Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 301 to 400 of 468

Thread: Edmonton Central Park

  1. #301
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    https://www.facebook.com/cityofedmon...type=3&theater


    Sorry for not being able to link the photo, but I found this an interesting drawing on the matter. No longer affects me as I've decided to list my condo next month. However it'll really be an amazing thing for downtown.
    Good luck with selling, the market is saturated with condos for sale, and some are taking a very long time to move.
    Last edited by H.L.; 05-01-2019 at 10:36 AM.

  2. #302
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,514

    Default

    The next most important project for Downtown Edmonton. These lots are critical to ensure that we can create something special. Please consider sending a letter to the Mayor and Council by Thursday of this week reminding them of the importance of acquiring ALL of these lots, not just a few.

    Key Policy Reference:11.11
    'Acquire land in the Central Warehouse Area to create a major public amenity for residents & businesses to serve as a catalyst for redevelopment'

    https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/PD...ay_27_2010.pdf

    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  3. #303
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    The next most important project for Downtown Edmonton. These lots are critical to ensure that we can create something special. Please consider sending a letter to the Mayor and Council by Thursday of this week reminding them of the importance of acquiring ALL of these lots, not just a few.

    Key Policy Reference:11.11
    'Acquire land in the Central Warehouse Area to create a major public amenity for residents & businesses to serve as a catalyst for redevelopment'

    https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/PD...ay_27_2010.pdf

    I donít like whatís implied there regarding acquiring only some of the lots.

  4. #304
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,514

    Default

    Point being, the wholeness of these lots together will create the park we want.
    Last edited by IanO; 06-01-2019 at 11:51 AM.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  5. #305
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Point being, the wholeness of these lots together will create the park we want.
    I wonder how much of an impact this park had on Edgar and Westrich planning their projects just east of where it sits? This park is a rather small capital investment considering the lasting impact it would have on the community and the incentives it would bring to develop those lots along Jasper Ave. I get that the CRL isnít where they thought it was, but this is a project thatíll see decent returns on investment. They just have try to not cheap out on it.

  6. #306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Point being, the wholeness of these lots together will create the park we want.
    As opposed to Churchill Square or Louise McKinney or The Legislature grounds with the new plaza or Alex Decoteau Park or Beaver Hills or Michael Phair park or Dick Mather park or Veterans Memorial park? How many millions have been spent on downtown parks already? And yet, "we" want more.

    After this one, what's next? Where's the next park on your never ending shopping list?
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 06-01-2019 at 05:33 PM.

  7. #307
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,514

    Default

    Another off-leash for Downtown/Oliver and then Kinistin‚w Park.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  8. #308

    Default

    Of course. Millions more for downtown because the residents there deserve it more than anyone else. Why? Because they live downtown and thus are the most important people. Museum? Downtown. Main library re-do? Downtown. Multiple redesigns of Churchill? Downtown. Fancy-dancy sidewalks and lights? Downtown. Half a billion plus arena? Downtown. Another $10 million for a private plaza? Downtown. And you STILL hare woefully undersupplied with parks. You poor dears, how do you ever manage?

  9. #309
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Of course. Millions more for downtown because the residents there deserve it more than anyone else. Why? Because they live downtown and thus are the most important people. Museum? Downtown. Main library re-do? Downtown. Multiple redesigns of Churchill? Downtown. Fancy-dancy sidewalks and lights? Downtown. Half a billion plus arena? Downtown. Another $10 million for a private plaza? Downtown. And you STILL hare woefully undersupplied with parks. You poor dears, how do you ever manage?
    - because if the downtown is to grow population wise and commercially, it needs stimulus.

    If a 50 million dollar park can incentize developers to build 3 towers/600 units, the tax revenue for the area will be (roughly) 1.8 million dollars a year. This is assuming an extremely conservative average unit cost of 300k value at $250/month. This said, both Westrich and Edgar developments are likely being developed on the implication that this park will go ahead as planned; with Edgar alone being a 600 unit development.

    So, using conservative estimates, that means this park would create enough revenue to cover itself in under 30 years. Thatís using numbers that underestimate its revenue generating capacity.

    I may seem biased due to living and wanting to sell in the area, but Iím only so supportive of the project for its potential at redeveloping a part of Edmonton in such a special way. Parks of these size quickly become the identity of the cities they are in, and I think something like this has the potential to be a true downtown catalyst that will be a post card image for centuries.

    Not to mention that the large part of tax revenue is generated in a downtown core. Is comparable to a healthy heart with healthy arteries being key to a healthy body.

  10. #310
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,514

    Default

    A reminder that much if this is CRL dollars...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #311

    Default

    Which people like to pretend isn't tax revenue but actually is, just for the benefit of a few.

    How much incentive does it take for other parts of the city to grow? Or is it the job of the city to promote one group of citizens over another.

    How about, when downtown reaches certain population levels, the services, including parks, are then provided? Like it happens for everyone else in the city.

    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. " - Animal Farm

  12. #312

    Default

    ^The opportunity to purchase the land is now, not later. The arena was the catalyst for $2B worth of private development, which was partially funded by the CRL. That's how it works.
    www.decl.org

  13. #313

    Default

    The arena was a way for a hockey team to get someone else to pay for the building they need to do their jobs. If the various towers made economic sense, they'd proceed regardless. That's how it works.

  14. #314
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The arena was a way for a hockey team to get someone else to pay for the building they need to do their jobs. If the various towers made economic sense, they'd proceed regardless. That's how it works.
    You make it sound like they are inside the building by themselves working on their projects or have an assembly line in there. Thatís crazy. There are 18000 seats where Edmontonians go to enjoy the building and be entertained for hockey, jr. and professional, concerts, etc. If you think itís just so a few can have their jobs youíre nuts. Their jobs could be done anywhere on earth in hundreds of cities in dozens of countries. Be thankful they choose to be here. Be thankful for the nice building and the beautiful towers. Be thankful for a lot of things. Anything. Please sir.

  15. #315

    Default

    No more than WEM is just the owners running things. But the city subsidized a private corporation for their building that was a necessary part of their business. Should the city have paid for WEM? A lot more people are employed at the mall and a lot more go there to shop, eat and play than will ever be in the arena. And the employees aren't making millions a year either.

    How much does the mall pay in taxes each year? How many tourists does it attract as compared to the Oilers? Imagine the uproar is the city announced that we were paying $600 million to build a mall.

    But, it's a sports team so the rules don't apply to them.

  16. #316
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Which people like to pretend isn't tax revenue but actually is, just for the benefit of a few.

    How much incentive does it take for other parts of the city to grow? Or is it the job of the city to promote one group of citizens over another.

    How about, when downtown reaches certain population levels, the services, including parks, are then provided? Like it happens for everyone else in the city.

    "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. " - Animal Farm
    The point Ian was making is that the costs are going to be covered by a levy that is localized to downtown businesses and residents. It doesn't affect anybody outside the CRL area and it's our own money beautifying our own community. So why are you upset? Unless of course you live in the core.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  17. #317

    Default

    Really? The ticket tax is only paid by downtown residents? Cool, who do I contact for a refund?

    I don't use the downtown library, can I deduct my share of the reno costs? Ditto with the Valley line. Who knew that the downtown was fiscally independent of the rest of the city. Hopefully, nobody from downtown is using any city facilities outside the core.

  18. #318
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,556

    Default

    You must be getting bored of the political threads now that itís just you and PRT talking to each other there. Youíve driven the people out of there and right off of the C2E completely so now coming to drive people off somewhere else. Eventually the whole blog will be just you two guys. Listen, something had to be done about OUR downtown. Something had to be done and itís happening. I suppose you prefer a deterioration of the downtown core, as has happened to many US cities. Maybe we should have just let things keep going sideways to the point of the last few companies, teams etc moving away eventually just being a dump north of beautiful Calgary someplace. You have no pride in your city, if indeed you live here. I know PRT lives in Montreal. Also I would like to remind you that Rogers Place is owned by the City of Edmonton.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 07-01-2019 at 04:34 AM.

  19. #319

    Default

    Nope, prefer that down thrives. But, I don't support corporate welfare in order to do so. And the city owns the arena in name only for the next 40 years. All revenue flows to the hockey team.

    How about you build me a nice. big house somewhere downtown, let me live in it for the next 40 years and then I'll give it back to you because it'll be time for you to build me another house because the first one now is such a dump.

    Funny how so many other teams can build an arena without public money and we can't. I guess that those teams are just much better run than ours is since they managed to do it on their own. Or are we in such a position that we have to bribe someone to have a team here?

    CITY OPENED OWNER PUBLIC MONEY?
    DETROIT, MI 2017 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY YES
    EDMONTON, AB 2016 CITY OF EDMONTON YES
    PARADISE, NV 2016 AEG/MGM NO
    BROOKLYN, NY 2012 BROOKLYN ARENA LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. YES
    PITTSBURGH, PA 2010 SPORTS & EXHIBITION AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH AND ALLEGHANY COUNTY YES
    NEWARK, NJ 2007 NEWARK HOUSING AUTHORITY YES
    WINNIPEG, MB 2004 TRUE NORTH SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT NO
    GLENDALE, AZ 2003 CITY OF GLENDALE YES
    DALLAS, TX 2001 CITY OF DALLAS YES
    COLUMBUS, OH 2000 NATIONWIDE INSURANCE/DISPATCH PUBLISHING GROUP (ORIGINALLY) NO
    ST. PAUL, MN 2000 CITY OF ST. PAUL YES
    TORONTO, ON 1999 MAPLE LEAF SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT NO
    DENVER, CO 1999 KROENKE SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT NO
    RALEIGH, NC 1999 CENTENNIAL AUTHORITY YES
    LOS ANGELES, CA 1999 LA ARENA COMPANY (AEG) NO
    SUNRISE, FL 1998 BROWARD COUNTY YES
    WASHINGTON, DC 1997 MONUMENTAL SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT NO
    TAMPA, FL 1996 TAMPA SPORTS AUTHORITY YES
    MONTREAL, QC 1996 MOLSON FAMILY NO
    NASHVILLE, TN 1996 SPORTS AUTHORITY OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY YES
    OTTAWA, ON 1996 CAPITAL SPORTS PROPERTIES NO
    BUFFALO, NY 1996 ERIE COUNTY YES
    PHILADELPHIA, PA 1996 COMCAST SPECTACOR NO
    VANCOUVER, BC 1995 CANUCKS SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT NO
    BOSTON, MA 1995 DELAWARE NORTH NO
    ST. LOUIS, MO 1994 CITY OF ST. LOUIS YES
    CHICAGO, IL 1994 UNITED CENTER JOINT VENTURE NO
    ANAHEIM, CA 1993 CITY OF ANAHEIM YES
    SAN JOSE, CA 1993 CITY OF SAN JOSE YES
    CALGARY, AB 1983 CITY OF CALGARY YES
    NEW YORK, NY 1968 MADISON SQUARE GARDEN COMPANY NO

    https://flamesnation.ca/2017/09/13/h...na-was-funded/



  20. #320
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Really? The ticket tax is only paid by downtown residents? Cool, who do I contact for a refund?

    I don't use the downtown library, can I deduct my share of the reno costs? Ditto with the Valley line. Who knew that the downtown was fiscally independent of the rest of the city. Hopefully, nobody from downtown is using any city facilities outside the core.
    Do you really think you wouldnít be charged more had the arena been a private venture? That if Katz had forked out his own money, that you would be charged what you were being charged for an event at Rexall? Honestly man it sounds like youíre reaching for reasons to hate if thatís the route you're steering the argument. A new arena is going to get funded by the patrons one way or another.

    I have objections to the arena development plan as well; but at least I can see that itís succeeded well enough to become a blueprint for other projects - not that this has anything to do with funding a downtown park with money that came from downtown...
    Last edited by Stevey_G; 07-01-2019 at 08:19 AM.

  21. #321

    Default

    No, but there also wouldn't have been a CRL in place, taking the tax revenue for the benefit of the downtown residents.

    And the CRL is not being funded just b the patrons, it's funded by all new construction in the CRL area regardless of the impact the arena has on each project. I know that the arena boosters love to claim that every new project downtown is because of the arena but that ignore the fact that numerous projects were announced long before the arena was a gleam in Katz's eye.

    Why not divide the city into a number of CRLs and only spend the tax revenue generated in them in those same areas? New areas would benefit since it would be mostly new construction while the older areas wouldn't because they don't have as much construction. After all, if it's good enough for downtown....
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 07-01-2019 at 01:42 PM.

  22. #322
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    No, but there also wouldn't have been a CRL in place, taking the tax revenue for the benefit of the downtown residents.

    Why not divide the city into a number of CRLs and only spend the tax revenue generated in them in those same areas? New areas would benefit since it would be mostly new construction while the older areas wouldn't because they don't have as much construction. After all, if it's good enough for downtown....
    Using your logic, prior to the CRL, based on density and the amount of commercial real estate within the Downtown core (for about 3/4 of a century), the Downtown was subsidizing the rest of the City and I could argue the CRL is just a levelling of that. I don't think it's a great argument, but I don't think yours is good either.

    What I really think is;
    These are amenities for all citizens, any one can use them. The Central Park, just like any number of the billion or so dollars worth of suburban rec centers are open to every one. The central park may even be a great amenity to the thousands of workers who commute to Downtown each day from the suburbs so they may have a more active pre work, post work and lunch hour (or maybe flex time) out door space. It will provide a location for expansion of the various festivals or perhaps even new ones.

    There is also a very valid argument about critical mass in building additional tourism dollars. Building destination districts, wherever they are in the City, is about grouping amenities together. In a City like Edmonton that falls primarily into 3 locations, Downtown, (extending to Oliver and 124st) Whyte Ave and WEM. While other areas are developing and do have Business Associations and potentially other levies, this is really what Edmonton has as a potential to develop destination tourism locations.

  23. #323

    Default

    Or, and stick with me here, we could get the same effect by having the hockey team build their own arena. Sure, we wouldn't have the CRL funds specifically for downtown but we also wouldn't be paying $600 million in tax revenue before the benefits could flow. We'd also be able to tax the arena itself. Or are subsidies for a team that regularly sells out their games the only way that we could possibly improve downtown? The new RAM is in place but only at the expense of taking business and tourists away from the old site. Same with the arena. In fact, the new arena has led to the death of Northlands and a bill for demolishing the old Coliseum. Businesses around there have suffered a loss of business due to the Oilers games moving.

    And if it's about developing tourist areas, why not city subsidies for WEM, by far our largest tourist attraction? Just like the Oilers, they're a privately owned business but unlike the Oilers, they have managed to succeed without the city building the building for them. Sure, the city has paid for somethings in the area, roads, (eventual) LRT, etc. Maybe Triple 5 should threaten to shut down the mall unless the city builds them a new expansion? I'm sure the area residents would love to get the same sort of park and sidewalks and the rest that downtown is getting.

  24. #324

    Default

    People hate parks now? Good god Edmonton.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  25. #325

    Default

    Nope, don't hate parks.

  26. #326

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If the various towers made economic sense, they'd proceed regardless. That's how it works.
    Absolutely false. Ask anyone developing Downtown, or making investments around Ice District.
    www.decl.org

  27. #327
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    [QUOTE=GreenSPACE;916072]
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If the various towers made economic sense, they'd proceed regardless. That's how it works.
    Park increases appeal of dustbowl -> value of dustbowl increases -> areas surrounding dustbowl become more appealing -> developers see increased profitability and higher margins -> project becomes economically feasible

    As for Ice District (if thatís what youíre talking about I canít tell), Iíd say two of the towers would have went ahead as weíd reached a point where demand calls for a luxury hotel and the CoE were exploring a headquarters. The thousands and residents coming in and Stantec deciding not to relocate to Toronto as their CEO had been vocal about? Those are a different story.

    Also, and my response was in regards to your ticket surcharge complaint, not the CRL.

  28. #328

    Default

    Oh, so the towers don't make economic sense? And every new tower is because of the arena? Funny, I recall new towers going up well before the announcement of the arena. I guess that those people just didn't know what they were doing.

    And you said that the arena would be financed by the patrons, which is cool and as it should be. However, it's not being financed just by the ticket tax, it's being funded by the CRL which is tax revenue paid from new construction. People who live and work in those new projects may never even set foot in the arena. It's not just the patrons that are paying for it. What it is is a subsidy for a highly profitable and successful professional sports team.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 07-01-2019 at 03:08 PM.

  29. #329
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Or, and stick with me here, we could get the same effect by having the hockey team build their own arena. Sure, we wouldn't have the CRL funds specifically for downtown but we also wouldn't be paying $600 million in tax revenue before the benefits could flow. We'd also be able to tax the arena itself. Or are subsidies for a team that regularly sells out their games the only way that we could possibly improve downtown? The new RAM is in place but only at the expense of taking business and tourists away from the old site. Same with the arena. In fact, the new arena has led to the death of Northlands and a bill for demolishing the old Coliseum. Businesses around there have suffered a loss of business due to the Oilers games moving.

    And if it's about developing tourist areas, why not city subsidies for WEM, by far our largest tourist attraction? Just like the Oilers, they're a privately owned business but unlike the Oilers, they have managed to succeed without the city building the building for them. Sure, the city has paid for somethings in the area, roads, (eventual) LRT, etc. Maybe Triple 5 should threaten to shut down the mall unless the city builds them a new expansion? I'm sure the area residents would love to get the same sort of park and sidewalks and the rest that downtown is getting.
    Triple 5 did lots of things with the City. You are free to read the history.

    You can go on comparing different businesses in completely different sectors all you want, but that doesn't make the comparable.

    The reality is, unfortunately, that professional teams and their capital infrastructure is often subsidized in various ways by the citizenry and that does matter. We can say all we want that we aren't going to do that here, but like any business they can then pick up and leave. They will also find that other locations will subsidize their existence. The Oilers don't exists in a vacuum unfortunately and those external pressures and realities matter.


    If we were to deal with the reality, in my opinion, there was 3 (maybe 4) options for dealing with the Oilers:
    1) Renovate Rexall to the tune of 250million dollars or so. Oilers stay there. Little to no peripheral benefit, like zero knock-on investment, no potential to develop critical mass for tourism.
    2) Rogers Place. We know what that was cost and benefits.
    3) Do nothing, Oilers continue to play at Rexall.
    4) Oilers leave. 3 likely winds up leading to 4.

    The choice was made, we are now in that reality and somehow that now undermines the Downtown being able to develop the Central Park because there is "too much nice stuff for one neighborhood" or something.

  30. #330
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Which people like to pretend isn't tax revenue but actually is, just for the benefit of a few.

    How much incentive does it take for other parts of the city to grow? Or is it the job of the city to promote one group of citizens over another.
    Yeah, the city should stop building things that only benefit a few. No more libraries, fire-stations, rec centres in the suburbs. After all, they only benefit the people that live there (Yes I know these costs are partially covered by developers, but surprise, they don't cover all of the cost)

  31. #331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Or, and stick with me here, we could get the same effect by having the hockey team build their own arena. Sure, we wouldn't have the CRL funds specifically for downtown but we also wouldn't be paying $600 million in tax revenue before the benefits could flow. We'd also be able to tax the arena itself. Or are subsidies for a team that regularly sells out their games the only way that we could possibly improve downtown? The new RAM is in place but only at the expense of taking business and tourists away from the old site. Same with the arena. In fact, the new arena has led to the death of Northlands and a bill for demolishing the old Coliseum. Businesses around there have suffered a loss of business due to the Oilers games moving.

    And if it's about developing tourist areas, why not city subsidies for WEM, by far our largest tourist attraction? Just like the Oilers, they're a privately owned business but unlike the Oilers, they have managed to succeed without the city building the building for them. Sure, the city has paid for somethings in the area, roads, (eventual) LRT, etc. Maybe Triple 5 should threaten to shut down the mall unless the city builds them a new expansion? I'm sure the area residents would love to get the same sort of park and sidewalks and the rest that downtown is getting.
    Triple 5 did lots of things with the City. You are free to read the history.

    You can go on comparing different businesses in completely different sectors all you want, but that doesn't make the comparable.

    The reality is, unfortunately, that professional teams and their capital infrastructure is often subsidized in various ways by the citizenry and that does matter. We can say all we want that we aren't going to do that here, but like any business they can then pick up and leave. They will also find that other locations will subsidize their existence. The Oilers don't exists in a vacuum unfortunately and those external pressures and realities matter.


    If we were to deal with the reality, in my opinion, there was 3 (maybe 4) options for dealing with the Oilers:
    1) Renovate Rexall to the tune of 250million dollars or so. Oilers stay there. Little to no peripheral benefit, like zero knock-on investment, no potential to develop critical mass for tourism.
    2) Rogers Place. We know what that was cost and benefits.
    3) Do nothing, Oilers continue to play at Rexall.
    4) Oilers leave. 3 likely winds up leading to 4.

    The choice was made, we are now in that reality and somehow that now undermines the Downtown being able to develop the Central Park because there is "too much nice stuff for one neighborhood" or something.
    You missed #5 - Katz builds his own arena, just as it exists now and Oilers stay.

    Toronto managed to build a new arena with little or no public money (don't have full financials). Same with Montreal and Vancouver. And regardless of what's happened between then and now, the teams are still there. The buildings are still there.

    Maybe Londonderry should have a CRL because of the increase in assessment due to the renovation of the mall. Bet they could have a really nice park because of that too.

    The area around WEM isn't the nicest in town. Maybe if the mall's tax revenue stayed west of 170 st, it would be a lot nicer.

    Oh right, neither of those examples are professional hockey teams. But they both draw more people in a year than the Oilers do.

  32. #332

    Default

    Not only build Katz an arena but what most people forget, he does not pay property taxes (except that from his rent) and keeps all the revenue. Anyone else on this forum get such a sweet deal?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  33. #333
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Or, and stick with me here, we could get the same effect by having the hockey team build their own arena. Sure, we wouldn't have the CRL funds specifically for downtown but we also wouldn't be paying $600 million in tax revenue before the benefits could flow. We'd also be able to tax the arena itself. Or are subsidies for a team that regularly sells out their games the only way that we could possibly improve downtown? The new RAM is in place but only at the expense of taking business and tourists away from the old site. Same with the arena. In fact, the new arena has led to the death of Northlands and a bill for demolishing the old Coliseum. Businesses around there have suffered a loss of business due to the Oilers games moving.

    And if it's about developing tourist areas, why not city subsidies for WEM, by far our largest tourist attraction? Just like the Oilers, they're a privately owned business but unlike the Oilers, they have managed to succeed without the city building the building for them. Sure, the city has paid for somethings in the area, roads, (eventual) LRT, etc. Maybe Triple 5 should threaten to shut down the mall unless the city builds them a new expansion? I'm sure the area residents would love to get the same sort of park and sidewalks and the rest that downtown is getting.
    Triple 5 did lots of things with the City. You are free to read the history.

    You can go on comparing different businesses in completely different sectors all you want, but that doesn't make the comparable.

    The reality is, unfortunately, that professional teams and their capital infrastructure is often subsidized in various ways by the citizenry and that does matter. We can say all we want that we aren't going to do that here, but like any business they can then pick up and leave. They will also find that other locations will subsidize their existence. The Oilers don't exists in a vacuum unfortunately and those external pressures and realities matter.


    If we were to deal with the reality, in my opinion, there was 3 (maybe 4) options for dealing with the Oilers:
    1) Renovate Rexall to the tune of 250million dollars or so. Oilers stay there. Little to no peripheral benefit, like zero knock-on investment, no potential to develop critical mass for tourism.
    2) Rogers Place. We know what that was cost and benefits.
    3) Do nothing, Oilers continue to play at Rexall.
    4) Oilers leave. 3 likely winds up leading to 4.

    The choice was made, we are now in that reality and somehow that now undermines the Downtown being able to develop the Central Park because there is "too much nice stuff for one neighborhood" or something.
    You missed #5 - Katz builds his own arena, just as it exists now and Oilers stay.

    Toronto managed to build a new arena with little or no public money (don't have full financials). Same with Montreal and Vancouver. And regardless of what's happened between then and now, the teams are still there. The buildings are still there.

    Maybe Londonderry should have a CRL because of the increase in assessment due to the renovation of the mall. Bet they could have a really nice park because of that too.

    The area around WEM isn't the nicest in town. Maybe if the mall's tax revenue stayed west of 170 st, it would be a lot nicer.

    Oh right, neither of those examples are professional hockey teams. But they both draw more people in a year than the Oilers do.
    You invented #5. It never existed, it was never a reality except in your own mind today.

    As for the rest, you already ignored my point above about how Downtown likely subsidized other areas of the City for 3/4 of a Century.

    As far as park amenities in other areas of the City, specifically those you bring up, that receive some form of subsidy from tax payers.
    Within a bout 5-10 minutes walk from WEM:
    - Terra Lossa Park
    - Belmead Park
    - Summerlea Park
    - Thorncliff Park
    - Aldergrove Park

    Londonderry;
    - Londonderry Fitness and Leisure Center + Fields
    - McLeod Park
    - York Park
    - Londonderry Community League

    These all provide; hockey rinks, fields, walking paths, picnic facilities, skate parks, spray parks, indoor gym and rec spaces.
    It's almost like the entire City and every community gets multiple park spaces within short distances of each other providing many many various facilities.
    How much is enough for these communities?! Why is Downtown just getting them now?!

  34. #334

    Default

    Of course it existed, it's just that nobody pursued it. He made a couple of trips to cities that were hoping to get NHL teams and everyone lost their collective minds while Katz denied it was anything to do with pressuring the city to make a deal.

    Does WEM not subsidize the rest of the city? What about the industrial areas?

    Compare the parks you mention to the sorts of parks we see downtown. How do they compare dollar wise to Churchill Square? Or however umpty-ump millions the new park will cost? What about the price per square foot of Alex Decoteau Park? Most of the parks you mention are just open fields and large parts of them are actually owned by the school boards.

    Does downtown not have an arena? Yup, right next to the new one for the Oilers. Fitness centre? YMCA, right downtown.

    And what parks does Downtown have? I guess you missed the list up topic:

    Churchill Square
    Louise McKinney
    The Legislature grounds with the new plaza
    Alex Decoteau Park
    Beaver Hills
    Michael Phair park
    Dick Mather park
    Veterans Memorial park

    There's also an outdoor rink at the Legislature and the pool in front of City Hall.

    But yes, Downtown is a vast, blighted wasteland.

    Also, to echo those people who claim "But these are for everyone in the city", so are the ones you mentioned.

  35. #335
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Oh, so the towers don't make economic sense? And every new tower is because of the arena? Funny, I recall new towers going up well before the announcement of the arena. I guess that those people just didn't know what they were doing.

    And you said that the arena would be financed by the patrons, which is cool and as it should be. However, it's not being financed just by the ticket tax, it's being funded by the CRL which is tax revenue paid from new construction.
    In regards to my comment in post 316:

    The point Ian was making is that the costs are going to be covered by a levy that is localized to downtown businesses and residents. It doesn't affect anybody outside the CRL area and it's our own money beautifying our own community. So why are you upset? Unless of course you live in the core
    Which you replied in post 317:

    Really? The ticket tax is only paid by downtown residents? Cool, who do I contact for a refund?
    I invite you to show me where I said the arena is being paid for by simply a ticket tax, because I didn't, and I double checked.

    Your imposition is that you should get a tax refund for a CRL that you haven't paid a dollar into. This Park, being a CRL project, is funded by people inside the community and not outside. And projects like this are exactly what the CRL was designed to spur - to beautify the core, make it more attractive to businesses and residents, and therefore, generate larger sums of tax revenue which benefits the rest of the city.

    Respectfully, your meandering rant doesn't make any sense at all. I honestly don't know how we can make it any simpler that this park doesn't affect you whatsoever - unless you live in the CRL region and are paying into it.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  36. #336

    Default

    The CROl, despite your assertion that it's "Our" money, is actually city money, property taxes paid to the city. If Katz had built his own arena, we would be collecting the same tax dollars and be able to make the same improvements downtown and elsewhere and not have to pay out millions for an arena to begin with.

    And the levy to pay for the arena is not just tax money but also ticket taxes that are paid by everyone that attends, Which, as I said, I don't have a problem with. Should every neighbourhood have the right to demand that property taxes be spent only in their own neighbourhood? Add in the fact that the city had to borrow in order to finance the arena, thus affecting the ability to borrow for other projects as well. See, it's not all about you. If the DECL had set up a private corporation and donated their own funds to pay for the parks and the arena, that would be fine by me. When downtown residents say "this is our, paid for by us and you don't have a say in any of it", I have to disagree.

  37. #337
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Of course it existed, it's just that nobody pursued it. He made a couple of trips to cities that were hoping to get NHL teams and everyone lost their collective minds while Katz denied it was anything to do with pressuring the city to make a deal.

    Does WEM not subsidize the rest of the city? What about the industrial areas?

    Compare the parks you mention to the sorts of parks we see downtown. How do they compare dollar wise to Churchill Square? Or however umpty-ump millions the new park will cost? What about the price per square foot of Alex Decoteau Park? Most of the parks you mention are just open fields and large parts of them are actually owned by the school boards.

    Does downtown not have an arena? Yup, right next to the new one for the Oilers. Fitness centre? YMCA, right downtown.

    And what parks does Downtown have? I guess you missed the list up topic:

    Churchill Square
    Louise McKinney
    The Legislature grounds with the new plaza
    Alex Decoteau Park
    Beaver Hills
    Michael Phair park
    Dick Mather park
    Veterans Memorial park

    There's also an outdoor rink at the Legislature and the pool in front of City Hall.

    But yes, Downtown is a vast, blighted wasteland.

    Also, to echo those people who claim "But these are for everyone in the city", so are the ones you mentioned.
    Thanks for reinforcing my point, while missing the sarcasm, every part deserves these services and amenities.
    The downtown has some, and is entitled to additional, because it is a growing community and has by far the highest amount of visitors on a daily basis to a community.
    Glad we can agree on that.

  38. #338

    Default

    WEM has you beat. Where's the fancy park for that area? Where's the museum? Where's the arena? Where's the $600 million for a private business?

    The southwest is growing quickly. Where's it's LRT? Or rec centre? Or library? Or multi million dollar park?

    Oh, I get it. Downtowners are special, more deserving than everyone else. There was just a multi million dollar park opened 1 block away from the new park location but apparently, that's not good enough. As a matter of fact, it's an insult to the people of downtown. You deserve something bigger and better. Ignoring the fact that Louise McKinney anchors one end (Which IanO says doesn't count even though his employer touts it on their website), the legislature just got a multi million dollar upgrade (which, I suppose, also doesn't count worth beans because it's the province).

    To say nothing of the tens of millions being spend on the library and new sidewalks and fancy lights.

    Last edited by kkozoriz; 07-01-2019 at 07:28 PM.

  39. #339
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    WEM has you beat. Where's the fancy park for that area? Where's the museum? Where's the arena? Where's the $600 million for a private business?
    Nothing has me personally beat, I don't even live downtown. Just use it like many others for various social and personal needs, like going to a plaza or park or festival.
    The museum is a provincial expenditure, so that's got nothing to do with anything.
    I do believe the arena and the expenditure you are worrying about are the same? Saying it twice doesn't make it two things. Also by your own admission the expenditure is not $600 million, a portion is covered by a ticket tax and a portion was paid for by that private entity.
    As well, those have nothing to do with the new park other than providing an accelerated timeline because funding is currently available through it.
    The park was planned before the arena and deserved to go ahead for the numerous reasons I have previously stated.

    Have a nice evening.
    Last edited by DanC; 07-01-2019 at 07:30 PM.

  40. #340

    Default

    The city paid out and the ticket tax is paying it back. You think that people who built it would be willing to wait 40 years while its paid off?

  41. #341
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    The city paid out and the ticket tax is paying it back. You think that people who built it would be willing to wait 40 years while its paid off?
    Yes, that's how capital investments work. You pay upfront to build and recoup revenue over the long term. That revenue may be direct ie ticket tax or peripheral ie property tax (but everything was going to be built anyways right?) Not sure what 40 years is about.
    Uh anything else other than downtown can't have nice things because the arena?

  42. #342

    Default

    Yeah, downtown is totally without nice things. Except for the museum. And Churchill Square. And the AGA. And......

    It's like living in Hiroshima after the bomb really. Total hell hole.

  43. #343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    WEM has you beat. Where's the fancy park for that area? Where's the museum? Where's the arena? Where's the $600 million for a private business?

    The southwest is growing quickly. Where's it's LRT? Or rec centre? Or library? Or multi million dollar park?

    Oh, I get it. Downtowners are special, more deserving than everyone else. There was just a multi million dollar park opened 1 block away from the new park location but apparently, that's not good enough. As a matter of fact, it's an insult to the people of downtown. You deserve something bigger and better. Ignoring the fact that Louise McKinney anchors one end (Which IanO says doesn't count even though his employer touts it on their website), the legislature just got a multi million dollar upgrade (which, I suppose, also doesn't count worth beans because it's the province).

    To say nothing of the tens of millions being spend on the library and new sidewalks and fancy lights.
    On a per capita and real basis, Downtown has been under-invested in for many decades. The numbers show this. While we spend $250m on a rec centre in the suburbs, Calgary spends $300m on a library in it's core. It's pretty black and white.

    Your concerns about Downtown getting more than it's fair share aren't warranted. It should get it's fair share, and it hasn't for decades. Without the CRL, there would be almost no infrastructure dollars going Downtown. Most cities don't operate that way. They know and care about how their Downtown does. Granted, Downtown Edmonton is only one of many major employment nodes around our region. However, it is the civic, arts, cultural, and financial hub for our city. And citizens should want a good Downtown regardless of if they live there. Downtown IS special.
    www.decl.org

  44. #344

    Default

    I'd disagree that downtown is the cultural and arts hub. The theatre scene in Old Strathcona is much more varied and vibrant that downtown. There's lots of galleries in the 124 street area. There's also the Jubilee. Should the city encourage all those entities to move downtown? Or should we subsidize competitors? Refuse to renew leases where arts groups use city owned facilities? Maybe the city should have refused to allow the Roxy to rebuild where they were. After all, we've already seen the RAM move from their original location to downtown after it was decided not to proceed with the renovation and expansion on that site. Should the city have funded the expansion of TWOS and instead moved it downtown?

    How far should the city go in encouraging downtown, up to and including, being to the detriment of other areas? Personally, I'd rather see numerous vibrant areas scattered throughout the city instead of putting everything in one downtown shaped basket.

  45. #345

    Default

    ^I don't disagree, there's lot of other places where arts and culture takes place in the city, especially Old Strathcona. However, Downtown is still a hub for that activity, most of our major cultural institutions are located there.

    The issue is under-investment in Downtown in past decades, not at the detriment of other areas of the City. In most cities Downtown would be the only place getting real funding for major infrastructure projects. That is not always the case in Edmonton. It's part of our regional reality, and the 50% growth in the suburbs over the past 15-20 years.
    www.decl.org

  46. #346

    Default

    I disagree that downtown has gotten the short end of the stick. It's got the Citadel, the AGA and most recently the RAM (poached from Glenora) and the arena (poached from Northlands) to say nothing of the millions spend on Churchill Square (Just how many renovations has it gone through?) and the redevelopment of the lights and sidewalks of Jasper Ave and Louise McKinney Park, the funicular, etc. along with over half a billion for the arena. I'm sure that there's any number of neighbourhoods that would love a half a billion to be spent there.

    And I disagree that "most cities Downtown would be the only place getting real funding for major infrastructure projects.". The cities I've visited, the ones I've really enjoyed, have major projects scattered throughout the city. Funny how our major attractions, WEM, Old Strathcona, etc, have managed to make themselves attractive to citizens and visitors alike without the level of funding being lavished on downtown. Sure, there's been public funding but not on the scale of downtown, even before the arena.

    And just how long are we going to deal with the half-assed road closure between City Hall and Churchill Square? **** or get off the pot. Either it's closed and it should then be integrated with the plazas or it should be reopened. Right now, it looks like they're getting ready to do some road work. Sure, it's nice having the road closed but that's what it looks like, a closed road.

  47. #347

    Default

    ^Neighbourhood renewal program, LRT, new and renovated rec centres, library renovations / new builds, new and renovated schools.

    FYI Old Strathcona received so much lopsided funding (according to folks at the time by the 90's) that most of their funding was directed elsewhere. WEM you could argue is subsidized in the form of roads and transit, which are public assets servicing a privately run mall.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  48. #348
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    I disagree that downtown has gotten the short end of the stick. It's got the Citadel, the AGA and most recently the RAM (poached from Glenora) and the arena (poached from Northlands) to say nothing of the millions spend on Churchill Square (Just how many renovations has it gone through?) and the redevelopment of the lights and sidewalks of Jasper Ave and Louise McKinney Park, the funicular, etc. along with over half a billion for the arena. I'm sure that there's any number of neighbourhoods that would love a half a billion to be spent there.

    And I disagree that "most cities Downtown would be the only place getting real funding for major infrastructure projects.". The cities I've visited, the ones I've really enjoyed, have major projects scattered throughout the city. Funny how our major attractions, WEM, Old Strathcona, etc, have managed to make themselves attractive to citizens and visitors alike without the level of funding being lavished on downtown. Sure, there's been public funding but not on the scale of downtown, even before the arena.

    And just how long are we going to deal with the half-assed road closure between City Hall and Churchill Square? **** or get off the pot. Either it's closed and it should then be integrated with the plazas or it should be reopened. Right now, it looks like they're getting ready to do some road work. Sure, it's nice having the road closed but that's what it looks like, a closed road.
    I mean just for the sake of you know, continuing this on...for no good reason...
    RAM - Provincial decision and expenditure
    AGA - Replaced a building at end of life in the same location. Guess it should have been poached by another area?
    Citadel - Private fundraising and provincial obeying IN THE 1970s!
    Funicular - Majority Federal one-time grant. Guess it could have gone anywhere.
    Louise McKinney - Total disaster and unfinished by any measure. Completely underfunded and decades behind the original completion plan. I think you argued this was a terribly Edmonton thing and how bad that is as a City. Poor Downtown.
    Jasper Ave - Had to be done due to failing waterproofing of central LRT station. I guess it got upgraded surfaces and lights. Similar to a bunch of other area redevelopment plans...

    So I guess Churchill Square from 15 years ago and the current redevelopment of 103rd ave to tie it together with City Hall...which is getting integrated into the plazas and re-opened?

    And...THE ARENA!

    Meanwhile since the 1970s, where you list starts, until now the rest of the City has gotten substantial investments in all sorts of things similar and different than the Downtown and that continues.

    Go ahead Downtown, have your Central Park, I'll enjoy our new path at the top of Strathearn!

  49. #349
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    It's like living in Hiroshima after the bomb really. Total hell hole.
    It is actually quite spectacular and one of my favourite cities. It too has many beautiful parks in its Downtown. The natural beauty and manicured beauty is quite wonderful.

    http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ight=hiroshima
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  50. #350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post

    Meanwhile since the 1970s, where you list starts, until now the rest of the City has gotten substantial investments in all sorts of things similar and different than the Downtown and that continues.

    Go ahead Downtown, have your Central Park, I'll enjoy our new path at the top of Strathearn!
    You make it sound like not one dime has been invested in downtown since the 70s. But projects like the Citadel, the Winspear and others have had investment not just by the federal and provincial governments along with the private sector but also by the city. Was the Convention Centre expansion not a city project? What about the $250,000 in funding provide to the AGA in 2017 for the Free Access plan? Doesn't that count? You say that WEM benefits fro road and transit access but ignore the millions spend on LRT downtown, including the replacing of the roof of the station. Why is one a benefit for an area and the other isn't?

    I agree that Louise McKinney park is unfinished. So why are we getting ready for another one? Why not finish what we have started? Oh right, it's downtown so it's special.

    Just like the road between City Hall and Churchill is unfinished. But it's good enough with some jersey barriers, we need another park.

    How about getting the sidewalks cleaned and the trash containers emptied? No, not a priority.

    How about ensuring the various light projects such as on RHW are operational? No, we have other priorities.

    How about working to restore some life, any life at all, to 102 street between Jasper and 102 ave? Nope, we're perfectly fine with it the way that it is and are activly campaigning against DynaLab moving in order to ensure it stays that way.

    Yeah, other parts of town get funding for projects but not on the scale of downtown. Not by orders of magnitude. And yet downtown is still the poor, little neglected stepchild.

  51. #351
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post

    Meanwhile since the 1970s, where you list starts, until now the rest of the City has gotten substantial investments in all sorts of things similar and different than the Downtown and that continues.

    Go ahead Downtown, have your Central Park, I'll enjoy our new path at the top of Strathearn!
    You make it sound like not one dime has been invested in downtown since the 70s. But projects like the Citadel, the Winspear and others have had investment not just by the federal and provincial governments along with the private sector but also by the city. Was the Convention Centre expansion not a city project? What about the $250,000 in funding provide to the AGA in 2017 for the Free Access plan? Doesn't that count? You say that WEM benefits fro road and transit access but ignore the millions spend on LRT downtown, including the replacing of the roof of the station. Why is one a benefit for an area and the other isn't?

    I agree that Louise McKinney park is unfinished. So why are we getting ready for another one? Why not finish what we have started? Oh right, it's downtown so it's special.

    Just like the road between City Hall and Churchill is unfinished. But it's good enough with some jersey barriers, we need another park.

    How about getting the sidewalks cleaned and the trash containers emptied? No, not a priority.

    How about ensuring the various light projects such as on RHW are operational? No, we have other priorities.

    How about working to restore some life, any life at all, to 102 street between Jasper and 102 ave? Nope, we're perfectly fine with it the way that it is and are activly campaigning against DynaLab moving in order to ensure it stays that way.

    Yeah, other parts of town get funding for projects but not on the scale of downtown. Not by orders of magnitude. And yet downtown is still the poor, little neglected stepchild.
    Man, you need to go do some hot yoga or something.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  52. #352
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    7,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    It's like living in Hiroshima after the bomb really. Total hell hole.
    It is actually quite spectacular and one of my favourite cities. It too has many beautiful parks in its Downtown. The natural beauty and manicured beauty is quite wonderful.

    http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...ight=hiroshima
    Very cool

  53. #353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DanC View Post

    Meanwhile since the 1970s, where you list starts, until now the rest of the City has gotten substantial investments in all sorts of things similar and different than the Downtown and that continues.

    Go ahead Downtown, have your Central Park, I'll enjoy our new path at the top of Strathearn!
    You make it sound like not one dime has been invested in downtown since the 70s. But projects like the Citadel, the Winspear and others have had investment not just by the federal and provincial governments along with the private sector but also by the city. Was the Convention Centre expansion not a city project? What about the $250,000 in funding provide to the AGA in 2017 for the Free Access plan? Doesn't that count? You say that WEM benefits fro road and transit access but ignore the millions spend on LRT downtown, including the replacing of the roof of the station. Why is one a benefit for an area and the other isn't?

    I agree that Louise McKinney park is unfinished. So why are we getting ready for another one? Why not finish what we have started? Oh right, it's downtown so it's special.

    Just like the road between City Hall and Churchill is unfinished. But it's good enough with some jersey barriers, we need another park.

    How about getting the sidewalks cleaned and the trash containers emptied? No, not a priority.

    How about ensuring the various light projects such as on RHW are operational? No, we have other priorities.

    How about working to restore some life, any life at all, to 102 street between Jasper and 102 ave? Nope, we're perfectly fine with it the way that it is and are activly campaigning against DynaLab moving in order to ensure it stays that way.

    Yeah, other parts of town get funding for projects but not on the scale of downtown. Not by orders of magnitude. And yet downtown is still the poor, little neglected stepchild.
    Man, you need to go do some hot yoga or something.
    Yup. I hardly ever go downtown. Great facilities in the burbs. The new rec centres are over the top expense, so I sure can’t claim that money isn’t being spent outside of the downtown. However core privilege likely dominates the access to hidden subsidies by the City.

  54. #354
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    I emailed my councillor. If it gets approved I'll give you guys a sweet deal on my condo. lol
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  55. #355

    Default

    ^Thank you.
    www.decl.org

  56. #356
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,616

    Default

    In midst of this eff-all, not sure if anyone actually posted this

    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  57. #357
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,514

    Default

    ^purely an exercise for the open spaces planning initiative.

    ----


    https://twitter.com/PlanEdmonton/sta...78629339729922
    @planedmonton
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  58. #358
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,514
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  59. #359
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    What were the owners objections to expropriation? It didnít really detail their position.

  60. #360

    Default

    Is 107 St being closed here?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  61. #361
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,514

    Default

    ^^that it is not required.

    ^Not contemplated at the moment, no.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  62. #362

    Default

    So it'll be 2 parks divided by a roadway?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  63. #363
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,514

    Default

    Or a 1.2x HA continous site connected across 107st with a unique mid-block crossing.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  64. #364
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,919

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    ^^that it is not required.
    That's their legal argument to this point. But it's safe to assume that it comes down to $ in the end.

  65. #365

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Or a 1.2x HA continous site connected across 107st with a unique mid-block crossing.
    So 2 parks divided by a "roadway".
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  66. #366

    Default

    ^Roadway may not be there in the future. So no.
    www.decl.org

  67. #367

    Default

    107 st is expected to have LRT running down it. Either way, it won't be contiguous.

  68. #368

    Default

    ^Actually that's not the plan anymore.
    www.decl.org

  69. #369

    Default

    So it may or may not be 2 parks? Is the City on board with possibly closing a road? Which is dependant on which?
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  70. #370

    Default

    It won't be two parks. It will be contiguous, however not necessarily continuous.

    There's many many design solutions to make it work so that the two sides are connected, including full closure of the street if necessary. If the LRT went down there, that's at least 20 years away.

    The issue right now is land acquisition, can figure out the best design solutions during the design process and consultations.
    www.decl.org

  71. #371
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    I do have concerns about the closure or 107th, itís something of a small, direct, collector to the leg and down river valley road.

  72. #372

    Default

    ^From where exactly? 102 Avenue north will have the LRT, and even if 107 Street was closed or reduced, 107 Street south of Jasper would still be open.

    Buses are being rerouted to 106 Street in the new Bus Network Plan. 106 Street is really the escape route south.
    www.decl.org

  73. #373

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^Actually that's not the plan anymore.
    Not according to the city. It's the bridge and University/Garneau route that's being re-examined, not downtown.

    Downtown *Approved
    The central LRT route will connect with the Valley Line West LRT at 102 Avenue and 107 Street. It will head south on 107 Street, turning west on 99 Avenue and then south to a bridge river crossing.

    Since the preferred route was shared for feedback in February 2018, the City has learned that the river crossing and the route through the University of Alberta Area/ The Garneau community requires further study and stakeholder involvement.



    https://www.edmonton.ca/projects_pla...lrt-study.aspx

  74. #374

    Default

    ^What we're hearing is 107 Street is unlikely to be the location of the LRT connector. Integrating it into the park if necessary it's a hurdle really.
    www.decl.org

  75. #375
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    ^Instead of having two disconnected parcels separated by 107 Street, now that the Jasper House project is off the table, why not purchase their land instead? That way there would be one large contiguous park space instead of two disconnected ones.

  76. #376

    Default

    ^That will come up in the hearing tomorrow. Right not the land is too expensive and the City will not purchase land over market value.
    www.decl.org

  77. #377

    Default

    Beaver Hills Park and Michael Phair park are only separated by an alley and they're two separate parks.

  78. #378

    Default

    ^Very true.
    www.decl.org

  79. #379
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    458

    Default

    There is a time and a place for an expropriation.
    This isn't it.

    107 Street better not be closed to cars, etc. We have enough artificial barriers to streets in this city. 102 Avenue, blocked and split by a park. No access across 104 avenue between 109 Street and 116 Street.

    I didn't know the councillors had voted to support the LRT on 107 Street. Seems the advanced age of the High Level Bridge and the need for a proper replacement in 25 years time, making 109 street a grande boulevard, weighs heavy on the future of the LRT.

  80. #380
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^From where exactly? 102 Avenue north will have the LRT, and even if 107 Street was closed or reduced, 107 Street south of Jasper would still be open.

    Buses are being rerouted to 106 Street in the new Bus Network Plan. 106 Street is really the escape route south.
    - from 104th and 103rd avenue. I'm in support of the project, but I'm also open to the idea of streetscaping and a discontinuous park with pedestrian walkways where the road is closed for events.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  81. #381
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    31,616

    Default

    So Allard is the lone owner holding out? Are there any further depths this company will sink to?
    ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  82. #382
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    Re post #376 above, if the owners of the Jasper House site are asking too much, why don't they expropriate for fair market value like they propose to do with the Allard parcels west of 107 Street?

    Both sites are gravel parking lots, and as such, their underlying market value should be similar.

  83. #383

    Default

    I like the idea of a downtown park but I find certain aspects conflicting.

    The COE paved over Churchill Square
    I thought that building LRT had an aim to increase residential and business density along the route
    We have several parks DT including at the legislature, Beaver Hill, the Funicular and the linear park on the 109st corridor to 104th ave.
    A Central Park like in New York is miles away from downtown Lower Manhattan so why cannot a new park be made east of 97th street?
    How about another location, directly north of Rogers Place to 106th street, between 102nd and 104th streets beside the MacEwan Station?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  84. #384
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,592

    Default

    Someone not wanting their land expropriated is somehow wrong?

  85. #385
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,172

    Default

    there are two basic types of projects, those started to accomplish a specific goal and those started in order to be doing something where the doing something is the goal. the second category is a dangerous one because the desire to constantly be ďdoing somethingĒ becomes the goal, not the completion of anything in particular or particularly well. sort of like jasper avenue (pick a stretch), 104 street, a dog park, lrt, bike lanes, railtown park upgrades, a funicular, a library, upgrading churchill square, upgrading city hall grounds, the aga, the ram, the convention centre, the ice district and everything in it, capital boulevard... iĎm sure iíve missed another dozen, each one the next shiny penny that will tip the fulcrum or that was supposed to tip the fulcrum. itís bad enough when it takes place with assets the city already owns, itís scary when it expands to appropriating land the city doesnít even own.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  86. #386
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    ^^If you're referencing SDM's remark in #381 above, that confused me as well.

    Especially when an independent provincial commissioner backed Allard Developments not the City as Elise Stolte reported in today's Journal.

    Guess some people think Downtown property owners should just roll over and take one for the team.

  87. #387
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Westmount
    Posts
    3,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    What were the owners objections to expropriation? It didn’t really detail their position.
    Personally, I find it difficult to take their objections at face value: https://edmontonjournal.com/news/loc...box=1547213412

    But to create the park, city administration has to buy or expropriate four parcels of land for $28 million. The owner of the last remaining parcel, Allard Developments, is fighting hard because it says Edmonton’s choice of land makes no sense.

    It has the proposed Central LRT line running through it to connect with the west LRT extension. Plus, anticipated new residential towers all around risk making it a cold, windy and dark place.

    “We just think they’re making a mistake,” says Allard company president Brad Clough, alleging city officials specifically selected the land to use up gravel parking lots and didn’t do basic planning work to ensure the location was appropriate for a future landmark.

    That’s quite a charge.

    But it’s worth considering that Allard Developments stands to win big if it convinces council to back down. If Edmonton only converts property it already acquired into a park, the Allard lands get to be “beachfront” property and shoot up in value.

    So do you write off Allard objections as a power play?

    Well, the province didn’t. When Allard objected to the expropriation, the province appointed an independent commissioner and held a five-day hearing on the file. On Dec. 12, that commissioner ruled the city’s move is “not sound.”
    ďSon, one day this will be an iconic structure shaping Edmontonís skyline.Ē

  88. #388
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,755

    Default

    ^The Inquiry officer's report (including the arguments and evidence of both parties) is attached as Appendix 3 to today's Council agenda.

    http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/c...9100411534.PDF

  89. #389

    Default

    ^It is a valid point, one Allard's will be making today in Council, and one they offered to us when we met. However City Council is not bound by that report, and administration will be responding to the criticism. And I don't believe 107 Street issue is insurmountable. I appreciate Allard's seemingly altruistic concerns about continuity, but it's a bit of a red herring in terms of the expropriation.

    Ultimately City Council will have to make a decision today, which also has consequences for the other pieces of land.
    www.decl.org

  90. #390
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,172

    Default

    some of the logic behind those supporting the expropriation escapes me.

    ie if their land isnít expropriated, it will become ďbeachfrontĒ and they will somehow benefit disproportionately. how? through increased values that the city will tax in perpetuity?

    besides, if their land is expropriated, doesnít that simply make the adjacent parcels ďbeachfrontĒ? if it is a real benefit, expropriation doesnít remove that, it just takes it away from the current owner and gives it away to someone else. which makes the whole thing even more unfair and inappropriate.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  91. #391

    Default

    ^Council's direction to administration was to acquire land that is not developed. Hense the lands in questions.

    City Council chooses winners and losers every time they provide new development rights in a rezoning application. Land development regulation is the thing City Council does. This is no different.
    www.decl.org

  92. #392
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,268

    Default

    This certainly sets dangerous precedent that the city finds expropriation for an fancy but unnecessary bauble acceptable. Edmonton lives up to it's storied reputation as a corrupt, incompetently managed city that kowtows to influence peddlers. That reputation goes back decades and is well earned and deserved.

    Arguments in favor of this park are a mere charade designed to obscure the real rationale behind it, which is to remove surface parking and activate a large barren piece of land that would take decades to develop otherwise. That's be fine if it were city owned property in the first place, but in this circumstance the act is highly spurious to say the least.

    It probably will go through, and that's fine. Maybe now the perpetual whiners line Greenspace and Ian will shut up for a while, so that's an upside

  93. #393
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,514

    Default

    Let me be very clear here, Council directed Administration to acquire lands for a 'central park' as per the CCDP that did not interfere with existing businesses, demolish more buildings and displace people. These lands do just that.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  94. #394

    Default

    directly north of Rogers is a much more suitable location IMHO
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  95. #395

    Default

    After reading Elise Stolte's article and getting more informed on the matter my first question was why the City is so hell-bent on the park crossing 107 St. It seemed the City was most interested in removing empty parking lots. Surely they must have known that crossing a street, and needing to address keeping it open vs closing it off, amplifies the design problem immensely. Why are those 4 lots so important to the concept?
    I am in no way entitled to your opinion...

  96. #396

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Let me be very clear here, Council directed Administration to acquire lands for a 'central park' as per the CCDP that did not interfere with existing businesses, demolish more buildings and displace people. These lands do just that.
    Except it DOES interfere with existing businesses. Those lots are used extensively by visitors to office buildings in the area - AHS being a primary one. Street parking is not often viable for a large number of the visitors that go to Seventh Street Plaza, let alone the fact that there are clinical operations in that building that for some, transit is not a viable option to get to and from SSP.

  97. #397

    Default

    Don't worry, the LRT will solve the problem...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  98. #398

    Default

    "We're going to seize these lands in order to make the area more attractive for other people to build on"

    I agree that the location doesn't make sense for such a large park. The legislature grounds are two blocks away. Beaver Hills is a block away as is Alex Decoteau Park. And we're looking at a minimum of $28 million just for land acquisition. And it's taking out a large swath of land when the downtown supporters are calling for increased density.

  99. #399
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    "We're going to seize these lands in order to make the area more attractive for other people to build on"

    I agree that the location doesn't make sense for such a large park. The legislature grounds are two blocks away. Beaver Hills is a block away as is Alex Decoteau Park. And we're looking at a minimum of $28 million just for land acquisition. And it's taking out a large swath of land when the downtown supporters are calling for increased density.
    Do the math on the revenue generated by a couple projects that likely wonít go ahead if this park isnít built. It takes money to generate and justify high taxes. This park would likely pay for itself between 10-30 years and beautify the community doing so. Capital costs arenít a good argument, continuity and loss of 107th could be.

  100. #400
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    47,514

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    directly north of Rogers is a much more suitable location IMHO
    Central Mcdougall certainly needs a park along 105/106ave.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •