringing up others that many people who want to, or would love to contribute, often say.

    They're tired of being treated like eco killers because they want single family detached homes with their piece of grass. They're tired of being called bland and boring when they see exactly the opposite. They're tired of being shouted down when they say they like a car. They're tired of being accused of being subsidized and somehow sucking the life out of the city...when it is the decisions of the city that have killed downtown more than any suburb or mall.

    They've tried...and they get treated like crap more often than not...so they leave.

    They've also had some of their own slags back...so it is not one sided...

    Don't even start with our rural neighbours...mention rural and they are derided and decried as subsidy laden, lazy, car loving rednecks.

    A metaphor for this forum vs the rest of the city/province is back in the election thread. If C2E were to determine the outcome of the last federal election, given the results of the poll included in the thread, we'd be an ocean of red and orange.

    ...we're not. Alberta is a big blue sea...

    So, while there are many other factors at play...that result alone tells me that this site needs to work harder at attracting others to it...for we are DEFINITELY not reflecting the diverse population that is Edmonton...
    I think a certain personality type likely prevails on such forums. So by no means will it ever reflect the diversity of, or even the majority in, Edmonton.

  46. #46

    Default

    Personally as someone who have lived in rural areas, suburban, and urban. I dislike the amount of rural bashing, and to that a lesser amount of suburban bashing we do see here.

    My preferred lifestyle is urban, however there are many good things and many bad things with any of these lifestyles. (i have not tried the whole Rurban thing) bad things with each lifestyle.

    And yes maybe some lifestyles cost the municipality in different ways, urban areas necessitate high capacity transit and that high costs, suburban has utility distribution and roadway costs that are usually in the long run a net negative on income, and rural areas use a lot of fuel and gain benefits that they don't directly pay an urban municipality for.

    But they all have good points too. Urban areas cost less per capita for residential living, suburban has what most people consider the best environment for children to grow up along with the largest parks, and rural areas provide positive externalites in the way of nature and eco tourism, (lakes and whatnot), taking in the undesirable industries like agriculture, power generation and processing anything urban people traditionally don't want in their back yard.

    Bashing against any of these is not good and we have too much bashing going on here.

  47. #47

    Default

    I think some of us are starting to see the bigger picture here. We need to all work together and build an Edmonton for everyone.

    My thread was meant to get a reaction. I'm getting the reaction I hoped for.

  48. #48
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,167

    Default

    Clearly we need to do a better job at building our entire City, although we have made some good strides in many area, but we continue to make the same 'mistakes' in many areas.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly we need to do a better job at building our entire City, although we have made some good strides in many area, but we continue to make the same 'mistakes' in many areas.
    I wish you wouldn't use the word "mistakes". We have made many great strides in this city to building the urban environment, but "mistakes" hardly. Growing pains? Yes. Lessons learned along the way? Clearly. We don't build things the same way anymore as we have in the past. Our suburbs are built much more sustainable than we have in the past. Our growth is mostly smart growth. We need more infill incentives throughout the city. Putting down people because they live in one part of the city or another just needs to stop, if we ever want to have a productive forum here that encompasses more than just the desires and wishes for a few very vocal downtown residents.
    We need transportation options. We need housing options. We need to look at the city and this region together, and stop building up silo's of this downtown vs inner city vs suburbs vs exurbs vs rural regions. We all live here and need to function well together to be stronger.

    We need to build a city that functions well for all walks of life, not just for suits heading to the core.

    Edmonton for Everyone*
    Last edited by Medwards; 28-10-2015 at 03:43 PM.

  50. #50
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Putting down people because they live in one part of the city or another just needs to stop,....
    'Course special caveat for Camel Downs.

    Still open season on them all the time.


  51. #51
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657
    "The only really positive thing one could say about Vancouver is, it’s not the rest of Canada." Oink (britishexpats.com)

  52. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    A metaphor for this forum vs the rest of the city/province is back in the election thread. If C2E were to determine the outcome of the last federal election, given the results of the poll included in the thread, we'd be an ocean of red and orange.

    ...we're not. Alberta is a big blue sea...

    So, while there are many other factors at play...that result alone tells me that this site needs to work harder at attracting others to it...for we are DEFINITELY not reflecting the diverse population that is Edmonton...
    That's exactly it. I've always maintained that the C2E membership is not representative of Edmonton at all. Although the problem is probably not so much attracting as it is retaining new members. And it's making new members feel like they belong that's going to make all the difference in the world.

    I'm an old member, and I've long felt like I don't belong here, but I'm stubborn. Most other people are not.

  53. #53

    Default

    If you all want to post threads about suburban issues, then go for it. Nobody is stopping anyone from doing so.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    If you all want to post threads about suburban issues, then go for it. Nobody is stopping anyone from doing so.
    It's not about an imbalance between suburban vs downtown threads. It's about the imbalance between viewpoints among the membership. If the membership leans too much to a certain viewpoint on any forum, it's going to discourage people from posting opposing viewpoints.

    A healthy forum has a healthy balance in its membership. Otherwise it just becomes an old boys club.

  55. #55

    Default

    You think I don't know that?

    I see a bunch of forumers whining and complaining without doing anything, which is pathetic.

    Do I have to start conversations about different kinds/styles of suburban houses?
    Do I have to start conversations about what to do with a backyard?
    Do I have to start conversations on interior design?
    Do I have to start conversations about community leagues?

    I could, but I don't want to because I am personally not interested in suburban discussion, and I am not getting paid to do so.

    There are lurkers that do want to talk about those things, you just have to give them a reason to contrubute.

    Or we can all be lazy and let the newspapers start the conversations for us

    If you want change, MAKE IT HAPPEN!
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  56. #56
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly we need to do a better job at building our entire City, although we have made some good strides in many area, but we continue to make the same 'mistakes' in many areas.
    what do you mean by "'mistakes'"? and by "many areas" for that matter? this is exactly the kind of innuendo we need less of, not a continuation of. unless maybe you're talking about downtown? we've made more mistakes there in the last half century than the rest of the city combined.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    You think I don't know that?

    I see a bunch of forumers whining and complaining without doing anything, which is pathetic.
    But that's what talk back radio is, and C2E is. Its not pathetic, its just an outlet / conversation. We all do things in our lives that have impacts, but we all dream of things as well.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    You think I don't know that?

    I see a bunch of forumers whining and complaining without doing anything, which is pathetic.

    Do I have to start conversations about different kinds/styles of suburban houses?
    Do I have to start conversations about what to do with a backyard?
    Do I have to start conversations on interior design?
    Do I have to start conversations about community leagues?

    I could, but I don't want to because I am personally not interested in suburban discussion, and I am not getting paid to do so.

    There are lurkers that do want to talk about those things, you just have to give them a reason to contrubute.

    Or we can all be lazy and let the newspapers start the conversations for us

    If you want change, MAKE IT HAPPEN!
    Honestly, I'm not sure you got the point. You're still talking about starting different kinds of threads.

    I'm more concerned about one viewpoint overpowering all others in any thread, and thereby discouraging those opposing viewpoints. It doesn't matter what the thread is about.

  59. #59
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    A metaphor for this forum vs the rest of the city/province is back in the election thread. If C2E were to determine the outcome of the last federal election, given the results of the poll included in the thread, we'd be an ocean of red and orange.

    ...we're not. Alberta is a big blue sea...

    So, while there are many other factors at play...that result alone tells me that this site needs to work harder at attracting others to it...for we are DEFINITELY not reflecting the diverse population that is Edmonton...
    That's exactly it. I've always maintained that the C2E membership is not representative of Edmonton at all. Although the problem is probably not so much attracting as it is retaining new members. And it's making new members feel like they belong that's going to make all the difference in the world.

    I'm an old member, and I've long felt like I don't belong here, but I'm stubborn. Most other people are not.


    If you want the average Albertan perspective, rename this site into "Connect2DodgeRam" and scrap all urban design, economic, political, and otherwise intellectual discussion. The vast majority of people don't care about these things, and I'm happy we have a site where the people that do can have discussions.

    Frankly Vincent, it seems to me that you don't want a site that represents the average Albertan. You want a site where no one disagrees with you. I should hope that we collectively say you can find your echo chamber elsewhere. If you want to discuss things, you should be prepared to defend them against other people who disagree.

    I vehemently disagree with a lot of people that post here, and get my fair share of insults and name calling (my economic perspective isn't exactly popular, and some people are plain nasty), but I still like discussing things with the number of people who engage topics on an intellectual level. Even if I disagree with them.

  60. #60

    Default

    I don't want a site where no one disagrees with me. That would be boring. I would just like it to be more representative of the mix of opinions that make up Edmonton.

  61. #61
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly we need to do a better job at building our entire City, although we have made some good strides in many area, but we continue to make the same 'mistakes' in many areas.
    what do you mean by "'mistakes'"? and by "many areas" for that matter? this is exactly the kind of innuendo we need less of, not a continuation of. unless maybe you're talking about downtown? we've made more mistakes there in the last half century than the rest of the city combined.
    Ken, I hope I do not have to explain this to you of all people.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    You think I don't know that?

    I see a bunch of forumers whining and complaining without doing anything, which is pathetic.

    Do I have to start conversations about different kinds/styles of suburban houses?
    Do I have to start conversations about what to do with a backyard?
    Do I have to start conversations on interior design?
    Do I have to start conversations about community leagues?

    I could, but I don't want to because I am personally not interested in suburban discussion, and I am not getting paid to do so.

    There are lurkers that do want to talk about those things, you just have to give them a reason to contrubute.

    Or we can all be lazy and let the newspapers start the conversations for us

    If you want change, MAKE IT HAPPEN!
    Honestly, I'm not sure you got the point. You're still talking about starting different kinds of threads.

    I'm more concerned about one viewpoint overpowering all others in any thread, and thereby discouraging those opposing viewpoints. It doesn't matter what the thread is about.
    You missed my point, create threads that encourage ppl with different viewpoints to get involved.
    Edmonton first, everything else second.

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly we need to do a better job at building our entire City, although we have made some good strides in many area, but we continue to make the same 'mistakes' in many areas.
    what do you mean by "'mistakes'"? and by "many areas" for that matter? this is exactly the kind of innuendo we need less of, not a continuation of. unless maybe you're talking about downtown? we've made more mistakes there in the last half century than the rest of the city combined.
    Ken, I hope I do not have to explain this to you of all people.
    Could you possibly be any less self-aware Ian? Cripes man.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  64. #64
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,269

    Default

    The people out yonder have kids, yards, snow shovelling, gardens, larger homes, cars, trucks, motorhomes, campers, hockey practice, dance lessons, barbecue with relatives, older family member to entertain and look after, shopping big time, jobs, small busineses, tools, supplies, animals to look after, and a million other things to do and look after. Maybe they have better things to do than write in blogs. Wish I had a life. lol

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    The people out yonder have kids, yards, snow shovelling, gardens, larger homes, cars, trucks, motorhomes, campers, hockey practice, dance lessons, barbecue with relatives, older family member to entertain and look after, shopping big time, jobs, small busineses, tools, supplies, animals to look after, and a million other things to do and look after. Maybe they have better things to do than write in blogs. Wish I had a life. lol
    I'm a Yonderer! Love it. It is a very busy, fruitful existence. (Just got back from the elementary school 5 minutes ago and heading back in 1/2 an hour. Spent last night downtown learning about school councils and fundraising societies - not many people there and I'm not sure if anyone came from a downtown school.)
    Last edited by KC; 30-10-2015 at 01:44 PM.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly we need to do a better job at building our entire City, although we have made some good strides in many area, but we continue to make the same 'mistakes' in many areas.
    Not sure what you mean by 'mistakes'.
    Each family/person has different needs so where they live is usually very important to them. A couple with two kids may want a back garden for kids to play in, a modern school to meet the needs of the electronic age, roads with easy access to get them to work, other kids living in the area, crescents where kids can play hockey, ride bikes, basketball etc. They tend to be in the suburbs. A young single person may want to live in a downtown high rise because they don't want a garden to have to upkeep or a path to shovel in the winter. They may not want to get a car and walk or bus to work. Life isn't a one size fits all situation. There is a need for downtown spaces just as there is one for suburban living. Just remember, at one time Oliver probably was suburbia and Westmount would have been 'The Stix'.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  67. #67

    Default

    The typical downtown attitude is that if you don't live downtown or just off whyte, you're pretty much a mistake.


    this is exactly what this thread is about.

  68. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly we need to do a better job at building our entire City, although we have made some good strides in many area, but we continue to make the same 'mistakes' in many areas.
    what do you mean by "'mistakes'"? and by "many areas" for that matter? this is exactly the kind of innuendo we need less of, not a continuation of. unless maybe you're talking about downtown? we've made more mistakes there in the last half century than the rest of the city combined.
    Ken, I hope I do not have to explain this to you of all people.
    I'm hoping you do explain yourself. What ever do you mean by mistake? Several curious people are waiting.

  69. #69

    Default

    IanO has nothing to apologize for. A simple acknowledgement that mistakes have been made in the development of "many areas" of our city is utterly benign. Just because we happen to know what part of town a poster lives in doesn't mean we get to ascribe all kinds of inferences to simple statements.

    Gemini, your pastoral descriptions of suburban shangri-la are exactly the "social engineering" David Staples is so fearful of in his column about Blatchford. Oh sorry, I forgot, only faceless "bureaucracies" can engage in "social engineering" not those faces-to-the-wind, rebel hearted, private developers just givin' the people what they want.

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    The typical downtown attitude is that if you don't live downtown or just off whyte, you're pretty much a mistake.


    this is exactly what this thread is about.
    Tried very hard to resist saying this, but you are such a simpleton.

    I LIVE AND WORK IN THE ******* SUBURBS.

    DOWNTOWN IS THE PART OF THE CITY THAT MOST NEEDS FIXING.




    Get over your ******* ego.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  71. #71

    Default

    nice one JayBee - on par with many of your other great contributions to discussions here.

  72. #72

    Default

    ^ sorry, can't read. you're on my ignore list. I'll give you six months to ferment or whatever you do, and try again.

    No idea how you flushed your brain. I swear you used to contribute.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  73. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    IanO has nothing to apologize for. A simple acknowledgement that mistakes have been made in the development of "many areas" of our city is utterly benign. Just because we happen to know what part of town a poster lives in doesn't mean we get to ascribe all kinds of inferences to simple statements.

    Gemini, your pastoral descriptions of suburban shangri-la are exactly the "social engineering" David Staples is so fearful of in his column about Blatchford. Oh sorry, I forgot, only faceless "bureaucracies" can engage in "social engineering" not those faces-to-the-wind, rebel hearted, private developers just givin' the people what they want.
    Who said it was Shangri-La?. Suburbia is what it is. Sure it's not perfect but it's pleasant enough people can live there. I'm sure looking over the river valley from a downtown 16th. floor high rise is pleasant but it's not Shangri-La.
    Last edited by Gemini; 30-10-2015 at 06:29 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  74. #74

    Default

    And another thing, those clamouring for the board to better represent Edmonton based on the results of the federal election should perhaps start doing Sudoko or something to improve memory function. We did after all just elect a MAJORITY NDP government in this province, right?

    And the reason we have an under representation of surrounding rural perspectives? There ain't that many of them. They're all moving to cities. Much like our collective delusion that navigating your immediate environment insulated by two tonnes of steel and at 30km an hour is sane, we must realize that Alberta is an urban province. Many of us might pretend we live in the country, but we like living in cities.

  75. #75

    Default

    Regardless of the provincial election, the majority of Edmontonians are not left of center.

  76. #76
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly we need to do a better job at building our entire City, although we have made some good strides in many area, but we continue to make the same 'mistakes' in many areas.
    what do you mean by "'mistakes'"? and by "many areas" for that matter? this is exactly the kind of innuendo we need less of, not a continuation of. unless maybe you're talking about downtown? we've made more mistakes there in the last half century than the rest of the city combined.
    Ken, I hope I do not have to explain this to you of all people.
    yes IanO, you do indeed need to explain what you mean and not rely on innuendo alone to "save" you from your own opinions.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    ^ sorry, can't read. you're on my ignore list. I'll give you six months to ferment or whatever you do, and try again.

    No idea how you flushed your brain. I swear you used to contribute.
    That's funny - how would you even i was replying to you if i was on ignore. You sound a lot like my five year old nephew

  78. #78
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    Regardless of the provincial election, the majority of Edmontonians are not left of center.
    Of course they aren't. Based on the locally defined centre - that is, the only one that matters in the local context, 50% are right and 50% are left.

    On an alberta- scale we're left, on a Canada-scale we're a bit right, North America we're left, anglosphere we're left, global west we're probably a bit right and, of course, on a global scale the various left-right scales are all so little poorly that it's difficult to be sure if we're right or left of "communist" china.
    Last edited by highlander; 30-10-2015 at 09:31 PM.

  79. #79
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ Pretty much all regimes on Earth are "left-centre", if you want to use the right to left scale. We are mostly all mixed-market social democracies. The only difference is in the composition and direction of intervention.

    In Alberta, I would suggest that most people are further left than they identify themselves as. This is obvious when you look at municipal vs. provincial/federal elections. Municipally, we mostly all vote further left than we do provincially and federally. This is because municipally, we are forced to actually read platforms. Municipal politicians don't have a big "I am conservative" sign, so we read what they stand for and vote accordingly.

    Surprisingly, when Albertans have to read platforms, they generally vote to the left. However, when they have a party to vote for, they identify as conservative and believe they are conservative, and thus vote further right. Always within the "centre-left" spectrum on a political theory level, but interesting nonetheless. Identity politics in action.

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ Pretty much all regimes on Earth are "left-centre", if you want to use the right to left scale. We are mostly all mixed-market social democracies. The only difference is in the composition and direction of intervention.

    In Alberta, I would suggest that most people are further left than they identify themselves as. This is obvious when you look at municipal vs. provincial/federal elections. Municipally, we mostly all vote further left than we do provincially and federally. This is because municipally, we are forced to actually read platforms. Municipal politicians don't have a big "I am conservative" sign, so we read what they stand for and vote accordingly.

    Surprisingly, when Albertans have to read platforms, they generally vote to the left. However, when they have a party to vote for, they identify as conservative and believe they are conservative, and thus vote further right. Always within the "centre-left" spectrum on a political theory level, but interesting nonetheless. Identity politics in action.
    Is this post and sidebar really necessary on this thread topic?

    Lately I've seen the board be so infected with political discourse that it reminds me that two things that are a mistake to discuss with friends, families, coworkers, neighbors or acquaintances is such things as politics or religion. Most boards recognize this and attempt to pre-empt such discussion due to the related discord which is an automatic given.

    This place is unclear. Due to such acceptance of related topics it fosters disagreement, infighting, even hostility as emotive topics nearly always end up spawning division. I say unclear because a "connect" to Edmonton board should be about building alliance, connection, discussion, and not furthering discord.

    This board in due course is loaded with flaming, sarcasm, unpleasant discord with apology to those here that are pleasant enough to have discussion with.
    That said when I post here I do so mindful that somebody is making the effort to present this board as something people can post on. I respect as well the attempt at free form discussion that this board has allowed. I just think that this forum has served as yet another case example that discussing religion and politics is often a bad idea that basically loads subsequent conflict.

    This is not a poli sci board. Its really not. maybe is should stop allowing such threads and posting which are so obviously divisive. That politics has been discussed over several posts in this thread really invokes how much this board has been co-opted by those that are merely using this board to disseminate, if even spam, their own political discourse and agenda.
    Last edited by Replacement; 01-11-2015 at 02:31 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  81. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex.L View Post

    The thing is, a lot of the people who live in these suburbs really don't see them that way, and the mindset above is exactly what I think Medwards was talking about when he created this thread.

    The idea that the suburbs are terrible and need to be fixed...when people are flocking here for exactly what they already are. They're a clean slate. Placemake all you want, but don't do it under the guise of making them more 'downtowny'.

    Also, maybe just leave the placemaking/community-building to the people who actually live in the area. I'm already working on it. Building a 'little free library' for an area where there are under-utilized benches, clearing snow from the pond so the community can go skating at their leisure, and the list goes on.

    Sheesh guys, I was talking about the design, not the people. I grew up in a suburban area, I know the benefits and I know that the people can make it nice. That being said, it is ridiculous to suggest we don't have a problem with the design of suburbs. Just as it would be ridiculous to suggest that our downtown has no problems.

    I was trying to make a positive post suggesting that we should apply the same thought process as we do with downtown to all areas.

    Seems to me that you guys don't actually want to discuss suburbs at all.

    maybe just leave the placemaking/community-building to the people who actually live in the area.
    If you think that, why bother with threads like this? You either think there is too much focus on downtown, or you want to leave suburbs out of the discussion. You can't have it both ways. Like it or not, there ARE issues with suburbs involving bland placemaking (again, referring to the monoculture design), environmental issues, fiscal issues in servicing etc. Just like there are many, many problems downtown that we routinely discuss.

    Part of being constructive is looking critically at your area and suggesting how we can improve it. Given that Edmonton has a strong pressure on greenfield developments, I see this as a great place to try out new, pioneering ideas in suburban development. It isn't constructive or even reasonable to shut down every critique of suburbs. We don't shut down every critique of downtown. In fact, we're usually the ones bringing them up.
    I don't follow your earlier comment about suburbs and as a result I'm not following this one. How should suburbs be different? What would make them "improved". Lacking that your posts come off as just a different way to critique suburbs and suburban choice.

    This is the mode, clearly people like the mode, are in favor of the mode, and move there.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  82. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Clearly we need to do a better job at building our entire City, although we have made some good strides in many area, but we continue to make the same 'mistakes' in many areas.
    what do you mean by "'mistakes'"? and by "many areas" for that matter? this is exactly the kind of innuendo we need less of, not a continuation of. unless maybe you're talking about downtown? we've made more mistakes there in the last half century than the rest of the city combined.
    Ken, I hope I do not have to explain this to you of all people.
    yes IanO, you do indeed need to explain what you mean and not rely on innuendo alone to "save" you from your own opinions.
    Maybe it was a mistake that IanO open his mouth.

  83. #83
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    asia
    Posts
    2,558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ Pretty much all regimes on Earth are "left-centre", if you want to use the right to left scale. We are mostly all mixed-market social democracies. The only difference is in the composition and direction of intervention.

    In Alberta, I would suggest that most people are further left than they identify themselves as. This is obvious when you look at municipal vs. provincial/federal elections. Municipally, we mostly all vote further left than we do provincially and federally. This is because municipally, we are forced to actually read platforms. Municipal politicians don't have a big "I am conservative" sign, so we read what they stand for and vote accordingly.

    Surprisingly, when Albertans have to read platforms, they generally vote to the left. However, when they have a party to vote for, they identify as conservative and believe they are conservative, and thus vote further right. Always within the "centre-left" spectrum on a political theory level, but interesting nonetheless. Identity politics in action.
    Is this post and sidebar really necessary on this thread topic?

    Lately I've seen the board be so infected with political discourse that it reminds me that two things that are a mistake to discuss with friends, families, coworkers, neighbors or acquaintances is such things as politics or religion. Most boards recognize this and attempt to pre-empt such discussion due to the related discord which is an automatic given.

    This place is unclear. Due to such acceptance of related topics it fosters disagreement, infighting, even hostility as emotive topics nearly always end up spawning division. I say unclear because a "connect" to Edmonton board should be about building alliance, connection, discussion, and not furthering discord.

    This board in due course is loaded with flaming, sarcasm, unpleasant discord with apology to those here that are pleasant enough to have discussion with.
    That said when I post here I do so mindful that somebody is making the effort to present this board as something people can post on. I respect as well the attempt at free form discussion that this board has allowed. I just think that this forum has served as yet another case example that discussing religion and politics is often a bad idea that basically loads subsequent conflict.

    This is not a poli sci board. Its really not. maybe is should stop allowing such threads and posting which are so obviously divisive. That politics has been discussed over several posts in this thread really invokes how much this board has been co-opted by those that are merely using this board to disseminate, if even spam, their own political discourse and agenda.
    I think it would be pretty hard to avoid discussing politics on a board like C2E, given that Edmonton issues are inevitably going to be influenced by what's happening with the municipal, provincial, and to a lesser extent federal, governments.

    For purely political topics unrelated to Edmonton issues(eg. "What do you think of Justin Trudeau's economic policies?"), it might be an idea to make any such discussion off-limits, EXCEPT in the forums designated for that purpose. So, for example, if a thread on the arena starts to drift into how stingy the provincial government is, the posters will be instructed to take that over to the Alberta Politics Forum.

  84. #84
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    I don't follow your earlier comment about suburbs and as a result I'm not following this one. How should suburbs be different? What would make them "improved". Lacking that your posts come off as just a different way to critique suburbs and suburban choice.

    This is the mode, clearly people like the mode, are in favor of the mode, and move there.

    My point is that the people complaining that C2E is too focused on downtown should be discussing their own areas if they want that to change. You can't say that your area is being ignored, then blow up and throw a tantrum any time someone points out the problems in your backyard. If you read the downtown threads, you'll see that almost every one is a response to issues downtown. We seek out and identify the problems downtown, then discuss how to solve them. Of course I'm going to point out the problems in suburbs, because the problems exist and need to be solved. Just like the downtown has problems that need to be solved.

    On suburbs I have several ideas on how to improve in design. First is a more intelligent street pattern that promotes active transportation and reduces the strain on our government for services and infrastructure. A hybrid-grid pattern with dispersed mixed-use streets along arterials, properly placed walking paths connecting the area, and municipal and provincial community infrastructure (rec centre, school etc) placed centrally to service multiple areas within active transportation distance.

    Also, please note that I don't object to people choosing this "mode". However, there are currently a great deal of unsubstantiated costs associated with it. People should feel free to choose any lifestyle, but they should also pay the full price they are costing society. Currently just in municipal services alone (environmental, time, infrastructure strain not accounted), people living in a condo downtown subsidize people living in a single family detached home. That isn't fair. Therefore, we should either change the design of suburbs, or create a property taxation subclass to account for the costs.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 02-11-2015 at 08:00 AM.

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    I don't follow your earlier comment about suburbs and as a result I'm not following this one. How should suburbs be different? What would make them "improved". Lacking that your posts come off as just a different way to critique suburbs and suburban choice.

    This is the mode, clearly people like the mode, are in favor of the mode, and move there.

    My point is that the people complaining that C2E is too focused on downtown should be discussing their own areas if they want that to change. You can't say that your area is being ignored, then blow up and throw a tantrum any time someone points out the problems in your backyard. If you read the downtown threads, you'll see that almost every one is a response to issues downtown. We seek out and identify the problems downtown, then discuss how to solve them. Of course I'm going to point out the problems in suburbs, because the problems exist and need to be solved. Just like the downtown has problems that need to be solved.

    On suburbs I have several ideas on how to improve in design. First is a more intelligent street pattern that promotes active transportation and reduces the strain on our government for services and infrastructure. A hybrid-grid pattern with dispersed mixed-use streets along arterials, properly placed walking paths connecting the area, and municipal and provincial community infrastructure (rec centre, school etc) placed centrally to service multiple areas within active transportation distance.

    Also, please note that I don't object to people choosing this "mode". However, there are currently a great deal of unsubstantiated costs associated with it. People should feel free to choose any lifestyle, but they should also pay the full price they are costing society. Currently just in municipal services alone (environmental, time, infrastructure strain not accounted), people living in a condo downtown subsidize people living in a single family detached home. That isn't fair. Therefore, we should either change the design of suburbs, or create a property taxation subclass to account for the costs.
    Oh, so the standard arguments then when asked to clarify. Thanks.

    However, in the actual thread you chose to state such things as this:

    " If you want the average Albertan perspective, rename this site into "Connect2DodgeRam" and scrap all urban design, economic, political, and otherwise intellectual discussion"
    and

    "Many other cities have vibrant, interesting areas outside of the core. In Canada think Vancouver and Toronto. You can make suburbs great. They don't have to be bland, monoculture curvilinear swaths of amnesia-inducing sadness."
    Thereby invoking personal opinion and stereotyping instead of the "intellectual" discussion you self proclaim to be interested in.

    If I could counter your posts in the thread are serving as examples of what the OP raised in the thread. While you are ironically questioning anybody that might happen to agree with some facet of the OP.
    Last edited by Replacement; 02-11-2015 at 08:59 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  86. #86
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I am absolutely questioning anyone who agrees with OP, because I think this entire thread is whiny BS. The only people you have to blame for not enough discussion of suburbs are yourselves.

    The entire issue here isn't some "anti-suburb" conspiracy. The issue is a group of people who throw tantrums and try to shut down discussions every time suburbs are criticized. Suburbs have real issues. I stand by my comment on the design of suburbs, because no matter how much the good people who live there improve them, a superior design would make them infinitely better.

    As I've stated many times, good discussion happens from building off of criticism. The people here who you are all claiming orchestrate some anti-suburb agenda spend far more time criticizing their own neighbourhood than yours. We don't have our heads stuck so far up our rear ends that we think the downtown is perfect.

    FYI - the dodge comment was in response to the idea that we should make C2E more representative of the 'average Albertan'. The point being that no one on this site is an "average Albertan", because the average person just doesn't care about the things discussed here.

  87. #87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    I think the amount of continual discussion of WEM and EIA pretty much disproves the hypothesis here. Ft Ed, Northlands, T&T, Clareview, Meadows, Terwillegar, Commonwealth, Londonderry, Kingsway, Southgate, Capilano Mall, U of A, the Henday, the Yellowhead, Blatchford...

    Zero legitimate issue. People discuss what they want, several posters (frequent and infrequent) live and/or work in the burbs and bring their perspective (including me, by the way.) doesn't make us one anti-downtown team. Just the opposite, most of us are on the pro-Edmonton team, and it's perfectly fair to say Downtown has been a giant weakness tarnishing the image of the greater conurbation. Therefore most of us see the value of getting it competitive with the other five major cities we see.

    Perfectly reasonable that large buildings with large effects on the places we visit or have visited would be more interesting as well (see Clareview, Meadows, Terwillegar, Londonderry, Southgate, or any number of places Downtown).

    Even without planning to live on 103 Street, we can all see the effects of the tall residences on 104 Street, thus even residential projects like Ultima, Encore, Legends are clearly exciting too. (not to exclude tall projects on any other street, including Windermere.

    We're all discussing whatever interests us about Edmonton.
    You asked earlier for somebody to provide examples of where discussion becomes centric or biased.

    lets leap back on to some quotes on the Meadows Rec Center thread for illustration;

    It is too bad that the surrounding area is so unimpressive and uninspiring:
    More car-centric sprawl.
    "Inspirational" residential developments nearby indeed...
    Building wonderful recreation facilities on the city fringe while closing down or reducing services at central facilities like Scona pool is an inducement for sprawl.
    THIS!!!!

    How about some funding to redevelop the Oliver rink and pool...

    ^or reinvest this kind of money in central neighbourhood rec centres similar to the rehabilitation of the roadways/sidewalks.
    but I am worried that these mega centres (similar to super box centres) will mean closure of neighbourhood rinks, pools, etc.
    Oliver rink/pool downtown desperately needs to be overhauled and could become a huge draw centrally, but it seems as though it is being left to die most of the times.
    The above being a large segment of posts from that thread and with the basic inference that this shouldn't be build in Meadows, it should be built somewhere Central, somewhere downtown.

    You don't see any operative bias in any of those comments that would dissuade some from wanting to participate here, or in that thread, or that would question that their interests are even reasonably accepted by those that post on this board.

    That thread is picture perfect illustration of Centric shoe should fit all thinking that goes on in this board. Basically summed up being "Why the hell is Meadows getting this, it should be in Downtown, Oliver, whatever.."
    Last edited by Replacement; 02-11-2015 at 09:32 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  88. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post

    I don't follow your earlier comment about suburbs and as a result I'm not following this one. How should suburbs be different? What would make them "improved". Lacking that your posts come off as just a different way to critique suburbs and suburban choice.

    This is the mode, clearly people like the mode, are in favor of the mode, and move there.

    My point is that the people complaining that C2E is too focused on downtown should be discussing their own areas if they want that to change. You can't say that your area is being ignored, then blow up and throw a tantrum any time someone points out the problems in your backyard. If you read the downtown threads, you'll see that almost every one is a response to issues downtown. We seek out and identify the problems downtown, then discuss how to solve them. Of course I'm going to point out the problems in suburbs, because the problems exist and need to be solved. Just like the downtown has problems that need to be solved.

    On suburbs I have several ideas on how to improve in design. First is a more intelligent street pattern that promotes active transportation and reduces the strain on our government for services and infrastructure. A hybrid-grid pattern with dispersed mixed-use streets along arterials, properly placed walking paths connecting the area, and municipal and provincial community infrastructure (rec centre, school etc) placed centrally to service multiple areas within active transportation distance.

    Also, please note that I don't object to people choosing this "mode". However, there are currently a great deal of unsubstantiated costs associated with it. People should feel free to choose any lifestyle, but they should also pay the full price they are costing society. Currently just in municipal services alone (environmental, time, infrastructure strain not accounted), people living in a condo downtown subsidize people living in a single family detached home. That isn't fair. Therefore, we should either change the design of suburbs, or create a property taxation subclass to account for the costs.
    People living downtown subsidize people living in single family detached homes? Care to quantify that? I pay taxes. You pay taxes. we all pay taxes. This is the exact attitude that is wrong with c2e. You think that because you live in a downtown condo, you are hollier than the rest of us? How much do you think you subsidize my single family detatched house and how are you arriving at such an ill-gotten conclusion?

  89. #89
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ It is a very simple function. Suburbs cost more per capita to service and provide infrastructure for than core areas. Despite this, both areas pay the same property tax rate. Ergo, people with equal property values in the core subsidize those in suburbs, as they receive less funding in return than the suburban resident.

    http://thecostofsprawl.com/report/SP...ct2013_opt.pdf

    Governments and their taxpayers absorb many of the costs of development directly and in future infrastructure liabilities. Municipalities can pay a significant financial cost for sprawling development. Sprawling suburban development requires new infrastructure and thus new capital spending. When a new development is approved on the fringes, municipalities get additional property tax revenues, but they also pick up new costs, including liability for future infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs that continue indefinitely, and rise over time. In the initial wave of sprawl, these costs were not understood.

    Development charges help municipalities recover some of these costs from developers but not all of them. Municipalities are beginning to understand the burden these costs place on their communities. In Edmonton, for instance, the City picks up all the capital costs of fire and police stations, and portions of some roads and recreation facilities. It also covers all the costs of maintenance, repair and renewal of the infrastructure, including pipes and roads. The costs to Edmonton of new suburban developments will exceed revenues – by a very large margin. Across just 17 of more than 40 new planned developments, costs to the City are expected to exceed revenues by nearly $4 billion over the next 60 years.
    I don't know how you can state it any more clearly. The cost of servicing new areas is greater than the revenues collected from them in both property taxes and development charges. That money has to come from somewhere, and that means that established areas are subsidizing new ones.




    This whole line of conversation is so indicative of the problem on this site. A few people throwing a big fit over criticisms of suburbs, and refusing to have meaningful discussion about their area. Ironic given the thread's subject...

    Back to my point on how to improve suburbs, the City's analysis of the cost of new areas proves my argument (though I think we should go further and add in environmental and indirect infrastructure cost for new developments, which the report does not):

    The analysis of neighbourhoods, presented in Attachment 3, containing predominately residential uses with a typical mix of densities indicates expected costs are generally greater than the expected direct revenues from taxes and user fees. The ratio of costs to revenues can vary depending on the land use mix and density. A higher percentage of commercial/industrial uses and/or higher residential densities generates a smaller ratio of costs to revenues, and occasionally have revenues that exceed expenditures
    http://www.chba.ca/uploads/urban_cou...on%20paper.pdf
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 02-11-2015 at 10:07 AM.

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    No idea how you flushed your brain. I swear you used to contribute.
    Give me a f'ing break. The exact same line is applicable to you, SDM, IanO & just about everyone with an pre-2008 start date. Including me. I think the only person who has maintained or improved his posting style is Bulliver who's honed his shots to a keen edge. The rest of us, not so much.

    The sheer hubris & lack of empathy most of the posters have on this board truly embodies my current personal motto for Edmonton.

    "F you, I got mine."
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post

    This whole line of conversation is so indicative of the problem on this site. A few people throwing a big fit over criticisms of suburbs, and refusing to have meaningful discussion about their area. Ironic given the thread's subject...
    give me a fvcking break. I disagreed with your synopsis and this to you is 'refusing to have a meaningful conversation'? You seem to be quick to judge without more consideration of the facts. Kinda funny that when ever there has been criticism of downtown, or suggestions on how to improve downtown its met with disdain, hardship and other wonderful things that happen on c2e.
    The suburbs may in part be 'subsidized', but downtown living isn't as cheap as you make it out to be for the city. You would think that downtown is ready to support another 10, 20k of people as it is? There's no massive billions of dollar improvement needed to fix the sewer system? Who's going to pay for that? Just downtown? Come on man.
    Last edited by Medwards; 02-11-2015 at 10:17 AM.

  92. #92

    Default

    Monday morning's are full of happy people...

  93. #93
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^^ I don't have any problem accepting the problems with and drawbacks of downtown, and I don't often see other people shut down discussion about those problems. Some of the most routine subjects on C2E include poor urban design for transportation, lackluster architecture, the dearth of family-friendly accommodation, crime/safety/vandalism, poor public domain maintenance, lack of small business units and vitality, lack of people on the street outside business hours, etc etc etc. All about downtown.

    As for the cost of infrastructure - I don't think you should move 20k people into any area overnight. Rather, you should have gradual increases in population with infrastructure upgrades happening as development charges - that way the property owners pay for them as they happen.

    I also support the majority of growth going into mature areas around the core through infill, and also in TODs. Not all in downtown.

  94. #94
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    4,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    The sheer hubris & lack of empathy most of the posters have on this board truly embodies my current personal motto for Edmonton.

    "F you, I got mine."


    Not at all exclusive to Emmonchuck.

    Pretty much global.


  95. #95
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    These yearly "has c2e jumped the shark" threads are always fun.
    be offended! figure out why later...

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^^ I don't have any problem accepting the problems with and drawbacks of downtown, and I don't often see other people shut down discussion about those problems. Some of the most routine subjects on C2E include poor urban design for transportation, lackluster architecture, the dearth of family-friendly accommodation, crime/safety/vandalism, poor public domain maintenance, lack of small business units and vitality, lack of people on the street outside business hours, etc etc etc. All about downtown.

    As for the cost of infrastructure - I don't think you should move 20k people into any area overnight. Rather, you should have gradual increases in population with infrastructure upgrades happening as development charges - that way the property owners pay for them as they happen.

    I also support the majority of growth going into mature areas around the core through infill, and also in TODs. Not all in downtown.
    the mature areas, infill, TODs can only contain so many people. It doesn't address the needs and wants of many people, and for many, living centrally increases commute times, pushing them further away from their places of employment isn't a good thing, as the majority of our workforce works on the fringes of the city, not the core. Our employment nodes are spread across the region.

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ It is a very simple function. Suburbs cost more per capita to service and provide infrastructure for than core areas. Despite this, both areas pay the same property tax rate. Ergo, people with equal property values in the core subsidize those in suburbs, as they receive less funding in return than the suburban resident.

    http://thecostofsprawl.com/report/SP...ct2013_opt.pdf

    Governments and their taxpayers absorb many of the costs of development directly and in future infrastructure liabilities. Municipalities can pay a significant financial cost for sprawling development. Sprawling suburban development requires new infrastructure and thus new capital spending. When a new development is approved on the fringes, municipalities get additional property tax revenues, but they also pick up new costs, including liability for future infrastructure maintenance and replacement costs that continue indefinitely, and rise over time. In the initial wave of sprawl, these costs were not understood.

    Development charges help municipalities recover some of these costs from developers but not all of them. Municipalities are beginning to understand the burden these costs place on their communities. In Edmonton, for instance, the City picks up all the capital costs of fire and police stations, and portions of some roads and recreation facilities. It also covers all the costs of maintenance, repair and renewal of the infrastructure, including pipes and roads. The costs to Edmonton of new suburban developments will exceed revenues – by a very large margin. Across just 17 of more than 40 new planned developments, costs to the City are expected to exceed revenues by nearly $4 billion over the next 60 years.
    I don't know how you can state it any more clearly. The cost of servicing new areas is greater than the revenues collected from them in both property taxes and development charges. That money has to come from somewhere, and that means that established areas are subsidizing new ones.




    This whole line of conversation is so indicative of the problem on this site. A few people throwing a big fit over criticisms of suburbs, and refusing to have meaningful discussion about their area. Ironic given the thread's subject...

    Back to my point on how to improve suburbs, the City's analysis of the cost of new areas proves my argument (though I think we should go further and add in environmental and indirect infrastructure cost for new developments, which the report does not):

    The analysis of neighbourhoods, presented in Attachment 3, containing predominately residential uses with a typical mix of densities indicates expected costs are generally greater than the expected direct revenues from taxes and user fees. The ratio of costs to revenues can vary depending on the land use mix and density. A higher percentage of commercial/industrial uses and/or higher residential densities generates a smaller ratio of costs to revenues, and occasionally have revenues that exceed expenditures
    http://www.chba.ca/uploads/urban_cou...on%20paper.pdf
    These are the typical rationales that postulate that sprawl is an arduous burden to municipalities that simultaneously engage in appropriating land and battling competing municipalities and counties for the valuable land tracts across the globe.

    Could even be argued that it is a case example of actions speaking louder than words.

    It would seem that even locally the amount of increasing sprawl and land appropriation that if not engaged in by Edmonton, would so readily be picked up by surrounding towns, cities, and counties, would argue the opposite of what the cited studies state. That in fact the sprawl and the development is a new tax godsend to whatever jurisdiction manages to land it.

    Further, sprawl allows cities like Edmonton to further their civic self interests in appropriating more land and even in arguing that competing jurisdictions lands and interests should be its own.

    Next, accrual of land and added population results in a city with much more draw, power, and ironically in Edmonton with some of the most lucrative commercial power centers found in the Nation occupying areas of "suburban sprawl" that is claimed to result in limited tax base..


    Additionally any argument that suggests that any new area of sprawl is a net negative cost on the city is using the bias of a present time stamped analysis on what that new areas actually bring. It is of course shortsighted to argue that a newly developed area will be an ongoing net cost to any municipality. Of course with time and build up and expanding population and such things as TOD's such areas will transform like prior "suburbs" transformed in density, housing types, retail, business sectors etc. Remembering that places like Oliver, Glenora, Arguably Strathcona, Bonnie Doon, could be conceived at one time as suburban burden sprawl. Which leads to an argument on where the line is drawn and what areas now, or in the future will represent cost burden or which will represent benefit to the city. The extension of your logic is that any appropriation of new areas is to be avoided and that the City of Edmonton would have done well to avoid that at all costs throughout its history and maintained interests in Downtown Edmonton while Leduc, Parkland, Strathcona, St. Albert, etc, appropriated much of the highly valued lands. In which case would Edmonton even be the large City it is now and the site of the Provincial Government and the Provincial University. Ironically built outside its original boundaries.

    Finally, suburban sprawl, in Canada, not too surprisingly offers highly sought after and desired residential potential for immigrants many of whom come from crowded lands who think that its wonderful to come to this country and have space and a place to raise children and further this great nation. Who will continue to settle suburban "monoculture" areas as you label them, but which in reality are some of the most welcoming, and inclusive, and multicultural represented neighborhoods for these newcomers and their families. A bit of irony to your arguments perhaps. Quite easy to surmise your use of the term monoculture in describing local suburbs was at best not very well thought out.
    Last edited by Replacement; 02-11-2015 at 12:24 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  98. #98
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ First off, appropriation does not equal expansion. In fact, appropriation must often be done to prevent expansion. If the City does not control the land, they cannot pass plans restricting growth into it. I agree that the City does not appear to particularly care about following their own growth plans though, and I routinely criticize them for it.

    Secondly, "monoculture" refers to the build pattern. When I say "monoculture suburb", it means a sea of single family detached homes. Monoculture suburbs are unequivocally bad for the environment, the economy, and the fiscal state of their government jurisdiction. This is something that is a hard fact. They cost us a lot, in many different ways.

    Third, I completely recognize that suburbs serve a purpose. I just think that we should build more sustainable suburbs, and charge all people in all areas a property tax rate that is indexed to the cost of providing services to them.

    I'm not suggesting that people who live in suburbs are bad, or that all suburbs are bad. I think it is bad that we create a perverse incentive for bad suburban design (be it commercial power centres or monoculture single family detached burbs) through subsidization of artificially low property tax rates, and loose controls on design.

    the mature areas, infill, TODs can only contain so many people. It doesn't address the needs and wants of many people, and for many, living centrally increases commute times, pushing them further away from their places of employment isn't a good thing, as the majority of our workforce works on the fringes of the city, not the core. Our employment nodes are spread across the region.
    Again, I'm not against suburbs. I'm against bad suburban design, and artificially low property tax rates. To add to the latter, I'm against artificially low rates in any area - be it the core or the burbs. All property tax rates should be indexed to the cost of services provided to said property being taxed.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 02-11-2015 at 12:27 PM.

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    ^ First off, appropriation does not equal expansion. In fact, appropriation must often be done to prevent expansion. If the City does not control the land, they cannot pass plans restricting growth into it. I agree that the City does not appear to particularly care about following their own growth plans though, and I routinely criticize them for it.

    Secondly, "monoculture" refers to the build pattern. When I say "monoculture suburb", it means a sea of single family detached homes. Monoculture suburbs are unequivocally bad for the environment, the economy, and the fiscal state of their government jurisdiction. This is something that is a hard fact. They cost us a lot, in many different ways.

    Third, I completely recognize that suburbs serve a purpose. I just think that we should build more sustainable suburbs, and charge all people in all areas a property tax rate that is indexed to the cost of providing services to them.

    I'm not suggesting that people who live in suburbs are bad, or that all suburbs are bad. I think it is bad that we create a perverse incentive for bad suburban design (be it commercial power centres or monoculture single family detached burbs) through subsidization of artificially low property tax rates, and loose controls on design.

    the mature areas, infill, TODs can only contain so many people. It doesn't address the needs and wants of many people, and for many, living centrally increases commute times, pushing them further away from their places of employment isn't a good thing, as the majority of our workforce works on the fringes of the city, not the core. Our employment nodes are spread across the region.
    Again, I'm not against suburbs. I'm against bad suburban design, and artificially low property tax rates. To add to the latter, I'm against artificially low rates in any area - be it the core or the burbs. All property tax rates should be indexed to the cost of services provided to said property being taxed.
    I'd like to know your formula for indexing the cost of services provided to various areas. Most of what you write is based on how we build suburbs in the yesterday. Come to my neighbourhood for a tour, I'll show you the differences (Ambleside). It's no longer just a sea of single family homes. Quite the opposite. It's time to update your misguided opinion on new suburbia, which is a lot different than what was built prior to 2005.
    Last edited by Medwards; 02-11-2015 at 02:44 PM.

  100. #100
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ The City can and has partaken in accounting studies that measure the cost of delivering services by neighbourhood. Those studies should be annual, and should inform the property tax rate in each area.

    I've been to Ambleside. I have family right across the Henday from there. It is an improvement (you even have a couple faux fused-grid park connections in there!), but nowhere near even the new global standard of sustainable suburban design. I'm not going to say it is bad, but there definitely isn't anything to write home about.

    Get rid of the radburn-style curvilinear streets with incomprehensible designs and switch to a proper street hierarchy, build walking infrastructure that is designed to lead somewhere rather than just back and forth, and incorporate mixed uses and varying residential types in a more seamless manner, then we can talk.

    Edit: I should say I have to be careful with that area, because I automatically associate it with the Windermere power centre. That place is an unmitigated disaster. Huge lost potential.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 02-11-2015 at 03:13 PM.

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
  •