Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 224

Thread: Edmonton Central Park

  1. #101
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,071

    Default

    This isn't just about rates. 40% more cars downtown still need a place to park. They don't just float in the air. There wouldn't be anywhere else for an additional 25,000 cars to park on top of currently full daytime parking garages. I would rather the city make that money than some private enterprise.

  2. #102

    Default

    ^ how many parking spaces do you think are currently there?
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  3. #103
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,071

    Default

    Wild guess... 36,000 parking spaces in the core for 75,000 or so downtown employees plus several thousand students, etc. Many walk from surrounding neighbourhoods, others take the LRT and bus commuting downtown for work and some drive. There are a lot of reasons for driving downtown and we will need appropriate spaces for people who do need to, or choose, to drive into the core. It's not going to be free, that's fine, but not everyone should be fleeced $25-30 rates in the evening to go to a church event or a restaurant or a movie or volunteer for a social agency etc just because there is something happening at Rogers Place.

  4. #104

    Default

    Any new daytime attractor (such as either a campus or an office tower) will have to build more parking proportional to the demand they create. The evenings and weekends (including the arena) already have something like 5X the parking they need, and all residential will build the parking its residents want to pay for.

    I think there are more adjustments from parking lots to the arena effect in the works, but obviously a lot charging $30 per space with zero takers won't be compelled to maintain that kind of rate. Two years, I guess, and we they have the curves figured out.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  5. #105
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    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.
    If car drivership increases by 40% and lot/parkade volumes decrease 40% you're gonna see a hell of a high increase in the value of parking downtown - to the point where if people are unwilling to take LRT they will just avoid it except in the case of going to hockey games or special events. Not to mention these underground lots in other cities rake in millions of dollars of revenue a year. Of course it's gonna cost a lot of money to build; but it's a project that further future proofs the city's parking needs, creates revenue for the city, and still allows a node of access to people who aren't dedicated to the LRT.

    I love using the LRT; but I know people from Vegreville or Stony Plain come from a different world and will dodge downtown at all costs if it means parking at a transit lot and burning half an hour to get to where they're going. It's not the same for some people and we need to respect that.

  6. #106
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,799

    Default

    Why is downtown parking a need that only the City of Edmonton can provide, at this particular location? And why should the taxpayer be asked to subsidize it, no less? Why is it that the market will not respond if parking prices soar with additional parking structures?

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    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.
    Height restrictions along Jasper Avenue Main Street Commercial Zone (JAMSC) are 70-85m. Height restriction in the Urban Warehouse Zone (UW) is 50-60m. Again, towers are permitted, but skinnier towers with maximum separation distance would be encourage over short and wide.
    www.decl.org

  8. #108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    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.
    If car drivership increases by 40% and lot/parkade volumes decrease 40% you're gonna see a hell of a high increase in the value of parking downtown - to the point where if people are unwilling to take LRT they will just avoid it except in the case of going to hockey games or special events. Not to mention these underground lots in other cities rake in millions of dollars of revenue a year. Of course it's gonna cost a lot of money to build; but it's a project that further future proofs the city's parking needs, creates revenue for the city, and still allows a node of access to people who aren't dedicated to the LRT.

    I love using the LRT; but I know people from Vegreville or Stony Plain come from a different world and will dodge downtown at all costs if it means parking at a transit lot and burning half an hour to get to where they're going. It's not the same for some people and we need to respect that.
    (highlights by me)

    How is it decreasing? Every multistorey building we'll get going forward is going to be providing additional underground parking. This will, in effect, multiply the parking supply per square metre of current surface lot. Those that add to the daytime demand (office towers) will have to meet their own demand while they add almost nothing but vacant spaces to the evening/weekend supply as well.

    But absolutely the LRT is going to reduce demand for the parking we have and the parking we will continue to add. With the most simple calculations, we're doubling the people who would find LRT convenient within five years (although looking at station placement and considering "multispoke multiplier", I'd not be surprised with triple or more the ridership we have now.)

    Just look at the U of A in the 1990s -- they couldn't function anymore with the growth in the driving student population, they were choked with traffic and massive amounts of surface parking.

    But between then and now?
    1. Innovation Centre for Engineering
    2. Mechanical Engineering
    3. Morrison Structural Engineering Lab
    4. Computing Science Centre
    5. Natural Resources Engineering Facillity
    6. Electrical and Computer Engineering Research Facillity
    7. Engineering Teaching and Learning Complex
    8. National Institute for Nanotechnology
    9. The Timms Centre for the Arts
    10. The Telus International Centre
    11. The Edmonton Clinic North
    12. The Edmonton Clinic South
    13. Jubilee Parkade (haw haw)
    14. Cooling Plant
    15. The Mazankowski Heart Institute
    16. The Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Research Innovation
    17. Katz Group Centre for Pharmacy and Health Research


    You have to ask yourself how in the hell did they suddenly find all that land under those buildings. Answer - damn right LRT reduces parking pressure. Massively.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  9. #109
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,291

    Default

    Plans for a new park spur a vehicle parking debate - only in Edmonton...
    “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

  10. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    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.
    If car drivership increases by 40% and lot/parkade volumes decrease 40% you're gonna see a hell of a high increase in the value of parking downtown - to the point where if people are unwilling to take LRT they will just avoid it except in the case of going to hockey games or special events. Not to mention these underground lots in other cities rake in millions of dollars of revenue a year. Of course it's gonna cost a lot of money to build; but it's a project that further future proofs the city's parking needs, creates revenue for the city, and still allows a node of access to people who aren't dedicated to the LRT.

    I love using the LRT; but I know people from Vegreville or Stony Plain come from a different world and will dodge downtown at all costs if it means parking at a transit lot and burning half an hour to get to where they're going. It's not the same for some people and we need to respect that.
    (highlights by me)

    How is it decreasing? Every multistorey building we'll get going forward is going to be providing additional underground parking. This will, in effect, multiply the parking supply per square metre of current surface lot. Those that add to the daytime demand (office towers) will have to meet their own demand while they add almost nothing but vacant spaces to the evening/weekend supply as well.

    But absolutely the LRT is going to reduce demand for the parking we have and the parking we will continue to add. With the most simple calculations, we're doubling the people who would find LRT convenient within five years (although looking at station placement and considering "multispoke multiplier", I'd not be surprised with triple or more the ridership we have now.)

    Just look at the U of A in the 1990s -- they couldn't function anymore with the growth in the driving student population, they were choked with traffic and massive amounts of surface parking.

    But between then and now?
    1. Innovation Centre for Engineering
    2. Mechanical Engineering
    3. Morrison Structural Engineering Lab
    4. Computing Science Centre
    5. Natural Resources Engineering Facillity
    6. Electrical and Computer Engineering Research Facillity
    7. Engineering Teaching and Learning Complex
    8. National Institute for Nanotechnology
    9. The Timms Centre for the Arts
    10. The Telus International Centre
    11. The Edmonton Clinic North
    12. The Edmonton Clinic South
    13. Jubilee Parkade (haw haw)
    14. Cooling Plant
    15. The Mazankowski Heart Institute
    16. The Li Ka Shing Centre for Health Research Innovation
    17. Katz Group Centre for Pharmacy and Health Research


    You have to ask yourself how in the hell did they suddenly find all that land under those buildings. Answer - damn right LRT reduces parking pressure. Massively.
    Yes, a lot of the new buildings downtown have parking beneath them. However, the entrances to the parkades and the rates (which are usually higher than surface lots) are not always evident to those going downtown occasionally and not all the buildings have public parking or can accommodate all types of vehicles. Also, as the number of surface lots decrease, the rates go up. I remember when I was parking on the surface lot on 106 St. for 1/3 or 1/4 of what the daily rate is now.

    I am all for eventually building new multi story buildings on some of the surface parking lots (which has been the general trend downtown for the last 20 years), but I think creating a big central park may restrict parking too much, too quickly. We already have utilization issues around the River Valley parks and the city struggles to keep access open in the winter.

    Sometimes I think the city is just looking for new ways to spend money. We seem to have a city government which seems overly attracted to the shiny new idea, rather than making what exists already work or work better.

  11. #111
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave
    but I think creating a big central park may restrict parking too much, too quickly.


    On what basis are you making that claim? For one thing, a timeline for expropriation/acquisition is being worked on but I don't think has been firmly established. No detailed planning has begun for the park itself. The park has already been on the radar for nearly 10 years. It's unlikely we see actual construction on it for another several years. Is 10-15 years "too quickly"? On what basis are you making your assumption that all of the lots will be taken out of circulation at the exact same time, and not staged?

    And in any case, unreserved parking in that area can be found for $180/month or less. That's hardly an indication that parking is in short supply in the area.

    This whole discussion is simply bizarre, in my opinion.

    "Hey guys, we're thinking of building a nice central park, which will replace a wasteland of poorly maintained, unsightly parking lots on abandoned building foundations. What do you think?"

    "What about parking?! We need more parking!!! Oh god, there's so little parking!!!!"

    "Uh, well actually, parking rates are pretty cheap in the area, which would indicate parking is not in short supply."

    "But at some indeterminate point in the future, parking may well be in short supply. Ergo, the city should spend tens of millions of dollars on a parking structure underneath this park. Market conditions be damned!"

    "Wait. What?"

    The city "investing" in an underground parkade in this location would be an absolutely horrible investment, given the cost of building it vs. the likely revenue. It. Makes. No. Sense.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 13-12-2016 at 03:47 PM.

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave
    but I think creating a big central park may restrict parking too much, too quickly.


    On what basis are you making that claim? For one thing, a timeline for expropriation/acquisition is being worked on but I don't think has been firmly established. No detailed planning has begun for the park itself. The park has already been on the radar for nearly 10 years. It's unlikely we see actual construction on it for another several years. Is 10-15 years "too quickly"? On what basis are you making your assumption that all of the lots will be taken out of circulation at the exact same time, and not staged?

    And in any case, unreserved parking in that area can be found for $180/month or less. That's hardly an indication that parking is in short supply in the area.

    This whole discussion is simply bizarre, in my opinion.

    "Hey guys, we're thinking of building a nice central park, which will replace a wasteland of poorly maintained, unsightly parking lots on abandoned building foundations. What do you think?"

    "What about parking?! We need more parking!!! Oh god, there's so little parking!!!!"

    "Uh, well actually, parking rates are pretty cheap in the area, which would indicate parking is not in short supply."

    "But at some indeterminate point in the future, parking may well be in short supply. Ergo, the city should spend tens of millions of dollars on a parking structure underneath this park. Market conditions be damned!"

    "Wait. What?"

    The city "investing" in an underground parkade in this location would be an absolutely horrible investment, given the cost of building it vs. the likely revenue. It. Makes. No. Sense.
    Actually the $180 is three times what I paid to park there some years ago, so clearly rates have risen considerably over the years. If the economy starts to improve, I expect the rates will increase even more.

    Yes, I forgot the city can't do anything very quickly or implement it well. There will be 10 years of consultation and planning and in the end perhaps nothing will happen, except the opportunity will be taken away for private developers to build some nice buildings in the area.

    I don't object to buildings gradually replacing the surface lots (as has already been happening over the years downtown). I don't even mind a few smaller parks, but I don't support some grandiose scheme that isn't needed.

    Really, City of Edmonton for once just focus on existing problems and making things that we already have work better or properly.

  13. #113

    Default

    These lots are filled up daily. I don't see why we wouldn't try to accommodate or at least think about the displaced vehicles.
    We have residents in Riverdale complaining about downtowners parking in their neighbourhood and at the exact same time, we have people who think parking is not needed.

    The car isn't going anywhere.

    1) Until Transit gets reformed in Edmonton, car is king.

    2) Autonomous/ green vehicles. The next push isn't about getting rid of the car, but rather increasing their efficiency.

    3) Even in cities with the most advanced transit, automobile traffic/parking is still an issue


    I'm not going to say explicitly that parking is warranted under this park. But consideration, and a feasibility, cost/benefit study wouldn't hurt either

  14. #114

    Default

    I feel perfectly assured in saying parking will not be any more of an issue than presently.


    What difference would it make if we put underground parking under this supposed park?
    Less than 1% lower than the daytime rates would be otherwise. I'd predict virtually zero impact on evening/weekend rates.

    And call-off the shrill paranoia. The car isn't going anywhere and nobody is forcing anybody at gunpoint to ride the LRT. Just think of it this way "25% of those other idiots on the road will be off the road. More space for you."
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  15. #115
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    I feel perfectly assured in saying parking will not be any more of an issue than presently.


    What difference would it make if we put underground parking under this supposed park?
    Less than 1% lower than the daytime rates would be otherwise. I'd predict virtually zero impact on evening/weekend rates.

    And call-off the shrill paranoia. The car isn't going anywhere and nobody is forcing anybody at gunpoint to ride the LRT. Just think of it this way "25% of those other idiots on the road will be off the road. More space for you."
    I don't have a feeling of paranoia, I just feel this is efficient use of space; conveniently located near a landmark destination which will allow surrounding lots to develop with absolutely zero above ground parking. You're right, we have lots of parking right now. But seeing as this is my own community I want to see 3 story density and retail surrounding this park with no need for surface parking. I don't think it'll get built; but for this particular city I think it's wise to anticipate parking requirements increase as the core's population goes from 10 to 20 to 30000 people. The volumes of people using these stalls right now is absolutely nothing in comparison to what it will be one day. And with developers requesting less stall requirements it's wise to think ahead over the coming decades.

    That's just my opinion; I get yours on current oversupply.

  16. #116
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    Keep in mind though that residential increases will have limited impact on non-accessory lots as most will have their own parking. The bigger impact will be growth of retail, restaurant, entertainment options. We certainly need to ensure Downtown remains easily accessible and have options for all types of modal choice.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  17. #117
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike
    We have residents in Riverdale complaining about downtowners parking in their neighbourhood and at the exact same time, we have people who think parking is not needed.


    People are not parking in Riverdale because there is no parking downtown. They're parking in Riverdale because there is no free parking downtown. I don't see why the city should waste taxpayer dollars to subsidize these people.



  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    They're parking in Riverdale because there is no free parking downtown.
    Yup. Parking your car 8-10 blocks away and then walking to work can save hundreds per month on parking.

    Neighborhoods near hospitals deal with the same thing these Riverdale residents do, and for the same reason.

  19. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike
    We have residents in Riverdale complaining about downtowners parking in their neighbourhood and at the exact same time, we have people who think parking is not needed.


    People are not parking in Riverdale because there is no parking downtown. They're parking in Riverdale because there is no free parking downtown. I don't see why the city should waste taxpayer dollars to subsidize these people.


    Thing is, the spillover into Riverdale represents a hundred or so cars...yes they are probably the early and frugal type. But it's not like the Quarters sits barren. The lots there are filled up daily as well.



    And as I said, the lots this park replaces are not barren wastelands either:



    You build it, and they will come. I'm not exactly championing for subsidies for the commuters, but rather having options for people who occasionally come down to downtown.
    I have no issue going downtown, any time of day, and any time of the year (except maybe parade days). But lots of people view it as a traffic quagmire and parking nightmare. You're going to have a massive central park and it will be largely underutilized. Have parking options and people will come.

    Parking is not an issue that will go away or "adapt". Yes it adapts but it just puts stresses in other areas (like Riverdale) - you're merely relocating the problem. It's no different that what the Ice District is doing - gentrification of the area. Lots of people just assumed Ice District has cleaned up the area and the marginalized have disappeared. They've just been displaced. Neighbourhoods like Chinatown now bear a much heavier burden from the marginalized.


    Anyhow. I don't actually think parking lot is necessary here - but I'm not against it. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing because some people here just jumped on the folks who suggested parking and I feel like all angles have not been considered before those remarks.

    I'm just in the boat that it would be a waste of space underneath to have a large park on the surface and non-utilized space underneath. It doesn't have to be parking. Maybe some massive storm-retention tanks or hey maybe a storage business.

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike View Post
    . You're going to have a massive central park and it will be largely underutilized. Have parking options and people will come.
    I get that it's a "big" park for Downtown, but it's not a big park. It's 2.8 acres. About two football fields in its entirety. It's the size of my parents' back yard (I grew up 5 minutes S of Sherwood Park, near Salisbury Greenhouses). It's 1/8th of 1 percent of the size of the river valley parks system. I get that it's very important to Downtown, and might be a draw for the immediately surrounding neighborhoods, but I don't really think that it's going to somehow become a recreation Mecca in the Government District. It's a large amenity being hyped up beyond its actual impacts in order to garner support & generate hype. That's how the COE rolls.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  21. #121

    Default

    The more parking we add the worse traffic will be. So pick your poison, I guess.

    I know I would rather have it harder to park, but with less gridlock - which in addition to drivers looking for parking would also negatively affect transit, taxis, emergency response, pedestrians and cyclists.
    There can only be one.

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    I feel perfectly assured in saying parking will not be any more of an issue than presently.


    What difference would it make if we put underground parking under this supposed park?
    Less than 1% lower than the daytime rates would be otherwise. I'd predict virtually zero impact on evening/weekend rates.

    And call-off the shrill paranoia. The car isn't going anywhere and nobody is forcing anybody at gunpoint to ride the LRT. Just think of it this way "25% of those other idiots on the road will be off the road. More space for you."
    I don't have a feeling of paranoia, I just feel this is efficient use of space; conveniently located near a landmark destination which will allow surrounding lots to develop with absolutely zero above ground parking. You're right, we have lots of parking right now. But seeing as this is my own community I want to see 3 story density and retail surrounding this park with no need for surface parking. I don't think it'll get built; but for this particular city I think it's wise to anticipate parking requirements increase as the core's population goes from 10 to 20 to 30000 people. The volumes of people using these stalls right now is absolutely nothing in comparison to what it will be one day. And with developers requesting less stall requirements it's wise to think ahead over the coming decades.

    That's just my opinion; I get yours on current oversupply.
    No you don't, because I'm not talking about the current supply at all.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  23. #123
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    You presume to say we will continue to be oversupplied with parking as the city core population doubles or triples? Not being a smartass I think I just missed your point - been replying between jobs lately because I'm really busy lol.

  24. #124
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,410

    Default

    I wonder if there was enough parking for the Wildrose protesters at the Legislature.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  25. #125
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by B.ike View Post
    . You're going to have a massive central park and it will be largely underutilized. Have parking options and people will come.
    I get that it's a "big" park for Downtown, but it's not a big park. It's 2.8 acres. About two football fields in its entirety. It's the size of my parents' back yard (I grew up 5 minutes S of Sherwood Park, near Salisbury Greenhouses). It's 1/8th of 1 percent of the size of the river valley parks system. I get that it's very important to Downtown, and might be a draw for the immediately surrounding neighborhoods, but I don't really think that it's going to somehow become a recreation Mecca in the Government District. It's a large amenity being hyped up beyond its actual impacts in order to garner support & generate hype. That's how the COE rolls.
    This. This is my joie de vivre.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  26. #126
    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 B.ike View Post
    . You're going to have a massive central park and it will be largely underutilized. Have parking options and people will come.
    I get that it's a "big" park for Downtown, but it's not a big park. It's 2.8 acres. About two football fields in its entirety. It's the size of my parents' back yard (I grew up 5 minutes S of Sherwood Park, near Salisbury Greenhouses). It's 1/8th of 1 percent of the size of the river valley parks system. I get that it's very important to Downtown, and might be a draw for the immediately surrounding neighborhoods, but I don't really think that it's going to somehow become a recreation Mecca in the Government District. It's a large amenity being hyped up beyond its actual impacts in order to garner support & generate hype. That's how the COE rolls.
    It's a catalyst project for the dust-bowl dude. It gives an amenity to develop around and this area now won't stay undeveloped forever. Not to mention the psychological impact it will have on people exiting the city via automobile and LRT. 2.8 acres admittedly sounds small for us from the country; I was raised out by Genesee on the backdrop of the river valley and it was all mine and mine alone growing up, but when you're talking about precious downtown property where parking seems to go on forever and ever it will be a BIG change. You're talking about potentially turning an area from being ancillary parking to something of a parks and education district. To me that's not an glorified overstatement, it's the big picture expectations of where things are moving with the Norquest Expansion/Quad, A.D.P, and now this park along with further expansion of Norquest. It'll be a pretty cool area to land in for people living and playing downtown over the next decade.

  27. #127
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,071

    Default

    The parking construction getting started asap would ensure lower costs and would provide ever increasing revenue. This is a wise investment. Why should private companies make the profit? if I had access to money I would try to do it myself and would donate a bunch of money to pay for the park built overtop of my parkade just cause I know it's a wise investment.

  28. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    You presume to say we will continue to be oversupplied with parking as the city core population doubles or triples? Not being a smartass I think I just missed your point - been replying between jobs lately because I'm really busy lol.
    's'okay.

    But no, I didn't say we'd continue to be oversupplied either, and I didn't even say we're oversupplied now.

    What I'm saying is, going forward, the standards we have for including parking in new multistory build is going to be adequate to deal with any increases in regular demand we get.

    If the market warrants, more will be built.

    And I'm confident that the effect the LRT had on the University (and on Downtown) will be repeated with both legs of the Valley Line.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  29. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    What I'm saying is, going forward, the standards we have for including parking in new multistory build is going to be adequate to deal with any increases in regular demand we get.
    Ummm... what other direction would we be going?

    BTW, how busy is downtown when there ISN'T anything going on at RP? I've only been a couple times and it seemed like the same old dead to me.

    The thing about population-related parking is it'll be largely provided by the residences, so it's a wash. What really matters is parking for non-core people who don't choose to use public transit. And if RP is the real driver of parking demand (vs any other reason to go downtown), whatever handles RP-generated demand will be plenty for the in-between days.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  30. #130

    Default

    ^ RP is not driving parking demand at all. RP isn't even coming close to filling what we have Downtown presently. When we see the parking limit is office hours. It's additional office workers and daytime students that will create additional demand.

    What RP is doing is boosting the profitability of nearby parkades by giving them a second significant market to chase.

    (And as opposed to "going forward", we could be "looking backward" on how numerous office buildings were built without parking underground at the same time rail transit actually regressed, spurring sufficient demand for surface parking that it bulldozed block upon block of single-family houses.)
    Last edited by JayBee; 15-12-2016 at 10:25 PM.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  31. #131
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    The parking construction getting started asap would ensure lower costs and would provide ever increasing revenue. This is a wise investment. Why should private companies make the profit? if I had access to money I would try to do it myself and would donate a bunch of money to pay for the park built overtop of my parkade just cause I know it's a wise investment.
    Pretty sure underground parking, as a parking structure only, is never a good investment, especially when you need to consider a park design above it. Extra depth, tree plantings, waterproofing, future maintenance...

    An underground parkade under any park is not going to make money to recuperate the initial investment. If it were going to, it would happen far more often around the world.

  32. #132
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,071

    Default

    If it's fully everyday and people are paying money to use it, it's making money regardless of what's on top. If you really needed something above perhaps the city would let you have s restaurant or two with wonderful patios on the park at ground level making the demand for your parking evening stronger. I see nothing but positives.

  33. #133
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    Not making money if you never pay off construction costs and maintenance.

  34. #134
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,071

    Default

    But it is paying off the costs. This isn't 1993 anymore when people could park downtown all day for $3.

  35. #135
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    I don't think you know how much an underground parkade would cost. When was the last new above ground parkade built (cheaper than underground)? For parking only, not as part of a building? It's been a long time, because it doesn't make money.

    edit: If it costs you $100 million to build it, and you make even $2 million a year in parking profit, (after maintenance costs) it'll be 50 years to pay it back. That's an example of not ever paying off the costs. (Because also it likely won't last 50 years without needing a lot of money to repair, beyond maintenance)
    Last edited by Channing; 16-12-2016 at 08:55 AM.

  36. #136
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    The parking construction getting started asap would ensure lower costs and would provide ever increasing revenue. This is a wise investment. Why should private companies make the profit? if I had access to money I would try to do it myself and would donate a bunch of money to pay for the park built overtop of my parkade just cause I know it's a wise investment.
    Given the likely cost of construction and the current parking rates in the area, the return on investment would be barely 5%. That's before operating costs, maintenance, debt service, etc. Doubtful it would break even, let alone turn a profit. That's a horrible investment. Private industry would never build it given those metrics. Why should the City?

    $2,400 year revenue ($200/month) / $50,000/stall = 4.8%

    50k a stall is probably optimistic, in this case. As Channing indicated, there are additional considerations to take in to account with the cost of construction when you have a park above. There is no financial case to be made here.

  37. #137

    Default

    I agree with Marcel. Underground parking, if there is demand, would be built by the private sector. Doing it here would a terrible investment. The City also could not justify it given their strategic planning that would never prioritize money for a money-loosing underground parkade over other infrastructure projects.
    www.decl.org

  38. #138
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,071

    Default

    says two people basing their opinion purely on construction costs and nothing else. So a stall leased for office hours at $250 a month, then also available for evening event parking at $20 an evening, if full it's more like 600-800 revenue per stall per month.
    Last edited by etownboarder; 16-12-2016 at 03:41 PM.

  39. #139
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,799

    Default

    So the parking lots that are at present entirely abandoned past 5pm will magically be full every event night if this parkade is built. Despite the fact that even at present, without the 2000+ stalls in the Ice District parkade functional, a fair number of the parkades only a block or two away are only partially full on event nights. But this parkade 6+ blocks away? Full every night.


  40. #140
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    Correct. We are still significantly over-parked downtown.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  41. #141

    Default

    Under-parked, if you're talking about actual parks.
    There can only be one.

  42. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Under-parked, if you're talking about actual parks.
    Yes, fun with perspectives in a "Parks and Recreation" thread called "Edmonton Central Park".

  43. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I don't object to buildings gradually replacing the surface lots (as has already been happening over the years downtown). I don't even mind a few smaller parks, but I don't support some grandiose scheme that isn't needed.

    Really, City of Edmonton for once just focus on existing problems and making things that we already have work better or properly.
    Are you really saying that replacing gravel surface parking with a beautiful park in the city centre is a waste of money?

  44. #144
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Correct. We are still significantly over-parked downtown.
    Not sure what you base this on. Just got back from a lunch-time walk. I observed that all 4 of the properties proposed for the Central Park are 100% full of vehicles. And this during a low point in the economic cycle.

    I'm also puzzled why Property #4 (the single largest parcel) is included in the proposed park as it is separated from the other parcels by 107 Street.

  45. #145
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    So the parking lots that are at present entirely abandoned past 5pm will magically be full every event night if this parkade is built. Despite the fact that even at present, without the 2000+ stalls in the Ice District parkade functional, a fair number of the parkades only a block or two away are only partially full on event nights. But this parkade 6+ blocks away? Full every night.

    Humor me Marcel as developments are your thing. How close to capacity are we for parking downtown during daylight hours? The only reason I ask is that if underground was plentiful I am confused as to why these lots are full to capacity every single day. Parking could simply be more affordable I don't know - but I believe it would be more reasonable to to look at daytime usage than it would when everyone's at home asleep.

  46. #146

    Default

    I believe that beyond street metered, all parking should be underground Downtown. While we build the acceptable transit we long needed as an option, by all means, give the option to a private company to 100% finance underground parking. I welcome all comers.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  47. #147
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,071

    Default

    There's no reason why private interests are the only ones who can make money here. The city can take advantage and use the land for two purposes. I want to see some other benefits from this investment beyond just some beautiful greenspace and some underground parking will do just fine in serving the city financially in years to come.

  48. #148
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Humor me Marcel as developments are your thing. How close to capacity are we for parking downtown during daylight hours? The only reason I ask is that if underground was plentiful I am confused as to why these lots are full to capacity every single day. Parking could simply be more affordable I don't know - but I believe it would be more reasonable to to look at daytime usage than it would when everyone's at home asleep.
    First of all, at the root of it, I'm just a simple plumber. I'm not on the development side of things to any large extent. My company builds what's put in front of us, long after the decision to invest has been made. So I don't have any particular proprietary knowledge of the economics of parking downtown. However, I do have a little bit of knowledge of what things cost to build, and also having lived downtown for close to 15 years, I see what's going on, on a daily basis.

    There is no hard and fast metric of how to measure what you're asking. Like any economic issue, it depends on a variety of factors. Supply, demand, and price of parking are all intermingled. Not to mention transit accessibility and convenience. If there's a big influx of people wanting to park downtown, then prices will go up. If prices go up, some people who presently drive and park might decide to instead take transit, or perhaps park further away where it's cheaper or free and walk the last mile. The simple fact is that, over the past several decades, private industry has not seen fit to build any dedicated parking structures downtown that aren't part of a larger overall development. Likely because the economics can't justify such an investment in light of how much cheap surface parking already exists. If people were paying $400/month for daily parking at surface lots, maybe that would change. But when you can find parking passes for $200/month and less? It makes no sense for private developers to add to the supply and drive prices down. These types of buildings aren't cheap to build, for better or worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder
    There's no reason why private interests are the only ones who can make money here.


    At present, there is no money to be made, given the likely revenue and cost of construction. How many times does this need to be said?

  49. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder View Post
    There's no reason why private interests are the only ones who can make money here. The city can take advantage and use the land for two purposes. I want to see some other benefits from this investment beyond just some beautiful greenspace and some underground parking will do just fine in serving the city financially in years to come.
    I'd still be okay if we say "open it up for tender and if one company says "yes", builds it, and starts operating at a positive NPV, the City expropriates it at cost."

    But I assure you, the hypothetical company is safe to hold on to their hypothetical investment.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  50. #150
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Humor me Marcel as developments are your thing. How close to capacity are we for parking downtown during daylight hours? The only reason I ask is that if underground was plentiful I am confused as to why these lots are full to capacity every single day. Parking could simply be more affordable I don't know - but I believe it would be more reasonable to to look at daytime usage than it would when everyone's at home asleep.
    First of all, at the root of it, I'm just a simple plumber. I'm not on the development side of things to any large extent. My company builds what's put in front of us, long after the decision to invest has been made. So I don't have any particular proprietary knowledge of the economics of parking downtown. However, I do have a little bit of knowledge of what things cost to build, and also having lived downtown for close to 15 years, I see what's going on, on a daily basis.

    There is no hard and fast metric of how to measure what you're asking. Like any economic issue, it depends on a variety of factors. Supply, demand, and price of parking are all intermingled. Not to mention transit accessibility and convenience. If there's a big influx of people wanting to park downtown, then prices will go up. If prices go up, some people who presently drive and park might decide to instead take transit, or perhaps park further away where it's cheaper or free and walk the last mile. The simple fact is that, over the past several decades, private industry has not seen fit to build any dedicated parking structures downtown that aren't part of a larger overall development. Likely because the economics can't justify such an investment in light of how much cheap surface parking already exists. If people were paying $400/month for daily parking at surface lots, maybe that would change. But when you can find parking passes for $200/month and less? It makes no sense for private developers to add to the supply and drive prices down. These types of buildings aren't cheap to build, for better or worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by etownboarder
    There's no reason why private interests are the only ones who can make money here.


    At present, there is no money to be made, given the likely revenue and cost of construction. How many times does this need to be said?
    I dig what you're saying. I guess something like this needs to goto tender and see what a construction company comes back with. I honestly can't see it costing what people have proposed on this thread though. When you look at the brewery district, they built that entire development plus a very impressive stage of underground parking for something like 50 million dollar did they not?

    My piece on this is: if the city gathers the data and finds an equitable capital venture? Then expropriate, finance, and expand this project. The entire thing doesn't have to be underground, but perhaps the land in proximity to 104th would make a fair garage. Everything westbound can best simply park. However do not dig up a garage at the expense of the park itself. We have a very rare opportunity to build a medium sized downtown park that may not come twice so to me footprint is priority number 1.

  51. #151

    Default

    ^Brewery District has a huge net lease and positive rate of return. Not comparable at all.

    Not saying it can't be done at all, but just it's highly unlikely given construction costs, parking rates, over capacity/market demand vs. rates, and City's priorities regarding infrastructure spending. Given the City is not in the business of providing subsidized parking, I can't see the case for this.
    www.decl.org

  52. #152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^Brewery District has a huge net lease and positive rate of return. Not comparable at all.

    Not saying it can't be done at all, but just it's highly unlikely given construction costs, parking rates, over capacity/market demand vs. rates, and City's priorities regarding infrastructure spending. Given the City is not in the business of providing subsidized parking, I can't see the case for this.
    The nearby river valley is a huge and under used park space. Why doesn't the city for once focus on using and making work on the great assets it already has rather than always chasing the shiny new idea?

    If they focused half the effort on implementation that they did on all their pie in the sky ideas this city would be a much better place.

  53. #153
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,291

    Default

    Ah yes, the same tired old and misguided "we don't need parks because river valley" argument rears its head again.
    “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

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Ah yes, the same tired old and misguided "we don't need parks because river valley" argument rears its head again.
    I suppose if the city had an unlimited amount of money to acquire and maintain parks, we could have one on every block downtown. However funds are not unlimited, try raise property taxes by more than 3% in this economy and watch the taxpayers howl. However, I suppose if you don't pay property taxes you might not mind it.

    If you had a car that wasn't running well, would you rush out to buy a new one right away without trying to fix the old one? If you keep on doing that you will eventually have a bunch of cars that don't work and no money.

    The city already has a seriously under utilized asset nearby - more blue sky ideas are nice, but here we need to do some hard work as a city. Maybe hard work makes you tired and it is not as sexy, but that doesn't make it misguided. The difference between great cities and mediocre ones is not a bunch of shiny new ideas, we can easily copy good ideas from elsewhere, it is also how well we implement them and whether they really make sense for here. Downtown Edmonton needs more density, the inner city Detroit model of turning big empty lots into parks is not right for downtown Edmonton now.

  55. #155
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,291

    Default

    Instead of blindly spouting off dogma from the SUN/Diotte/CTF/Rebel Media playbook, how reading this entire thread first - it lists plenty of good reasons for building this park on land that's been underutilized for decades and how it will be funded. And who says that plans for both the river valley and this park can't be done - it's not an either-or thing.
    “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

  56. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^Brewery District has a huge net lease and positive rate of return. Not comparable at all.

    Not saying it can't be done at all, but just it's highly unlikely given construction costs, parking rates, over capacity/market demand vs. rates, and City's priorities regarding infrastructure spending. Given the City is not in the business of providing subsidized parking, I can't see the case for this.
    The nearby river valley is a huge and under used park space. Why doesn't the city for once focus on using and making work on the great assets it already has rather than always chasing the shiny new idea?

    If they focused half the effort on implementation that they did on all their pie in the sky ideas this city would be a much better place.
    I agree what you're saying about the river valley being under utilized, but that really has nothing to do with this catalyst project and is not in any kind of proximity to the Warehouse area to have the kind of amenity or affect that is required. This is to encourage high-density residential growth and provide an amenity for that density. Think 3 blocks maximum. This is not unlike parks or greenspaces that already exist in low density suburban communities, even ones next to the river valley. Lots of good planning reasons for this project to go ahead.
    www.decl.org

  57. #157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Instead of blindly spouting off dogma from the SUN/Diotte/CTF/Rebel Media playbook, how reading this entire thread first - it lists plenty of good reasons for building this park on land that's been underutilized for decades and how it will be funded. And who says that plans for both the river valley and this park can't be done - it's not an either-or thing.
    I don't follow Rebel Media and am not a supporter of theirs, I am not even aware whether they had a position on this local issue or not. It seems you can not come up with good arguments to support your position or counter what I am saying, so you presume that I am a supporter of politicians and media that I actually do not support. Try to get beyond stereotypes - you know right wing conservatives are not the only ones who want the city to manage things wisely.

    The land that the arena was on was also underutilized for decades, most surface parking lots in Edmonton have been there for decades. There were no office buildings built downtown for almost a decade, however there has been a a steady development in the last ten years of a number of residential buildings, office space and various other projects in the downtown area. I believe the city would best be served by having various smaller parks in the central downtown area (there are already several and I have already stated I am not opposed to even a few more), continuing to increase the density in the area by developing those parking lots, encouraging and facilitating more use of the nearby river valley parks.

    Of course we can have both river valley parks and parks elsewhere downtown - you know we actually already do. Yes, it is possible to build a bigger park there, but I don't see the need for it, nor do I think the location makes sense for such a larger park. Over the years, I have seen those that run this city go off on a number of foolish ideas to supposedly improve downtown that involve spending a lot of money and in the end accomplish little. I think this particular idea falls in that category.

  58. #158
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^Brewery District has a huge net lease and positive rate of return. Not comparable at all.

    Not saying it can't be done at all, but just it's highly unlikely given construction costs, parking rates, over capacity/market demand vs. rates, and City's priorities regarding infrastructure spending. Given the City is not in the business of providing subsidized parking, I can't see the case for this.
    The nearby river valley is a huge and under used park space. Why doesn't the city for once focus on using and making work on the great assets it already has rather than always chasing the shiny new idea?

    If they focused half the effort on implementation that they did on all their pie in the sky ideas this city would be a much better place.
    I agree what you're saying about the river valley being under utilized, but that really has nothing to do with this catalyst project and is not in any kind of proximity to the Warehouse area to have the kind of amenity or affect that is required. This is to encourage high-density residential growth and provide an amenity for that density. Think 3 blocks maximum. This is not unlike parks or greenspaces that already exist in low density suburban communities, even ones next to the river valley. Lots of good planning reasons for this project to go ahead.
    Thank you! Listen to the man called GreenSPACE!
    “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

  59. #159
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    I agree what you're saying about the river valley being under utilized, but that really has nothing to do with this catalyst project and is not in any kind of proximity to the Warehouse area to have the kind of amenity or affect that is required. This is to encourage high-density residential growth and provide an amenity for that density. Think 3 blocks maximum. This is not unlike parks or greenspaces that already exist in low density suburban communities, even ones next to the river valley. Lots of good planning reasons for this project to go ahead.
    Why include Property #4 which is separated from the rest of the proposed park by 107 Street?

    There are already several parks in close proximity to the proposed Central Park (Beaver Hills, Michael Phair and Alex Decoteau). Why not wait to see how Decoteau Park turns out before adding yet more park space Downtown?

  60. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    ^Brewery District has a huge net lease and positive rate of return. Not comparable at all.

    Not saying it can't be done at all, but just it's highly unlikely given construction costs, parking rates, over capacity/market demand vs. rates, and City's priorities regarding infrastructure spending. Given the City is not in the business of providing subsidized parking, I can't see the case for this.
    The nearby river valley is a huge and under used park space. Why doesn't the city for once focus on using and making work on the great assets it already has rather than always chasing the shiny new idea?

    If they focused half the effort on implementation that they did on all their pie in the sky ideas this city would be a much better place.
    I agree what you're saying about the river valley being under utilized, but that really has nothing to do with this catalyst project and is not in any kind of proximity to the Warehouse area to have the kind of amenity or affect that is required. This is to encourage high-density residential growth and provide an amenity for that density. Think 3 blocks maximum. This is not unlike parks or greenspaces that already exist in low density suburban communities, even ones next to the river valley. Lots of good planning reasons for this project to go ahead.
    Thank you! Listen to the man called GreenSPACE!
    The first problem with this idea is this is not a low density suburban community, the second problem is development will likely occur any event and doesn't need this impetus, the third problem is they city tying up this land for up to a decade will actually impede/slow development in the area and reduce not increase density, the fourth problem is there is a lot of park space nearby that is under-utlized and there are already various other small parks in the area.

    I suppose it might be profitable for someone to sell a few old parking lots to the city, they will get the most benefit from it.

  61. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Thank you! Listen to the man called GreenSPACE!
    Haha. A DECL Director advocating for another 8-figure stimulus package for his neighbourhood after a billion dollars in public investment over the last decade… No bias or conflict of interest there, no sir.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  62. #162
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Greenspace it wasn't my intention to compare the Park to the Brewery Development; the point I was making is that people are throwing numbers around like 100 millon dollars to build a garage while that entire development was built for the number I stated. I do get people's concerns about oversupply, and I'll simply be happy when they build the park! I just hope it's quickly done.

    Dave, it's only a couple blocks of green space and not New York's Central Park. These things do wonders for the psychological well being of a community and not everything revolved around density (although it's important). I honestly feel that taking these lots off market will actually improve lot values surrounding it simply because supply is gobbled up - thus speculators will be incentivized to sell to developers. Just my feeling.

  63. #163

    Default

    A couple thoughts:

    New developments bordering green spaces are likely to be designed with the view and access in mind. I'd image such buildings would be of a more 'desirable' design style.

    Also, regarding parking, self-driving cars, if they appear in numbers, will likely be able to pick up and drop off their owners and park at a distance from the downtown.

    To attract families downtown, family orientated infrastructure is needed. Parks and playgrounds help. Instead of underground parking, and underground school might be more valuable.

  64. #164
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Dave, it's only a couple blocks of green space and not New York's Central Park. These things do wonders for the psychological well being of a community and not everything revolved around density (although it's important). I honestly feel that taking these lots off market will actually improve lot values surrounding it simply because supply is gobbled up - thus speculators will be incentivized to sell to developers. Just my feeling.
    Centrally located parks are a best a double-edged sword when it comes to making neighbourhoods more attractive and desirable places to live.

    Boyle Street Park was intentionally redeveloped with the park space shrunk in size and the passive green space eliminated because crime (e.g. drug dealing, vandalism) and disorder (e.g. noisy drinking parties, defecation, littering) were so deeply entrenched.

    All of the existing Downtown parks have been plagued on and off by crime and disorder problems. And Downtown will soon be adding another park (Decoteau) to the mix.
    Last edited by East McCauley; 23-12-2016 at 10:20 AM.

  65. #165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    I agree what you're saying about the river valley being under utilized, but that really has nothing to do with this catalyst project and is not in any kind of proximity to the Warehouse area to have the kind of amenity or affect that is required. This is to encourage high-density residential growth and provide an amenity for that density. Think 3 blocks maximum. This is not unlike parks or greenspaces that already exist in low density suburban communities, even ones next to the river valley. Lots of good planning reasons for this project to go ahead.
    Why include Property #4 which is separated from the rest of the proposed park by 107 Street?

    There are already several parks in close proximity to the proposed Central Park (Beaver Hills, Michael Phair and Alex Decoteau). Why not wait to see how Decoteau Park turns out before adding yet more park space Downtown?
    Two different types of parks for slightly different functions. While Alex D is great, important amenity, it doesn't provide the recreational opportunities a larger park would. Nor the amenity needed for high-density or family-oriented housing. Think baseball diamond or tennis courts and large playground with lots of grass.

    Property #4 is part of the deal but could be, say, the site of the playground. Better to grab the site now and think about design later. The road could be reconfigured or an bulb/mid-block crossing put in place for instance.
    www.decl.org

  66. #166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Dave, it's only a couple blocks of green space and not New York's Central Park. These things do wonders for the psychological well being of a community and not everything revolved around density (although it's important). I honestly feel that taking these lots off market will actually improve lot values surrounding it simply because supply is gobbled up - thus speculators will be incentivized to sell to developers. Just my feeling.
    Centrally located parks are a best a double-edged sword when it comes to making neighbourhoods more attractive and desirable places to live.

    Boyle Street Park was intentionally redeveloped with the park space shrunk in size and the passive green space eliminated because crime (e.g. drug dealing, vandalism) and disorder (e.g. noisy drinking parties, defecation, littering) were so deeply entrenched.

    All of the existing Downtown parks have been plagued on and off by crime and disorder problems. And Downtown will soon be adding another park (Decoteau) to the mix.
    It's a chicken and egg problem, but Alex D has a lot more residents in the area, and there are a lot more activities going on. Just the dog off-leash area will have activity throughout most of the day. I'm not worried.
    www.decl.org

  67. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Thank you! Listen to the man called GreenSPACE!
    Haha. A DECL Director advocating for another 8-figure stimulus package for his neighbourhood after a billion dollars in public investment over the last decade… No bias or conflict of interest there, no sir.
    This is Downtown, not some random neighbourhood. CRL is paid for by local Downtown taxpayers, so will the park.
    Last edited by GreenSPACE; 23-12-2016 at 01:16 PM.
    www.decl.org

  68. #168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    Dave, it's only a couple blocks of green space and not New York's Central Park. These things do wonders for the psychological well being of a community and not everything revolved around density (although it's important). I honestly feel that taking these lots off market will actually improve lot values surrounding it simply because supply is gobbled up - thus speculators will be incentivized to sell to developers. Just my feeling.
    Centrally located parks are a best a double-edged sword when it comes to making neighbourhoods more attractive and desirable places to live.

    Boyle Street Park was intentionally redeveloped with the park space shrunk in size and the passive green space eliminated because crime (e.g. drug dealing, vandalism) and disorder (e.g. noisy drinking parties, defecation, littering) were so deeply entrenched.

    All of the existing Downtown parks have been plagued on and off by crime and disorder problems. And Downtown will soon be adding another park (Decoteau) to the mix.
    It's a chicken and egg problem, but Alex D has a lot more residents in the area, and there are a lot more activities going on. Just the dog off-leash area will have activity throughout most of the day. I'm not worried.
    Don't streets and alleys have somewhat similar problems? "crime (e.g. drug dealing, vandalism) and disorder (e.g. noisy drinking parties, defecation, littering) "

  69. #169

    Default

    ^Example: When I moved into my loft a long long time ago, there were no 'eyes' on our alley. Now there's several other residential and commercial buildings, people coming and going. There's still crime, but nothing like what it used to be.

    EPS like activity on the streets, deters most major criminal activity.
    www.decl.org

  70. #170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    This is Downtown, not some random neighbourhood.
    Your neighbourhood is not special. You are not special. You & the rest of the Downtown Booster Crew need to get the hell over yourselves & stop viewing yourselves as THE defining feature of Edmonton. It's arrogant & blatantly incorrect.

    No wonder this board has devolved to the point it's primarily just the downtown boosters, the hockey fans & the right wing nutters left.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  71. #171
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    This is Downtown, not some random neighbourhood. CRL is paid for by local Downtown taxpayers, so will the park.
    It continues to amuse me that non-downtown residents who keep moaning about their taxpayers money being wasted on Rogers Place, new downtown parks and other downtown initiatives continue to be so ignorant or clueless on how a CRL (community revitalization levy) actually works.
    “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

  72. #172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    This is Downtown, not some random neighbourhood. CRL is paid for by local Downtown taxpayers, so will the park.
    It continues to amuse me that non-downtown residents who keep moaning about their taxpayers money being wasted on Rogers Place, new downtown parks and other downtown initiatives continue to be so ignorant or clueless on how a CRL (community revitalization levy) actually works.
    Although many of the commentators, live and/or work downtown, I wouldn't so casually dismiss the concerns of those who don't. After paying for Rogers Place, how much money does this "fund" actually have in it right now? I am guessing it is quite overdrawn at this time and the rest of Edmontonians could be on the hook if the rosy projections for money coming in do not all come to pass. The economy is in a bit of a slow down now and a bit of prudence right now would be wise.

  73. #173
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    This is Downtown, not some random neighbourhood. CRL is paid for by local Downtown taxpayers, so will the park.
    It continues to amuse me that non-downtown residents who keep moaning about their taxpayers money being wasted on Rogers Place, new downtown parks and other downtown initiatives continue to be so ignorant or clueless on how a CRL (community revitalization levy) actually works.
    Although many of the commentators, live and/or work downtown, I wouldn't so casually dismiss the concerns of those who don't. After paying for Rogers Place, how much money does this "fund" actually have in it right now? I am guessing it is quite overdrawn at this time and the rest of Edmontonians could be on the hook if the rosy projections for money coming in do not all come to pass. The economy is in a bit of a slow down now and a bit of prudence right now would be wise.
    It's funding roughly half a billion dollars worth of Downtown improvements and redevelopments slated over a 20 year plan. The CRL is looking to be a steaming success and has exceeded expectations.

  74. #174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    The city already has a seriously under utilized asset nearby - more blue sky ideas are nice, but here we need to do some hard work as a city. Maybe hard work makes you tired and it is not as sexy, but that doesn't make it misguided. The difference between great cities and mediocre ones is not a bunch of shiny new ideas, we can easily copy good ideas from elsewhere, it is also how well we implement them and whether they really make sense for here. Downtown Edmonton needs more density, the inner city Detroit model of turning big empty lots into parks is not right for downtown Edmonton now.
    I agree, Edmonton already has world class parks, the river valley is one of the worlds best parks, the Legislature is also world class, both an easy walk from warehouse district. What it lacks is density / urban living / walkable yet affordable retail. An urban walmart or similar, say close to the new LRT line, would do more to attract / get residents living in much needed low rise developments in the warehouse district, than yet another park will. Like this Best Buy, which has small retail on ground floor:



    That's what is needed, a whole district of those type of developments, an easy walk from LRT - all of a sudden regular people can live downtown and walk to shopping rather than drive - provides places for many people to work as well, and another reason for anyone who lives close to an LRT station anywhere in Edmonton to come downtown.
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-12-2016 at 02:12 PM.

  75. #175
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,215

    Default

    We need 4 or 5 Ultima sized towers in the UW to get things really going... add in public spaces and the institutional presence and we are years ahead.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  76. #176
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,410

    Default

    It will be great to see the LRT within a block or two of the Edmonton Central Park.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  77. #177
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevey_G View Post
    It's funding roughly half a billion dollars worth of Downtown improvements and redevelopments slated over a 20 year plan. The CRL is looking to be a steaming success and has exceeded expectations.
    Not according to the December 13, 2016 report that went to City Council a couple of weeks ago.

    The pace and volume of development underway and proposed within the Capital City Downtown Levy Area significantly exceeds what was anticipated when the plan was repared in 2013. However, recent economic changes, coupled with the anticipated increase in the supply of office space Downtown, have resulted in an increased likelihood that the assessed value of existing properties, particularly older office buildings, may decline in the coming years.

    Administration has adjusted the long-term assumptio
    ns for market value growth to accommodate this emerging situation. This adjustment has significantly reduced the forecasted revenue compared to what was presented in the November 17, 2015, Council report CR_2487.
    Source: Sustainable Development Report CR_4048

  78. #178

    Default

    Putting a parkade under the park would be counter to everything the city is trying to do imo. Yes it will be a little more difficult for people to get downtown with vehicles but that forces them to explore other options. If people want to go downtown they will find a way. If we have enough events and draws to bring people to the core then the downtown will do well regardless of the parking situation. It is true that the LRT isn't adequate to handle the downtown but this means that the city will have to get creative in expanding pathways through buildings and areas, provide better lighting and more rapid transit from busses between major routes and LRT stations.

    The goal of any downtown is to be vibrant, safe and walkable. The city needs to show that the car is no longer king downtown by increasing pedestrian walkways and expanding bike lanes. I had a friend come over from Europe and was dumbfounded at the lack of pedestrians only areas and squares seen across Europe.

  79. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Railplanes View Post
    Putting a parkade under the park would be counter to everything the city is trying to do imo. Yes it will be a little more difficult for people to get downtown with vehicles but that forces them to explore other options. If people want to go downtown they will find a way. If we have enough events and draws to bring people to the core then the downtown will do well regardless of the parking situation. It is true that the LRT isn't adequate to handle the downtown but this means that the city will have to get creative in expanding pathways through buildings and areas, provide better lighting and more rapid transit from busses between major routes and LRT stations.

    The goal of any downtown is to be vibrant, safe and walkable. The city needs to show that the car is no longer king downtown by increasing pedestrian walkways and expanding bike lanes. I had a friend come over from Europe and was dumbfounded at the lack of pedestrians only areas and squares seen across Europe.
    This whole idea of a "central park" reeks of me too ism. I suppose we already have a World Trade Centre, so if we have a "central park" we can pretend to be New York just like Toronto tries to do and is sometimes justly ridiculed for. As for downtown squares, lets see - we already have Churchill and a beautiful huge park space surrounding the legislature, not to mention the river valley park system, which by the way is bigger than central park. Our problem does not seem to be any lack of park space.

    Central Park in New York, much like our river valley park system was not established to encourage density, but largely out of consideration of geographic factors. It was not a good place to build, due to bedrock close to the surface, nor is it in close proximity to the central business district of the city. If it were to be located in a comparable area in Edmonton, it might be in Grandin or Oliver.

    I suppose we can try copy others and hope to be successful, but if we do so the copy should at least bear some semblance to the original.

  80. #180
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave
    Our problem does not seem to be any lack of park space.


    No one's saying it is. What has been said repeatedly is that readily accessible park space in our downtown/CBD is virtually non-existent. There's the legislature, sure, but that's 5+ blocks from the CBD. Churchill is not green space, and is primarily designed to host events. The river valley is a 10-20 minute walk from most of the CBD as well, although the funicular helps address that to some extent.

    And as far as the name goes, no one's trying to copy New York here just because the placeholder name for the time being is "central park." At some point a different and better name will be chosen, I would imagine.

  81. #181

    Default

    - It will not be called Central Park. It's just a placeholder cause it's in the centre of the Warehouse Campus Area
    - The new park is meant as a catalyst for further high-density residential development. Within a few blocks.
    - Land acquisition is being paid for by the CRL, which is paid by Downtown taxpayers.
    - New Parks master plan hasl identified lack of greenspace Downtown per capita.
    - Our Downtown is overparked. Some of that surface parking will be replaced by underground with new developments.
    - More people will other modalities to get Downtown in the future.
    www.decl.org

  82. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave
    Our problem does not seem to be any lack of park space.


    No one's saying it is. What has been said repeatedly is that readily accessible park space in our downtown/CBD is virtually non-existent. There's the legislature, sure, but that's 5+ blocks from the CBD. Churchill is not green space, and is primarily designed to host events. The river valley is a 10-20 minute walk from most of the CBD as well, although the funicular helps address that to some extent.

    And as far as the name goes, no one's trying to copy New York here just because the placeholder name for the time being is "central park." At some point a different and better name will be chosen, I would imagine.
    I don't think putting such a park right next to the central business district is good long term planning. I see lots of people at the leg park on a nice day in summer and Churchill gets well used for events, so they must be fairly accessible for downtown residents. I hope the city will continue to use its limited resources to make the river valley park system more accessible and inviting to downtown residents - the lack of nearby amenities is also issue that should be better addressed.

  83. #183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Warehouse Campus Area.
    Apologies for the aside, but is that what that area is actually called, Warehouse Campus? What campus, Macewan and Norquest? It doesn't really make sense.
    I looked up campus just to make sure it doesn't have any other meaning I'm unfamiliar with, and none seem to describe a bunch of downtown blocks.

  84. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Railplanes View Post
    Putting a parkade under the park would be counter to everything the city is trying to do imo. Yes it will be a little more difficult for people to get downtown with vehicles but that forces them to explore other options. If people want to go downtown they will find a way. If we have enough events and draws to bring people to the core then the downtown will do well regardless of the parking situation. It is true that the LRT isn't adequate to handle the downtown but this means that the city will have to get creative in expanding pathways through buildings and areas, provide better lighting and more rapid transit from busses between major routes and LRT stations.

    The goal of any downtown is to be vibrant, safe and walkable. The city needs to show that the car is no longer king downtown by increasing pedestrian walkways and expanding bike lanes. I had a friend come over from Europe and was dumbfounded at the lack of pedestrians only areas and squares seen across Europe.
    It's not true that our downtown does not have pedestrian friendly only areas. We do have that in spades but it's in the indoor malls and underground pedway system. Comparing one of the coldest continents on the planet to European continent is no comparison at all really. One very rarely sees the winter temperatures we endure in Canada to the temperatures they see in Europe. Also European streets tend to be a lot narrower in their downtown cores which makes for a cozier walking experience. It's fine and dandy when Europeans (or other nationalities) are visiting in the summer and they say we don't have many friendly pedestrian downtown streets, but bring the same people back in mid-January when it's -39 and ask for their opinion. How do they then feel about a walkable downtown area when they have a gale force wind blowing up their trouser leg and smarting their faces.
    As for Central Park. I like the idea. Downtown can grow further north and east if it has to. Might not have to grow at all if more people start working from home.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  85. #185

    Default

    ^^Asparational choice of the authors of the Downtown Plan.
    www.decl.org

  86. #186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Perspective View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    Warehouse Campus Area.
    Apologies for the aside, but is that what that area is actually called, Warehouse Campus? What campus, Macewan and Norquest? It doesn't really make sense.
    I looked up campus just to make sure it doesn't have any other meaning I'm unfamiliar with, and none seem to describe a bunch of downtown blocks.
    Yes, the thinking around this frankenstein park seems very muddled, starting with the various strange names. It looks like it is cobbled together from three separate blocks, so either it will be physically divided into several parts or two or three major downtown roads will need to be closed or diverted to make it contiguous. Another problem that doesn't seem to have been thought through.

  87. #187

    Default

    All in due course.
    www.decl.org

  88. #188
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    - Land acquisition is being paid for by the CRL, which is paid by Downtown taxpayers.
    According to Sustainable Development Report CR_4048 (attachment 3), the Downtown CRL is underwater (in deficit) to the tune of $15.4 million at the end of 2016. This deficit is forecast to grow to $23.7 million by the end of 2017.

    If money is to be found to fund land acquisition for the park it will have to be borrowed from we, the "non-Downtown taxpayers."

  89. #189

    Default

    ^ oh really.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  90. #190
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    - Land acquisition is being paid for by the CRL, which is paid by Downtown taxpayers.
    According to Sustainable Development Report CR_4048 (attachment 3), the Downtown CRL is underwater (in deficit) to the tune of $15.4 million at the end of 2016. This deficit is forecast to grow to $23.7 million by the end of 2017.

    If money is to be found to fund land acquisition for the park it will have to be borrowed from we, the "non-Downtown taxpayers."
    Who cares? How much tax revenue does the core generate for the rest of the city? A healthy and attractive downtown means a city with improved roads, better schools, and marginalized tax increases for the rest of the city.

    It's not us vs you; we're all working to build a better Edmonton together.

  91. #191
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    ^I agree. Then why peddle the fiction that "Downtown taxpayers" are paying for the proposed park, implying that the rest of us should have less of a say about whether it is a good investment of public funds?

  92. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    - Land acquisition is being paid for by the CRL, which is paid by Downtown taxpayers.
    According to Sustainable Development Report CR_4048 (attachment 3), the Downtown CRL is underwater (in deficit) to the tune of $15.4 million at the end of 2016. This deficit is forecast to grow to $23.7 million by the end of 2017.

    If money is to be found to fund land acquisition for the park it will have to be borrowed from we, the "non-Downtown taxpayers."
    Talk about cherry picking financial data. $15.4 million isn't exactly a ton of money in terms of the overall budget, or when one considers the overall amount of the CRL. I'd be interested to see 5 and 10 year projections. Moreover, money is moved around within municipal and provincial governments to cover deficits all the time.

    Surely, money has been borrowed in the past from downtown to pay for new neighbourhoods, etc. When the city was in full sprawl mode and downtown was neglected, it was the opposite. I'm sure the trend of downtown expansion and gentrification will slow in the future and we'll be back to the opposite once again. It will then be the downtown narrow minded crowd complaining about money going out to the other neighbourhoods.

    Regardless, short term deficits aren't a big deal in terms of long term government financial plans, nor should they be - the same thinking applies to financial instruments - you have a low tolerance for risk if you focus too much on short term and minute details. Worrying about money to fund a land acquisition indicates you probably have a low tolerance for risk rather than thinking about the long term gains that such a development may have. Many people outside of downtown would use this park during work hours throughout the week. Moreover, it will have a positive effect on property values in the future, which is good for everyone from a tax base point of view. See the population flux that occurs on a daily basis in the core for reference.

  93. #193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moodib View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenSPACE View Post
    - Land acquisition is being paid for by the CRL, which is paid by Downtown taxpayers.
    According to Sustainable Development Report CR_4048 (attachment 3), the Downtown CRL is underwater (in deficit) to the tune of $15.4 million at the end of 2016. This deficit is forecast to grow to $23.7 million by the end of 2017.

    If money is to be found to fund land acquisition for the park it will have to be borrowed from we, the "non-Downtown taxpayers."
    Talk about cherry picking financial data. $15.4 million isn't exactly a ton of money in terms of the overall budget, or when one considers the overall amount of the CRL. I'd be interested to see 5 and 10 year projections. Moreover, money is moved around within municipal and provincial governments to cover deficits all the time.

    Surely, money has been borrowed in the past from downtown to pay for new neighbourhoods, etc. When the city was in full sprawl mode and downtown was neglected, it was the opposite. I'm sure the trend of downtown expansion and gentrification will slow in the future and we'll be back to the opposite once again. It will then be the downtown narrow minded crowd complaining about money going out to the other neighbourhoods.

    Regardless, short term deficits aren't a big deal in terms of long term government financial plans, nor should they be - the same thinking applies to financial instruments - you have a low tolerance for risk if you focus too much on short term and minute details. Worrying about money to fund a land acquisition indicates you probably have a low tolerance for risk rather than thinking about the long term gains that such a development may have. Many people outside of downtown would use this park during work hours throughout the week. Moreover, it will have a positive effect on property values in the future, which is good for everyone from a tax base point of view. See the population flux that occurs on a daily basis in the core for reference.
    There are so many concerns about this proposal and the response from supporters seems to be "don't worry it will all be ok". The money isn't there to cover it now and there is an increasing risk to taxpayers in general as projections for the fund were overly optimistic. Most people visiting or working downtown will be busy working, shopping, going to events or appointments downtown - they will not be coming downtown to spend hours in a park, this is even more faulty logic to support it.

  94. #194
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    ^^There is no surplus cash in the Downtown CRL account that can be used to purchase land for the central park. The money will have to be borrowed.

    Pointing out that the CRL account is currently in a significant deficit position is not cherry-picking, it's a fact. In the short-term at least, purchasing the land will likely increase the CRL deficit as about $20 million of assessment for the combined lots will be removed from the City tax rolls.

  95. #195

    Default

    Money has to be borrowed in the first few years of the CRL before taxes acrue to pay it back. That is normal. Yes this does take up room in how much the City can borrow and contributes to the overall debt level of the City, but the future taxes will more than outweigh that investment. We're also borrowing at historically low rates. So to say it's coming from 'non-Downtown taxpayers' isn't really the whole story.
    www.decl.org

  96. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^There is no surplus cash in the Downtown CRL account that can be used to purchase land for the central park. The money will have to be borrowed.

    Pointing out that the CRL account is currently in a significant deficit position is not cherry-picking, it's a fact. In the short-term at least, purchasing the land will likely increase the CRL deficit as about $20 million of assessment for the combined lots will be removed from the City tax rolls.
    Ha. It is still cherry picking since you aren't looking at the long term position of the CRL. You're looking at 2 years, which is nothing in the scheme of how the CRL works long term. Yes, it will increase the deficit by $20 million. However, that deficit will easily be made back. When the city and other governments budget and plan, they don't look at the short term outlook of 2 years. They plan in longer increments. It isn't that hard to forecast the growth of the CRL over the longer term.

    @Dave; I'm not a supporter of the park by any means, nor am I a detractor. Frankly, I could care less. I was simply pointing out the economic thought process that goes into something like this, let alone other pots of money that the city has and how it fits into capital budget planning. Short term forecasting for something like this would be folly.

    I'll let you folks get back to arguing over something that simply doesn't matter a lot from a financial perspective.

  97. #197
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,413

    Default

    ^^In separate posts, you twice framed the funding for the land purchases as paid for by 'Downtown taxpayers.' I disagree with this framing, hence my cheeky reference to 'non-Downtown taxpayers.'

  98. #198

    Default

    ^Fair enough, it's a nuanced financial tool maybe a bit more than can be casually discussed here.
    www.decl.org

  99. #199

    Default

    The idea that Edmonton has nice walkable areas downtown is hysterical to me. Have you people been to literally any other city in the damn world that isn't Detroit or Atlanta? Our downtown is relatively an awful space to walk around, and the weather is not an excuse. The number of prohibitively cold days we have in winter is vastly over exaggerated, and Copenhagen seems to manage just fine. Have you even been to Calgary...? Stephen avenue is amazing and unlike anything we have in Edmonton. Downtown Calgary is absolutely beautiful compared to ours and their climate is basically identical.

  100. #200

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seandroid View Post
    The idea that Edmonton has nice walkable areas downtown is hysterical to me. Have you people been to literally any other city in the damn world that isn't Detroit or Atlanta? Our downtown is relatively an awful space to walk around, and the weather is not an excuse. The number of prohibitively cold days we have in winter is vastly over exaggerated, and Copenhagen seems to manage just fine. Have you even been to Calgary...? Stephen avenue is amazing and unlike anything we have in Edmonton. Downtown Calgary is absolutely beautiful compared to ours and their climate is basically identical.
    I haven't been to Detroit or Atlanta, but I would agree Stephen Avenue is a reasonably nice walkable street with a lot of retail in close proximity to the downtown, but I don't recall seeing a lot of street level retail in most of the rest of downtown Calgary. It's mainly office towers and unless you are going there to work, there would be no reason to walk by them, a lot of them actually seem kind of cold or sterile. Edmonton's downtown retail is more spread out and it doesn't have a street in close proximity to downtown with that much street level retail, although 104 St may develop that way. In any event, I would say it is a fairly walkable street. Calgary's climate is definitely more variable than ours - which is a plus and a minus. They get more cool windy days in the spring and fall, but the snow melts more in winter, so that might help it a bit to be more walkable at times.

    Edmonton's downtown has more open spaces as it is not filled up with large office buildings and wider streets, which might also make it not seem as walkable. The empty spaces have been filling in over the last 10 to 15 years and I think the the downtown arena development has helped accelerate this process. Irregardless, most importantly, I think there are a lot of people here who want to genuinely improve things here so I think it will get much better.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •