Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 224

Thread: Edmonton Central Park

  1. #1
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default Edmonton Central Park

    Hey guys; so I've been hearing rumblings that the city is looking to develop concepts of a new Downtown Central Park. I understand that the idea is in it's infancy and there's quite likely very little in the way of renderings - but I was curious; is the idea to locate this project in and around Jasper House and that fountain tire? If so, how large would it possibly be?

    I recently purchased in Monaco 2 which overlooks something of a parking lot wasteland so I something of a passion developing around taking this city to the next level. In my opinion, eliminating these surface lots in this region will not only beautify this city; it will increase the property values and demand for other land surrounding such a project.

    Eventually I would like to take a more active role in the community - currently I am in the process of learning of the projects and getting to know everyone - including those I met at DECL the other day.

    Any and all information on this project would be great. Thank you!

    Regards
    Stevey G.

  2. #2

    Default

    Hi Stevey_G, welcome to the area!

    First I would read as much as you can from the current Capital City Downtown Plan. There is a bit in it about the central warehouse park.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/go_downtown/c...town-plan.aspx

    Next, you should know that the central warehouse park had a budget approved for land acquisition at last fall's capital budget debates (As part of the community revitalization levy or CRL):

    http://www.edmonton.ca/go_downtown/downtown-crl.aspx

    There are some graphics from the CCDP that could be posted if someone has the time.
    www.decl.org

  3. #3

    Default



    Approved in the Capital Budget 2015-18: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...20budget%20crl
    www.decl.org

  4. #4

    Default

    It sure would be great to see more green spaces and mini parks downtown. Little oasis's in the right places where office workers, visitors can have lunch etc. Go for it.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  5. #5
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post


    Approved in the Capital Budget 2015-18: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...20budget%20crl



    That's awesome. I'm gonna read through the downtown plan here and get up to speed on what's happening in my new community. Being a bit of a farmboy from out by Genesee, I'd love to help bring a piece of green-living to this city.

    Thanks for the direction to these links man. Future looks bright.

  6. #6
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    395

    Default

    New Central Park as proposed in the Jasper Avenue New Vision Project

    http://www.edmonton.ca/go_downtown/j...ew-vision.aspx

  7. #7

    Default

    Edmonton has had a Central Park for decades. In the river valley.

    The urban fetishists and downtown community-league hand-clappers have long abandoned it to the homeless.

    Just like the park in New York. Well, I guess that's one way they've "succeeded".

  8. #8
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Edmonton has had a Central Park for decades. In the river valley.

    The urban fetishists and downtown community-league hand-clappers have long abandoned it to the homeless.

    Just like the park in New York. Well, I guess that's one way they've "succeeded".
    You should have a one person show at the Citadel.
    Name it "hyperbole" or is that too literal? You can fluff it up with a few unnecessary adjectives if it suits your style better...

  9. #9
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Edmonton has had a Central Park for decades. In the river valley.

    The urban fetishists and downtown community-league hand-clappers have long abandoned it to the homeless.

    Just like the park in New York. Well, I guess that's one way they've "succeeded".
    Just out of curiosity; what would you do different? Not to stray off the topic of a park in the core, but how would you solve said issues?

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Edmonton has had a Central Park for decades. In the river valley.

    The urban fetishists and downtown community-league hand-clappers have long abandoned it to the homeless.

    Just like the park in New York. Well, I guess that's one way they've "succeeded".
    You should have a one person show at the Citadel.
    Name it "hyperbole" or is that too literal? You can fluff it up with a few unnecessary adjectives if it suits your style better...
    Awhh the poor IanO defender is on the attack here.

  11. #11

    Default

    You guys make C2E terrible.
    www.decl.org

  12. #12

    Default

    The discussion on how to reverse homelessness belongs elsewhere. As I've already said in the threads devoted to it, the way to fight it is to put the homeless to work, using incentives and where these fail conscription.

    As for the other point, we've been through all of this before. Any proposed parks downtown will certainly become the same as all existing parks downtown -- where you would not allow your children to be alone outside lunch hour -- because the downtown residents do not consider the reality of downtown streets bad, but a feature. The rest of us do not.
    Last edited by AShetsen; 30-11-2015 at 12:44 PM.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    You guys make C2E terrible.
    Right back atcha.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  14. #14

    Default

    There are great planning reasons for having this park. It's not about where we are. It's where we're going. Part of an award winning downtown plan. We know how to induce development as well. Unfortunately if you're not interested in learning about urban planning or the research behind it your comments come across as ignorant to many. And not particularly helpful. Just negative for the sake of being negative.
    www.decl.org

  15. #15

    Default

    A lot of that proposed park space north of Jasper Ave has no correlation to the footprint of existing buildings.

  16. #16

    Default

    Jasper New Vision document is a bit out of date, location of the park is meant as a guide only.
    www.decl.org

  17. #17
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Edmonton has had a Central Park for decades. In the river valley.

    The urban fetishists and downtown community-league hand-clappers have long abandoned it to the homeless.

    Just like the park in New York. Well, I guess that's one way they've "succeeded".
    1. We have a great central river valley, which has parks, but this is something different...
    2. Hardly and bravo on your ridiculous comment.
    3. Have you been been to Central Park? It is incredible.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  18. #18

    Default

    The problem -- which is public spaces get taken over by undesirable elements -- is deeper than downtown boosterism. Until it's addressed, optimistic progressivism is just words.

  19. #19

    Default

    ^Agree there are some safety concerns, and homelessness issues. It's just not a good enough reason not to go ahead with the park. Or the psychology and urban planning behind why having the park is a good thing in terms of Downtown living in general.
    www.decl.org

  20. #20
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Everyone's entitled to an opinion I guess. I have a difficult time saying homeless people have no right to leave back alleys however; not to mention you can build parks and develop procedures to minimize homelessness hand in hand. We are maturing as a city and learning these things as we grow. It's a process. But to neglect improvements to the core out of fear of bringing them out of the shadows just doesn't seem logical to me.

  21. #21
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,299

    Default

    "We can't have nice things because of homeless people" - should be the city's new slogan
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  22. #22
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Too late, they already adopted "We can't have nice things because people might actually use them" with blatchford.

  23. #23

    Default

    So how do we make this happen?

  24. #24

    Default

    Depends where they are with land acquisition (ie. see post #3).
    www.decl.org

  25. #25
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vincent View Post
    So how do we make this happen?
    I thought I'd try and reach out to Scott Mckeen. I actually haven't met him yet and I wanted to hear his opinions on converting gravel lots to green space. The more people reach out about it, the more it's discussed, the more likely it is to become a reality.

  26. #26
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,253

    Default

    Bingo.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  27. #27

    Default

    I've reached out to Maryann Dabrinski, the profile manager as listed in post #5, for an update. I'll let y'all know if I get a response.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Too late, they already adopted "We can't have nice things because people might actually use them" with blatchford.
    we can't have nice things because we can't take care of what we already have, ie: Beaverhills park.

  29. #29
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Too late, they already adopted "We can't have nice things because people might actually use them" with blatchford.
    we can't have nice things because we can't take care of what we already have, ie: Beaverhills park.
    Beaverhills and Alex Decoteau would become small parts of this park. If you have a Central Park that covers 40% of your downtown core, then you will need enforcement and public works to dedicate to it.

    I agree on Beaverhills though. I shouldn't have been surprised when I almost stepped on a needle showing a friend around downtown last week but I was.

  30. #30
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,253

    Default

    Beaverhills needs some love and it will be coming given its age. Unfortunate, but they are around... although considerably less than in past years. During DECL cleanups of mid to late 2000s we would have many many bio-hazards items, last year we had almost none.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  31. #31
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Beaverhills needs some love and it will be coming given its age. Unfortunate, but they are around... although considerably less than in past years. During DECL cleanups of mid to late 2000s we would have many many bio-hazards items, last year we had almost none.
    People I've become acquainted with downtown have told me that in years past; particularly the early 2000s, that it was too sketchy to walk around at night. Icon's came around and with people came enforcement.

    One thing I have come to keep in objective mind is that every city I have gone to has these elements in it's central districts. Buenos Aires, Tokyo, New York City, L.A, Vancouver, Toronto, Cairo, London, etc. They're all considered breathtaking world cities and their "drug park" issues run far more rampant then ours.

    If the park is to become a reality it will likely need dedicated peace officers to maintain it. You can look right down to the road and towards the Legislature grounds to see how effective it is.

  32. #32

    Default

    Didn't Beaverhills once have more mounds that obscured activities happening within it? And then those mounds were reduced or eliminated to open it up?
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  33. #33
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,253

    Default

    Correct, removed many years ago now to open it up, new lights and it is very safe now. Many people use it day and night.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  34. #34
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Correct, removed many years ago now to open it up, new lights and it is very safe now. Many people use it day and night.
    Now imagine a large-scale park tying the entire core together where people can do horse carriage rides in the winder with hockey rinks and a large Christmas Tree; all completely lit up so that as the Valley Line rides by from Mill Woods or West Edmonton Mall, people can redefine their image of the downtown every time they goto see a hockey game.

    That's how we embrace the Winter City in my eyes. Problem is; often people see the loss of Tax Revenue on these lots and potential developments. To me, creating the Identity is far more important.

  35. #35
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,253

    Default

    ^Churchill + ICE District and the connection along 103 will be just that.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  36. #36
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    ^Churchill + ICE District and the connection along 103 will be just that.
    I disagree. I actually believe that Ice District and Churchill could be ancillary sites in the entire image of the core as a whole.

    http://www.blogto.com/city/2016/08/t...downtown_park/

    When I see this; it does not immediately relate in my mind to things like Eaton's Centre or Toronto's entertainment districts. It puts in my head new aerial shots and a gathering importance of Park Space vs towering monoliths.

    I certainly feel it will make the surrounding developments around this particular park feel more like home.

    As I said before; doing this could be bigger than ICE district - socio-psychologically and in ways of attracting people downtown.

  37. #37

    Default

    From Maryann Debrinski, Director of Urban Renewal / Sustainable development, City of Edmonton:

    Hi Vincent,

    We are in the process of acquiring lands to assemble a large park in downtown Edmonton. Our goal is to assemble the land before the end of 2018. A capital budget request to develop the park will be included in the 2019-2022 Capital Budget as long as the Downtown Community Revitalization Levy has sufficient revenue to cover the debt servicing costs.

    Due to the sensitive nature of land negotiations we can not share any other details. Page 48/142 of the Capital City Downtown Community Revitalization Levy Plan has more information about the Warehouse Campus District (link:http://www.edmonton.ca/documents/PDF/SIGNED_BYLAW_16521_Reduced.pdf.)
    Last edited by Vincent; 22-08-2016 at 10:30 AM.

  38. #38

    Default

    They should target the seniors/retired population with some of the current and future parks. Throw down some chess, go, shuffleboard or bocce ball. Have some place to get cheap coffee. Then you have a stable population of regular people keeping eyes on the park. Seems to work this way in most cities I've visited.

  39. #39
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,253

    Default

    I would hope that the Central Park would have some active recreation, sport areas, a playground and other 'missing elements' within the core.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  40. #40
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    I would hope that the Central Park would have some active recreation, sport areas, a playground and other 'missing elements' within the core.
    Agreed. Walking trails, park benches, cheap coffee, shuffleboard, chess, go, bocce ball, etc are for old people. To combat sprawl and make downtown attractive for children and families you must also plan for children's amenities that are part of the environment and definitely are not family budget items.

  41. #41

    Default

    Thanks Vincent for doing the inquiry.
    www.decl.org

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwells View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    I would hope that the Central Park would have some active recreation, sport areas, a playground and other 'missing elements' within the core.
    Agreed. Walking trails, park benches, cheap coffee, shuffleboard, chess, go, bocce ball, etc are for old people. To combat sprawl and make downtown attractive for children and families you must also plan for children's amenities that are part of the environment and definitely are not family budget items.
    Sorry, I wasn't trying to exclude families. What I was leaning towards is to provide some of the tried and true amenities (even if they are for "old people") to boost the stable population of park patrons. Once you get that stable population up, families will be more inclined to bring their children.

    I don't know the politically correct way to phrase this. But outside of work hours and special events, I don't see a lot of families bringing their children to Beaver Hills Park, and it's not for the lack of slides.

  43. #43
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,253

    Default

    Alex Decoteau was specifically designed to have gardeners, dog folks, casual users, play folks and open to ensure people walk through it to maximize normal usage to keep eyes on the park at most hours.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  44. #44

    Default

    Christmas came early this year!




    The City is moving ahead with expropriation of land in the Warehouse Campus Area for a large Neighbourhood Park, as per the Capital City Downtown Plan.
    Recommended land to be expropriated will go to the Urban Planning Committee of City Council on Tuesday. $28m was approved by City Council in 2015 as part of the Community Revitalization Levy to pay for the expropriation.

    I'll try to post the reports later, unless someone else gets to it first.
    www.decl.org

  45. #45

    Default

    I do like this as an idea, but what a hodge-podge and discontinuous land to expropriate for a park, 107 street cuts right through it. Why not expropriate the entirety of block 6 for instance or at least everything north of the Jasper Ave facing lots of Block 6?

    Calgary's downtown has 3 parks I can think of that take up the entire block (albeit they typically have a heritage building occupying some of it: Harley Hotckiss Gardens, Mcdougall Centre block and Central Memorial Park), they are large and continuous and don't have awkward and ugly building abutments against them as seen in Beaverhills and the new Alex Decoteau park.

    If they are going through the effort of expropriating, they mine as well do it properly and have it as one continuous large park occupying a block.

  46. #46
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    I would say it's because they are procuring undeveloped parcels and as much as 28 million dollars sounds like a boat load of money? It's likely not enough to purchase developments, tear them down, and have some form of continuity. At least not from the get go. I feel like this park will expand in time but if it doesn't it is an AMAZING development for the Warehouse district which has largely been unrecognized.

    I'm biased though. My view is about to change.

  47. #47
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,299

    Default

    So if it costs $28M to expropriate this land then how much would it cost to acquire Frank Oliver Park in front of the Hotel Mac?
    “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

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    I would say it's because they are procuring undeveloped parcels and as much as 28 million dollars sounds like a boat load of money? It's likely not enough to purchase developments, tear them down, and have some form of continuity. At least not from the get go. I feel like this park will expand in time but if it doesn't it is an AMAZING development for the Warehouse district which has largely been unrecognized.

    I'm biased though. My view is about to change.
    That's what I figured as well in terms of plots of land without anything on them. I don't know what the solution here is, but it seems odd to corner some of these parcels for the sake of fitting a park in this land that happens to be vacant (like the vietnamese restaurant in block 7). The block 7 expropriation seems the oddest, if the land around it gets developed into high density buildings, the entire thing will be in the shade post-noon and will constantly have vehicles along it's western edge accessing those buildings from the alley - cars, deliveries, dumpsters. Abutting parks against alleys, in my opinion, don't make for desirable outdoor spaces.

  49. #49
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,299

    Default

    Doan's aka "the vietnamese restaurant in block 7" is still open - it's not a vacant lot.
    “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

  50. #50

    Default

    I should have worded that better: Meant that Doan's would be a parcel cornered by the park. Obviously it's not a vacant lot if it has a vietnamese restaurant on it

  51. #51
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective View Post
    I should have worded that better: Meant that Doan's would be a parcel cornered by the park. Obviously it's not a vacant lot if it has a vietnamese restaurant on it
    I would love to see a nice rectangular strip headed from Capital Centre to Beaverhills as well; but I understand they've only got so much money for expropriation and there's no budget defined yet for the actual construction of this project.

    I'm just so happy something is happening in my own community finally. The Dust-Bowl is a real eye sore with the potential to be an iconic landmark stop along the Valley Line.

  52. #52
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,073

    Default

    The roads could become dead ends allowing access to the buildings that don't get expropriated.

  53. #53

    Default

    Fantastic.

    Just another step for the CRL.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  54. #54

    Default

    It seems to me, based on that property map, that they must be planning on partially closing 107th so at least you can have contiguous park space without a road through the middle of it.

  55. #55

    Default

    If you feel strongly about this potential once in a lifetime opportunity for a park, please send a letter or quick note of support to [email protected].
    www.decl.org

  56. #56

    Default

    ^ done
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  57. #57

    Default

    Are there more details on this park development? Would love to see it go ahead. I can't seem to find information on it other than the blurb that was posted.

    Is it confirmed to go ahead and when does construction start?

  58. #58

  59. #59

    Default

    Doesn't sound like there is any major opposition from the landowners, which is good. This looks very likely to go ahead now, imo.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  60. #60
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Where ever Visa is accepted
    Posts
    4,415

    Default

    2 years past completion date + over budget.
    I'm having people over later to stare at their phones,if you want to drop by

  61. #61

    Default

    huh?
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  62. #62
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Pretty sure he meant to post that in the Walterdale topic.

    So we will have this entered around Beaverhills, A.D.P, and and the Norquest Quad

    That's a lot of greenspace just needs some three story Walkups with retail to build an urban village

  63. #63

  64. #64

    Default

    From the article:



    I don't recognize any of the buildings in this image. Where is Jasper Ave in this image? Where's the Boston Pizza?

  65. #65

    Default

    Jasper Ave is the bottom-most horizontal road, and the left-most vertical road that we can see the intersection with Jasper Ave is 109th street.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  66. #66
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    The top right corner is MacEwan at 104 ave and 109 street. The bottom left corner is the WSP Tower on Jasper Ave and 109 street.

  67. #67
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,593

    Default

    Ok, is it my imagination but in that render, I really don't see much park space. I see trees lining the streets, new buildings but not much continuous park space.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  68. #68

    Default

    That's an image from the Capital City Downtown Plan. It's not very representative of this park, but certainly gives some idea.

    Nothing is in stone about what this park is gonna look like, what happens with 107 Street and the like. Right now there's only money to acquire land. Any park concept development and consultations monies yet have to be provided by Council.
    www.decl.org

  69. #69

    Default

    Actually that image could be from Jasper Avenue New Vision, circa 2008ish
    www.decl.org

  70. #70
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Actually that image could be from Jasper Avenue New Vision, circa 2008ish
    Nobody should take that image with anything more than a grain of salt; it's just an artist's concept of what the area can be.

    What is really interesting to me is that they haven't dismissed a CoE owned parking lot underneath the park. That would provide sustainable funding for the expanson and maintenance of the park space long term. Instead of being a drain on tax revenue; this has the opportunity to become an equitable small cash venture for the city as well.

    guess it depends on how much something like that would cost up front.

  71. #71
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,253

    Default

    $20-30mil or so, but I really like the idea of an UG lot beneath the main part of the park, win win.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  72. #72

    Default

    ugh. I think we still have more than enough parking downtown. Why add more cost to this project. I say KISS.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits" - Einstein

  73. #73
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    $20-30mil or so, but I really like the idea of an UG lot beneath the main part of the park, win win.
    This will seriously hinder tree growth, if any trees are planned for the 'main' part as you describe it. If it is just a plaza, then I am fine with parkade underneath.

    Let's ensure there are some amazing water features in this park - I think that would be truly special.

  74. #74
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,253

    Default

    ^not necessarily... depth, design would mitigate, but yes, in all likelihood, KISS and forgo.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  75. #75
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,073

    Default

    A parkade underneath isn't such a bad idea. Works well here in Edmonton... but is there a need for more parking? Maybe. It's become pretty expensive to park downtown. Although public transit is great, it's not always the best option. It shouldn't be a luxury only available to the rich. Downtown is for everyone isn't it? I don't expect to pay $2 a night anymore. But paying $25 for a night out is a bit much.

  76. #76

    Default

    Parking? Seriously? Are we trying to bomb the parking market?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  77. #77

    Default

    Lots of parking Downtown. In fact, we're probably quite overparked still. Certainly more parking than any other city our size in North America.

    It will be too expensive to put underground parking under the park and unnecessary. Only a fraction of the parking is used on game nights, other parking Downtown can be had for $10. When you're paying $300 for a ticket plus food and drinks, $25 on the high side doesn't seem that expensive, no?

    I know it's hard to fathom, but in the future Edmonton will have a better mass transit and active transportation network, one that will reach a whole lot more people.
    www.decl.org

  78. #78
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,299

    Default

    What about parking for the government offices in the area? I know a few folks who work in the government district and they claim there's not parking stalls for their areas, and have been on lengthy waiting lists for monthly parkade passes.
    “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

  79. #79
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,807

    Default

    I can't imagine there is any business case that would support spending 60k per stall for an underground parkade in that area.

  80. #80

    Default

    ^^We're talking years away yet from any real park development. Valley Line LRT will be well under construction with west end likely to be green-lighted here shortly.

    There's a lot of parking Downtown, most would say we're overparked for a city our size. But our future Downtown might have just a tiny bit less, mostly surface parking. 2000 parking stalls yet to be completed at Ice District, with future LRT and active transportation options as well.
    www.decl.org

  81. #81
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,253

    Default

    This would be thinking 10-20-30 yrs out... and a good idea, but again, likely not given the capital cost at the moment.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  82. #82
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^^We're talking years away yet from any real park development. Valley Line LRT will be well under construction with west end likely to be green-lighted here shortly.

    There's a lot of parking Downtown, most would say we're overparked for a city our size. But our future Downtown might have just a tiny bit less, mostly surface parking. 2000 parking stalls yet to be completed at Ice District, with future LRT and active transportation options as well.
    In an automobile-centric culture you want to do what you can to keep downtown accessible and affordable for business. I however go against the grain in thinking that making downtown viable and sustainable in our situation requires accessibility for transit users and auto-commuters. Shutting off people who are inconvenienced by the LRT is bad for business and we are still in no shape as a community to be driving people away.

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I can't imagine there is any business case that would support spending 60k per stall for an underground parkade in that area.
    I thought it was 40k, or 20k. Is the price of a parking stall going up exponentially?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  84. #84
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,807

    Default

    20k is way, way out of date. Obviously it's going to depend from project to project in terms of size of the parkade, depth/levels, what's above it, soil conditions and the like. But the general rule of thumb that I'm aware of is around 50-60k per stall for underground parkades. The 60k figure came up at a meeting last week, where moving some equipment would potentially free up three stalls, but there was a cost associated with moving the equipment. So long as those costs were less than 180k, it made sense to make the change. Within reason, of course. No sense doing a ton of design re-work to save a hundred bucks.

  85. #85
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    I can't imagine there is any business case that would support spending 60k per stall for an underground parkade in that area.
    I thought it was 40k, or 20k. Is the price of a parking stall going up exponentially?
    Not really; my stall across the street from here was assessed for 12000. I don't know what metrics the city base that off of but to rent a stall at 200 a month makes me think it would sell for maybe 20k.

    Underground parking isn't THAT expensive to build either. One can look to the Brewery district and see how many stalls are there and what the cost was on that project to see what can be done here.

  86. #86

    Default

    I'm still stuck at why we would do this.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  87. #87
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,073

    Default

    Nobody is saying build a 5 level deep underground parkade here. This is a massive piece of land that will become a park. Having a one level underground parkade under even 25% of the land would provide space for a large number of parking stalls. This is an opportunity for long term revenue for the city as street level parking lots continue to disappear and are redeveloped. This neighbourhood is going to change a lot over the coming years and I see a parking garage underneath as a smart investment.

  88. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post

    Not really; my stall across the street from here was assessed for 12000. I don't know what metrics the city base that off of but to rent a stall at 200 a month makes me think it would sell for maybe 20k.

    Underground parking isn't THAT expensive to build either. One can look to the Brewery district and see how many stalls are there and what the cost was on that project to see what can be done here.
    Your assessed value has no connection to the amount it cost to build. If parking stalls sold for more than what they cost to build, why would developers be asking to build less stalls than currently required in new residential buildings? Why leave that money on the table?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Nobody is saying build a 5 level deep underground parkade here. This is a massive piece of land that will become a park. Having a one level underground parkade under even 25% of the land would provide space for a large number of parking stalls. This is an opportunity for long term revenue for the city as street level parking lots continue to disappear and are redeveloped. This neighbourhood is going to change a lot over the coming years and I see a parking garage underneath as a smart investment.
    That's my thinking.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  90. #90
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post

    Not really; my stall across the street from here was assessed for 12000. I don't know what metrics the city base that off of but to rent a stall at 200 a month makes me think it would sell for maybe 20k.

    Underground parking isn't THAT expensive to build either. One can look to the Brewery district and see how many stalls are there and what the cost was on that project to see what can be done here.
    Your assessed value has no connection to the amount it cost to build. If parking stalls sold for more than what they cost to build, why would developers be asking to build less stalls than currently required in new residential buildings? Why leave that money on the table?
    I would have to say that sounds inaccurate but I'll reserve judgement as I honestly don't know. However I feel a single level underground parkade is a fantastic idea because it incentivizes retail development in the area without the need for any surface parking in the future. It's just efficient usage of space.

    It probably won't happen because the funds aren't there. But I would love to see some long term revenue generated for the city from this.

  91. #91

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Nobody is saying build a 5 level deep underground parkade here. This is a massive piece of land that will become a park. Having a one level underground parkade under even 25% of the land would provide space for a large number of parking stalls. This is an opportunity for long term revenue for the city as street level parking lots continue to disappear and are redeveloped. This neighbourhood is going to change a lot over the coming years and I see a parking garage underneath as a smart investment.
    That's my thinking.
    I see your point (both of you), but who pays? As we've seen in this discussion, what you can build for maybe 60,000 you can sell for 12,000, and all the while watch both ends of the Valley Line close in on you. The park is already the loss leader, and doubling down on losses in this case is not going to actually attract more people.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  92. #92
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,073

    Default

    Except we have done it in several other locations over the years and they're paying off years later. The same happens here... except paying it off is now easier caUse there's actually demand for downtown parking, and this demand will only increase.

  93. #93
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Except we have done it in several other locations over the years and they're paying off years later. The same happens here... except paying it off is now easier caUse there's actually demand for downtown parking, and this demand will only increase.
    And 1-dimensional mass transit access is not an equitable game plan for this city. If you want to continue to make the downtown core our landmark destination you need to have ease of access and no barriers to entry. People will just avoid downtown even more if parking demand decreases and rates increase. I don't subscribe to the notion that in order to build a sustainable city you need to isolate urban villages with singular nodes of transportation. The strength of this core will depend on keeping people flowing in and out of the downtown as easily as possible. Our valley line is not going to be the Skytrain, it is at best a complimentary mode of transportation and unless we want to see people avoid downtown because of inefficient access then I suggest we make the core as welcoming and easy to live and play in as possible.

    Sustainability practices are diverse; in this city we need more than mass transit to keep people doing business downtown.

  94. #94
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,073

    Default

    ^agreed. The LRT in this city is not adequate to replace cars completely. As surface parking lots disappear for parks and new development, this parkade below the park opportunity is huge.

  95. #95
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,807

    Default

    If the parking situation in that area gets to the point that there is a shortage, then the market will respond with a new parkade or two, whether dedicated above or below ground or as part of other developments. We haven't seen a dedicated parking garage get built in decades in Edmonton, as far as I can recall. I see no reason why the City should essentially subsidize parking in that area by investing tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in to a parking structure, potentially well ahead of any true need for it.

  96. #96

    Default

    What type of effect would this park have on surrounding properties? I guess this could be a general question to all types of downtown greenspace, for instance, the entire southern edge will remain for development along jasper avenue, but will the existence of the park play in what could now be built on them? That is, anything built there would create a shadow on the park, so would their be height restrictions etc... ?

  97. #97

    Default

    ^Currently there is minimum separation distances between towers, so on that block you'd have 25m between residential towers for instance. The developer would be encouraged to design skinnier towers that block sun for less time.
    www.decl.org

  98. #98
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^Currently there is minimum separation distances between towers, so on that block you'd have 25m between residential towers for instance. The developer would be encouraged to design skinnier towers that block sun for less time.
    It also depends on what the city does to amend height restrictions themselves in the warehouse district. Healy aside; isn't there some 10 story limitation give or take for developments in the area? I could see that more strictly enforced if we had a landmark destination in the area creating a development appeal.

  99. #99

    Default

    ^that's the thing. If the park raises the value of the surrounding lots and some type of strict height enforcement is imposed to maintain the quality of the park, the land might not be economically viable to buy and develop.

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    Except we have done it in several other locations over the years and they're paying off years later. The same happens here... except paying it off is now easier caUse there's actually demand for downtown parking, and this demand will only increase.
    And 1-dimensional mass transit access is not an equitable game plan for this city. If you want to continue to make the downtown core our landmark destination you need to have ease of access and no barriers to entry. People will just avoid downtown even more if parking demand decreases and rates increase. I don't subscribe to the notion that in order to build a sustainable city you need to isolate urban villages with singular nodes of transportation. The strength of this core will depend on keeping people flowing in and out of the downtown as easily as possible. Our valley line is not going to be the Skytrain, it is at best a complimentary mode of transportation and unless we want to see people avoid downtown because of inefficient access then I suggest we make the core as welcoming and easy to live and play in as possible.

    Sustainability practices are diverse; in this city we need more than mass transit to keep people doing business downtown.
    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    ^agreed. The LRT in this city is not adequate to replace cars completely. As surface parking lots disappear for parks and new development, this parkade below the park opportunity is huge.
    The LRT doesn't need to replace your car or anybody elses in particular. What if enough people ride it that traffic to/through Downtown doubles or triples, but car drivership only increases by 40%? Your parking rates only go up 40% is what. Put parking under this thing and your rates go up 39% instead? Who cares? Aggragate taxes go up more than parking rates come down.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •