Results 1 to 60 of 60

Thread: Death of Suburbia

  1. #1

    Default Death of Suburbia

    Interesting series in Business Insider. Basically, many of the things the boomer generation cherished are of no interest to many young people today, and that's showing up in the collapse of older suburbs.

    - McMansions which are impractical
    - Suburban Malls - not as many needed with on-line
    - Golf courses - few millennials are playing the game
    - Roads to downtown - impossibly expensive to maintain
    - Businesses relocating back downtown where millennials want to work
    - Casual dining - chain stores collapsing as new generation are more discerning.

    I always find it interesting - there is something about suburbs. They look great when they are new, nice walking paths, new stores, attractive homes, etc. But go to one 30 or 40 years old, and most of them are a mess (the one I grew up in as a kid in 1970s, all the corner stores are boarded up). People don't seem to learn though what is in the future for them and their home "investment".

    Overview:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/death...verview-2017-3

    Full series:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/death-of-suburbia
    Last edited by moahunter; 13-11-2017 at 08:44 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    If the suburbs die, 90% of Edmonton is dead. 90% of Edmonton is Post WWII suburbs.

    however, we know that the suburbs aren't all:

    -filled with mcmansions.
    -suburban malls are thriving in Edmonton - mostly due to cold climate
    -golf courses will survive - most people don't pick up golf until an older age anyways, nothing new with that.
    -LRT instead of roads.
    -businesses ebb and flow and so do their locations
    -dining. yes, people are picky about where they eat, noting new there either.


    moahunter, how are the Calgary suburbs doing? I drove to Banff recently, and was shocked at all the development north of Stoney trail. If I had followed your postings, there was no development on the outside of that trail? Seems suburbs are booming just as much in your city, as in Edmonton.

  3. #3
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,329

    Default

    Anybody who makes such broad and absurd 'claims' about suburbs dying simply doesn't know how cities work. The reality is that ALL neighbourhoods will go through demographic cycles. Some will maintain a stable demographic profile for various reasons where others won't. There are many 'old' suburbs that remain very attractive to people today. Just look at Rio Terrace, Patricia Heights, etc.

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Interesting series in Business Insider. Basically, many of the things the boomer generation cherished are of no interest to many young people today, and that's showing up in the collapse of older suburbs.

    - McMansions which are impractical
    - Suburban Malls - not as many needed with on-line
    - Golf courses - few millennials are playing the game
    - Roads to downtown - impossibly expensive to maintain
    - Businesses relocating back downtown where millennials want to work
    - Casual dining - chain stores collapsing as new generation are more discerning.

    I always find it interesting - there is something about suburbs. They look great when they are new, nice walking paths, new stores, attractive homes, etc. But go to one 30 or 40 years old, and most of them are a mess (the one I grew up in as a kid in 1970s, all the corner stores are boarded up). People don't seem to learn though what is in the future for them and their home "investment".

    Overview:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/death...verview-2017-3

    Full series:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/death-of-suburbia
    Edmonton’s downtown was once a thriving place too. Times changed. Downtown however didn’t disappear even as “investments” suffered.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Anybody who makes such broad and absurd 'claims' about suburbs dying simply doesn't know how cities work. The reality is that ALL neighbourhoods will go through demographic cycles. Some will maintain a stable demographic profile for various reasons where others won't. There are many 'old' suburbs that remain very attractive to people today. Just look at Rio Terrace, Patricia Heights, etc.
    Read the articles, the title is from the name of the series. The point is that suburbs are morphing into a more urban format - either that, or they die, the traditional format doesn't work anymore (like the neighborhood I grew up in).

    Business Insider reporters from the consumer, transportation, news, graphics, video, and innovation teams have explored this idea in a series of stories.

    We're calling it the Death of Suburbia — because if the trends that they identified continue, the suburbs as we know them could be forever changed.

    The line is blurring between city and suburb

    Urban and suburban areas are becoming less distinguishable as modern populations value convenience and location over size.

    The line between city and suburb has already started to blur, Fadi Masoud, assistant professor of Landscape Architecture and Urbanism at University of Toronto who contributed to a forthcoming book called "Infinite Suburbia," told Business Insider's Leanna Garfield.

    "Some people still attribute the oldest part of the city, which is predominantly pedestrian-friendly and more dense, as 'urban,' and then everything else that starts going out further in distance from the core as 'suburban.' But that definition doesn't work as well now," he told Business Insider. "What you would usually define as urban and suburban is eroding."
    http://www.businessinsider.com/death...verview-2017-3
    Last edited by moahunter; 13-11-2017 at 10:28 AM.

  6. #6
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,807

    Default

    Haven't had a chance to read, but do they address the expected impact of autonomous transportation? No one really knows what effect that's going to have, but a lot are predicting that it could well result in more sprawl since commuting time could still be put to productive use. It's terrible being stuck in stop and go traffic for an hour each way every day, but if autonomous vehicles eliminate or at least reduce traffic jams, and allow people to watch TV or read or whatever, a lot more people may decide to own homes well outside city centers.

  7. #7
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,092

    Default

    There is a demographic related trend that is more 'urban' focused, i would agree.
    The cost of housing is going to increasingly preclude young people from McMansion life.
    However, urban housing, condos, are not really an affordable alternative.

    That might bode well for older inner suburbs primarily, they are more primed to offer affordability and are after 30-50 of the same owner in many cases (parents bought when young stay into retirement) ready to have the housing stock turned over.

    Core urban living, by purchase, still seems to be a premium choice...however, it is likely we will see more long term rental and alternate transport to personal vehicle ownership.

    Then there is Marcel's point...

    It's really an interesting time, the tapering out of the baby boomer dominated home ownership period that caused the massive explosion of the modern burbs.

  8. #8

    Default

    Milennials want to work?!

    heh, OK I'm joking...

    But what an absolute hogwash concept.

    Suburbs are not dying, anywhere they are increasingly becoming the mode and urban centers increasingly becoming obsolete places to avoid or that are hard to get to and that required you to pay parking so that you can go to wanker restaurant/pubs that are over rated and filled with uber douchebags pfffft

    ps the Mcmansions, it could be argued, are increasingly required for the increasing demographics of "kids" living in ma and pa's basement until their 30 and sometimes having their own families in that basement. Next, Mcmansions as they are termed also work exceedingly well for ethnic immigrants many of whom have a different concept of family and that opt for extended family living under one roof rather than nuclear family, which is more a western world concept.
    Last edited by Replacement; 13-11-2017 at 12:30 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  9. #9

    Default

    What is sprawl though other than a concept pertaining to what one is sprawled to? Sprawl, first and foremost assumes that everybody is living concentrically dispersed from the hub of a wheel and that everybody wants to be in the center or frequents that center.

    As I have stated the entire duration of my incumbency on this board nothing could be further from the truth as it concerns Edmonton. few people here have any affinity for the downtown, seldom go there, and its not even in the convo. If you live in the Southside you shop on the southside. If I go to dinner its local, if I buy anything its local. I'm not, in fact, sprawled from the services I require and can walk to most of them. In fact I have more reasonable cost shopping options located nearby than I would if I lived in a more expensive downtown. That few want.

    My employment requires immediate access to efficient transportation to surrounding and outlying areas. I'm located near the Henday. near enough to the Whitemud. I'm where I want to be and the best place, logically, for me and my family to be.

    ps my "Investment" is doing fine. The best one I ever made. I've gone from 81.5k in to 380K value. While living in the investment and having minimal associated costs that I would have living anywhere. No condo fees, no parking fees etc.
    Last edited by Replacement; 13-11-2017 at 12:39 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  10. #10

    Default

    Journal article from today pertains to this conversation I think: http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...st-in-edmonton

    Marcel:

    I don't know about the optimism/enthusiasm for autonomous vehicles and their impact. When I start cooking a turkey dinner in the microwave and working in a paperless office the future will finally have arrived. Until then, I'll believe it when I see it (large scale that is).

  11. #11

    Default

    That author is simply stupid. Please excuse my use of word, but what else would you call this:

    For the study, Trulia defined a McMansion as a home that was built between 2001 and 2007 and that had between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet of space.


    In one example, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the extra money that buyers were expected to be willing to pay to own a McMansion fell by 84% from 2012 to 2016. In that same city in 2012, a typical McMansion would be valued at $477,000, about 274% more than the area's other homes. Today, a McMansion would be valued at $611,000, or 190% above the rest of the market.

    1) The range of the sizes are too broad. Could it be that 5000 sf McMansions were more popular back then and now it's the 3000 sf ones? Of course the price will be lower, because the size has shrunk. Average price can never be trusted when the sample demography is not stable (i.e. new houses added and old ones demolished). You will need to prove that you are comparing the same house to itself in the past, or use a different metric such as price/sf.

    2) Why limit the time range to 2001-2007? Is it due to the specific background of that era because of the financial background (i.e. US housing peak at 2007) or the specific neighbourhoods? The housing market generally have a 20-30 year cycle. You are only looking at 1/4 of the cycle by limiting yourself to 6 years and that's stupid.

    3) Why use a ratio of price difference between McMansion vs shoe-boxes to judge if McMansions are out? It doesn't make sense. If you want to make a point that McMansions are out, you should include the new construction number/ratio. I.e. how many McMansions were built as a percentage of the total builds?

    On the contrary, can I suggest a different theory that McMansions are not out. Instead they are hot. More people are buying McMansions because they became cheaper and in term, due to the increased demand, builder would be able to lower the price. Think McMansions as electric cars. The price premium has decreased over the years. But does that mean they are out?

  12. #12

    Default

    The author's opinion of suburb shopping does not make any sense either. The fall of the likes of JCP or Sears can only be attributed to the model of department stores, but has nothing to do with the viability of suburb big box stores. Costco is doing great actually. The shopping malls that's hurting from department stores are not really on the edge of the city anymore.

    If you look at Windermere Currents or Ironcross, you would reach a completely opposite conclusion. The inner city shopping is dead and new suburb shopping is where people go.

  13. #13

    Default

    Edmonton doesn't really have sprawl in the same way American Cities do. Edmonton has smart growth. Edmonton is a growing city - population wise we've grown by 25% or more (several hundred thousand) since the 90s, but our borders have not changed. We continue to built fairly densely populated residential neighbourhoods with multiple types of dwellings, from single family homes, to low-rise and mid-rises all in the same area, with commercial/retail service nodes, and schools and parks, and smart transit routings.

    We do not have large estate sized lots with no sidewalks, no amenities, no transit, need car for everything... which is typical of what I would call sprawl and likely the birth of this article.

    I put out a hardy chuckle when I see someone say Edmonton has a sprawl issue. We don't, not really. Not compared to many other American centers where this articles are born from.

    Sure, some of you urban downtownists want to see everyone living in a multi-family dwelling, and like to disparged the rest of Edmonton as a sprawl wasteland and would love to see no more single family homes built - but that isn't sprawl just because its a single family housing.

  14. #14

    Default

    ^Meds, just to add, as I mentioned before even the "Single family homes" that we have in the burbs, and I see a lot of this in Laurel, and in Meadows are home to large families, extended families, and not nuclear families and so that it is not uncommon for around 10 people living in the same house and thus density found even in that configuration. A hell of a lot more walk ups, lowrises, density developments than generally given credit for also exist in the South. So much of the population explosion of Edmonton has of course been in the very burbs that are alleged to be dying..

    The average DT resident doesn't have much of a clue what build up or population actually exists in the suburban areas. They'd still be thinking that 100 people live around Meadows Rec Center and why is it there...
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  15. #15

    Default

    The new suburbs being designed are beyond dense. There is zero lot line lane homes, duplexes, four storey buildings, townhouses, etc.

    Edmonton has very smart growth, it is not like American style suburban development where you have competing surrounding municipalities that don't allow dense housing and only McMansion style zoned lots.

  16. #16
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,288

    Default

    If McMansions are between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet I would guess that the vast majority of new homes built in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region are not McMansions.

  17. #17

    Default

    I already hate this word.

  18. #18
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,251

    Default

    The larger issue here is how to make central Edmonton more attractive vis a vis the burbs. The burbs aren't going anywhere and we need to continue to make them more walkable, more beautiful, more connected.

    More importantly I would say is to create ways to bring multiple forms of new housing at a variety of price points to Downtown and central Edmonton. Imagine what another 20-50k people would do for transit, street-life, schools, tax base and other infrastructure if we could add that to core neighbourhoods. This is what we need to work on.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  19. #19

    Default

    Central Edmonton can't compete with the burbs and perhaps that's the real problem. Stop trying to compete.

    Central Edmonton needs to be central Edmonton. Keep working on the strengths it already has and targeting the demographic that already thrives here. Stop trying to be the 'be all end all'. Stop trying to be 'everything for everyone'

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Central Edmonton can't compete with the burbs and perhaps that's the real problem. Stop trying to compete.

    Central Edmonton needs to be central Edmonton. Keep working on the strengths it already has and targeting the demographic that already thrives here. Stop trying to be the 'be all end all'. Stop trying to be 'everything for everyone'
    Bingo.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  21. #21

    Default

    That's "bingo" for downtown, not quite for central Edmonton.

    But mostly this is all irrelevant for an article that really doesn't apply to Edmonton's development patterns. We don't have an oversupply of 3000-5000sf homes on oversized lots, so we don't have the same dynamics. We don't have rampant development in unincorporated places and competition between a millions towns and cities in one metro, and we don't have much in the way of stifling HOAs. We never had significant numbers of people buying homes 75km away from work just so they could afford that extra 1000sf, so we don't have those really unsustainable places that were bound to fail and drag down the average.
    There can only be one.

  22. #22
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Central Edmonton can't compete with the burbs and perhaps that's the real problem. Stop trying to compete.

    Central Edmonton needs to be central Edmonton. Keep working on the strengths it already has and targeting the demographic that already thrives here. Stop trying to be the 'be all end all'. Stop trying to be 'everything for everyone'
    It should compete harder/better by having more competitive tax advantages, better infrastructure, more amenities, more mature neighbourhood qualities and more housing options.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  23. #23

    Default

    How many more amenities should there be in a DT that is largely insignificant to the vast majority of Edmontonians and who wouldn't even go there unless they were made to by shifting Arena', Museum, etc out there?

    The argument that the DT lacks amenities relative to what it should have is false.

    The argument that the DT can be attractive to everybody is false.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    The argument that the DT lacks amenities relative to what it should have is false.

    The argument that the DT can be attractive to everybody is false.
    Bingo.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Central Edmonton can't compete with the burbs and perhaps that's the real problem. Stop trying to compete.

    Central Edmonton needs to be central Edmonton. Keep working on the strengths it already has and targeting the demographic that already thrives here. Stop trying to be the 'be all end all'. Stop trying to be 'everything for everyone'
    It should compete harder/better by having more competitive tax advantages, better infrastructure, more amenities, more mature neighbourhood qualities and more housing options.
    Wrong. Why should it have more tax advantages that other places? Why should it get better infrastructure? More amenities? Downtown isn't/can't/won't be the everything for everyone, no matter how many witty slogans/campaigns you try to promote. Just no.

    Why should downtown/central Edmonton get advantages other parts of the city don't get?

  26. #26
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    If McMansions are between 3,000 and 5,000 square feet I would guess that the vast majority of new homes built in the Edmonton Metropolitan Region are not McMansions.
    You are correct, the vast majority of the homes (single, lane and semi-detached) built are likely between 1300-2500SF.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    Wrong. Why should it have more tax advantages that other places? Why should it get better infrastructure? More amenities? Downtown isn't/can't/won't be the everything for everyone, no matter how many witty slogans/campaigns you try to promote. Just no.

    Why should downtown/central Edmonton get advantages other parts of the city don't get?
    Downtown should only get it's fair share of the taxes it puts in. Neither downtown or suburbs are for everyone but no one should be punished for their choice. If more people move downtown, downtown should get more amenities. If more people move southwest, southwest should get more amenities. The city really needs to invest in more road infrastructure in the southwest area.

  28. #28

    Default

    Downtown has and should have more amenities simply because downtown amenities are everyone's amenities.

    Neither downtown nor the SW need to get "the fir share of taxes they put in".

    Neighbourhoods don't pay taxes. People pay taxes.
    There can only be one.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Downtown has and should have more amenities simply because downtown amenities are everyone's amenities.
    No moreso than any other amenities outside the central core.

    Is the Telus World of Science not everyone's amenity because it's not in the core? Was the museum just Glenora's prior to the move?
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  30. #30

    Default

    Downtown amenities are NOT everyones amenities.

    Most people on my block don't even go downtown. Some have never gone.

    People vastly overestimate this attachment to, and patronage of the DT. I have several neighbors that have not attended one event at Rogers Place. They've never even visited the place.

    As stated people go shopping here, recreate here, dine around here, go to fitness clubs here, go to school here, visit neighbors here, live and work locally or out of town etc. more and more in present times, and in an increasingly immigrant multicultural nation, the sense of environment is very localized. Its a village sense of environment and living. Our home is here, the mall or strip mall is there, favorite restaurant here etc. With many of these things being walked to or taking a feeder route bus.

    The notion of travelling a long distance to do the same thing one can do across the street is a very Western world notion. It is not inate to many other people. Most people that immigrate here specifically immigrate to neighborhoods where they already know other people and where they feel comfortable in that enclave. With many services in the local regions that befit them. Why would they travel further to get a sense of detachment and anomie from what they already know and love?

    This is the reality throughout the Southside, and probably most suburbs in Edmonton and area.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Downtown has and should have more amenities simply because downtown amenities are everyone's amenities.
    No moreso than any other amenities outside the central core.

    Is the Telus World of Science not everyone's amenity because it's not in the core? Was the museum just Glenora's prior to the move?
    Of course with ease of free parking they are more easily and affordably accessed amenities than they are located DT. Especially for families or anybody on limited budget.

    But then IanO spurts out "But the DT costs increased parking fare because it is a worthwhile destination that people want to go to. Raising parking fees just makes us a real DT and world class DT environment" except that its not really...
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  32. #32
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,251

    Default

    Again, arguing for central Edmonton and its multiple communities, not just Downtown.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  33. #33

    Default

    "Free" Parking is, of course, simply parking paid for by others. It makes no sense to allow parking for free but to charge $8 a day for a locker, but that's what we're used to so we pay. Or, in the case of parking, we refuse to pay.
    There can only be one.

  34. #34

    Default

    Kinda like how tax breaks (like the ones Ian's advocating for) are really tax increases for others?
    Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  35. #35

    Default

    ^Yes, with the caveat that it's possible for a tax increase for some to be the fair option. Not that a tax incentive will ever be the good government option.
    There can only be one.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Again, arguing for central Edmonton and its multiple communities, not just Downtown.
    So again, you are failing to answer the question - WHY? Why should Central Edmonton get more than the rest of the city?

    and again, arguing for the rest of the city, or rather, the majority of the city

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Downtown amenities are NOT everyones amenities.
    You misread the point. The City operates out of downtown, it is the biggest employment area. The biggest commercial area. One of the biggest education areas. So it requires infrastructure to sustain that. Your community doesn't have City Hall, but your community needs to fund their share of it. Your neighborhood doesn't have the courthouse or EPS HQ or a dozen other things that downtown has, but you benefit from them and need to pay for them and the infrastructure that goes to making them work. Nobody gives a crap where you eat.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  38. #38
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    44,251

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Again, arguing for central Edmonton and its multiple communities, not just Downtown.
    So again, you are failing to answer the question - WHY? Why should Central Edmonton get more than the rest of the city?

    and again, arguing for the rest of the city, or rather, the majority of the city
    Incentivize areas you want to grow.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  39. #39
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,367

    Default

    Question is (and I know there are obvious choices) what is a suburb?

    What realtors call "close-in" aint nearly as close as it used to be!

    Wouldn't be shocked to hear anything inside the Henday now called, "close-in."

    I also go back to my argument of many moons ago, that if you work in Nisku, then living in a southern burb is close-in. B/C YEG has many such employment nodes, there are many more such examples.
    ... gobsmacked

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    "Free" Parking is, of course, simply parking paid for by others. It makes no sense to allow parking for free but to charge $8 a day for a locker, but that's what we're used to so we pay. Or, in the case of parking, we refuse to pay.
    Well that's an odd reply.

    Why should I, or anybody driver further, and pay for parking to enjoy the same amenity I have closeby?

    Its really simple. If I can shop and pay nothing for parking that's the mode I choose. If I can go to dinner and not pay for parking that's the mode I choose. If I can avoid driving at all that's the mode I choose.

    I'm far from atypical. Most people are like that in this City.

    ps I don't pay for a locker either, not sure what you're referring to.

    Oh, now I'm going to walk two blocks and go to a great takeout and order Tandoori that is really cheap and really good. It probably rivals the best takeout Tandoori found anywhere in Edmonton and its right here. Oh look, an ethnic grocery store with good produce and attractive prices right next to it for whatever else I need.

    Just as an example of the present day ease in which one can exist in one's own community.
    Last edited by Replacement; 14-11-2017 at 04:13 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Again, arguing for central Edmonton and its multiple communities, not just Downtown.
    So again, you are failing to answer the question - WHY? Why should Central Edmonton get more than the rest of the city?

    and again, arguing for the rest of the city, or rather, the majority of the city
    Incentivize areas IanO wants to grow.
    Fix that for you.

    I want all of Edmonton and the Edmonton metropolitan region, heck all of Alberta, and Canada to grow. Tax breaks for everyone? Right?

    What's wrong with healthy sustainable growth as a city as a whole? Why only 'central areas'? Why should central areas get special treatment?

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Downtown amenities are NOT everyones amenities.
    You misread the point. The City operates out of downtown, it is the biggest employment area. The biggest commercial area. One of the biggest education areas. So it requires infrastructure to sustain that. Your community doesn't have City Hall, but your community needs to fund their share of it. Your neighborhood doesn't have the courthouse or EPS HQ or a dozen other things that downtown has, but you benefit from them and need to pay for them and the infrastructure that goes to making them work. Nobody gives a crap where you eat.
    Its odd to point out the commercial and employment clout of the DT when the vast majority of Edmontonians, work, shop, elsewhere or that Power Centers like South Common or WEM do more business than DT retailers combined.

    Would be interesting to see some more recent stats on how many people shop, work, where.

    AS far as anything else you mentioned who needs to go to City hall, court, or EPS headquarters? Who gives a crap?


    I'd wonder if the city was better run if it was decentralized. Could it be worse? Rhetorical question.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  43. #43

    Default

    Nothing wrong with your local amenities. More power to you if you can walk to retail, to schools, to whatever. I will never suggest that you should travel further, or that separating a city separating retail from where people live is a good idea.
    I would argue that by avoiding driving you are at least somewhat atypical, but by choosing not to pay for parking when you can avoid it you are merely being rational.

    The thing about parking, though, is that even a surface lot has costs. Not massive, but especially for some of those amenities that only get heavy use for a short season (Fort Edmonton, The Zoo- those are the kind of city-wide amenities that we were talking about, not local take-out) there is a significant cost. We can and have chosen to make the parking free and either pay to maintain the lot out of some other budget, or the cost of parking diverts money from the actual attraction. Is it better to have free parking at Ft. Edmonton and a $100 family pass, or $10 parking and a $90 pass? I would say the latter, every time. It's potentially more affordable to those families on a budget who can actually make that choice for themselves rather than have the parking cost bundled in. Maybe they'll choose a different way to get there.

    They have that choice if they're heading to the new museum, or to a downtown parade or festival. Alberta Health has the right idea - zero of our public funded health care costs go toward parking.

    What I'm saying is that availability of free parking is not an intrinsic characteristic of suburban locations, so it shouldn't be used as an argument for suburban locations.
    There can only be one.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Downtown amenities are NOT everyones amenities.
    You misread the point. The City operates out of downtown, it is the biggest employment area. The biggest commercial area. One of the biggest education areas. So it requires infrastructure to sustain that. Your community doesn't have City Hall, but your community needs to fund their share of it. Your neighborhood doesn't have the courthouse or EPS HQ or a dozen other things that downtown has, but you benefit from them and need to pay for them and the infrastructure that goes to making them work. Nobody gives a crap where you eat.
    Its odd to point out the commercial and employment clout of the DT when the vast majority of Edmontonians, work, shop, elsewhere or that Power Centers like South Common or WEM do more business than DT retailers combined.

    Would be interesting to see some more recent stats on how many people shop, work, where.

    AS far as anything else you mentioned who needs to go to City hall, court, or EPS headquarters? Who gives a crap?


    I'd wonder if the city was better run if it was decentralized. Could it be worse? Rhetorical question.
    Private businesses pay taxes to support their local infrastructure regardless of whether they're in South Common or downtown. But South Common relies on city hall and various other things, which is why some of their taxes are used downtown, with an overall net higher proportion of taxes funneled downtown vs the suburbs. I reckon you know and understand this, and are just making an argument for fun.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  45. #45

    Default

    I'm a Millennial and I prefer condos over detached homes, no matter what the location is. But between an urban setting and suburbia, urban wins 100 times out of 100. When I used to say this to my older coworkers they all thought I was either lying or out to lunch. When the time came, I ended up buying a condo in Van., and paying more for it than a comparable Edm. house. At the time I simply couldn't find any units in Edmonton so I ended up buying where I grew up (Van.). I remember coming on this site and bitching about it. Now Edmonton has Ultima and a few more towers coming online in the next couple of years. My next purchase will be in Edmonton.

    I did investigate home ownership a few years ago. I walked through neighborhoods and open houses in the south of Edmonton. I remember standing in the middle of a street in one of those neighborhoods and getting a mini panic attack. I had to run away.

    The isolation is the biggest reason I can never buy in the suburbs. The cost is also a factor. If we look at cost/sq ft, then a house comes out looking better, but that's a meaningless comparison. I don't need 8 million square feet of space! So why should I pay for it? My monthly expenses in a condo are less, I'm not isolated, I have a view of the city, I have things to do all around me and the people I deal with on a daily basis are more interesting.

    I grew up in a house in Vancouver. It was like living in a prison. There was never anything to do and every time I wanted to go somewhere I had to hop on a bus and travel. The house itself was nothing great. It didn't have amazing views of the ocean, the mountains or the city. What it did have was lots of grass, which I had to take care of. And every Fall I had to spend hours every week raking leaves. Every winter I had to go on the roof to clear the gutters in the middle of a rain storm (poor me eh? lol). Being such a massive house, heating was always an issue. My poor parents had to pay dearly every winter just to heat the damn thing. Then there was the 6-7k property tax that they paid every year (wtf!). My condo's tax is less than 1300/year. I just don't see the damn point!

    I think I will own a house at one point in my life. Most likely during retirement, but it won't be in Canada. Owning a home in Canada involves a lot of maintenance and expense, both because of the climate and because homes in Canada (and the States) are so poorly constructed (wood frame).

  46. #46

    Default

    Vancouver is a different case. That DT area is interesting and awesome and of course close to all the beaches, Stanley park, seawall etc. That's a DT that is worth living in. That's a lifestyle location Entirely different thing.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Vancouver is a different case. That DT area is interesting and awesome and of course close to all the beaches, Stanley park, seawall etc. That's a DT that is worth living in. That's a lifestyle location Entirely different thing.
    I don't think you understood what I was trying to say.

    Downtown Kabul is still better than the suburbs of Kabul. I wasn't talking about Vancouver specifically. No matter what city you look at, its suburbs are retirement communities at best (and ghettos in the case of developing countries).

    In 2015 I began shopping around in Edmonton first. I got approved for a mortgage in Edmonton before I moved back to Vancouver actually. The only reason I didn't buy anything in Edmonton at the time was because there was nothing I liked (tall, newish/new glass condo). I actually got really lucky (by purchasing in Van.) because I made over 200k on my purchase, but it was completely accidental. I didn't think condo prices could increase that much in such a short time. If I decide to stay in Edmonton long term I will definitely cash out and buy in Downtown Edmonton in the ID.

    Yes, DT Van. has beaches, parks etc... but at the end of the day DT Edm. has everything that's good about Edmonton as well. All the restaurants I ever went to when I was there were in DT. All the bakeries I liked were in DT. When I wanted to go to the River Valley, I would cross the river first and park the car near the conference centre and then head to the River Valley. Downtown also has the library and the City Centre, both places I went to frequently. Doesn't matter what city you're in, the DT core has most of the city's interesting stuff.

    If it wasn't for the WEM, I don't think I would ever have a reason to leave the core (I'm including Whyte Ave. in the core). Maybe to go to IKEA once a year lol

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,968

    Default

    And that of course is why 15,000 out of 1,400,000 chose to live in the community of downtown Edmonton and few people went there until forced to by the move of the arena.

  49. #49
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,968

    Default

    In regards to Alberta Health the other day I had a CT scan. When my doctor lined it up he had choices where I could have it done. I chose the Mis because of parking. I parked outside Sears at WEM near the pedestrian overpass for free, lots of room, no hassles, and walked over to the Mis did my business, which took about 90 minutes, walked back and away I went. It's because I have heard the horror stories of hospital parking that I did this. Maybe just me though.

  50. #50

    Default

    "The isolation is the biggest reason I can never buy in the suburbs. " What a misnomer that is.

    I lived downtown/Oliver for 15+ years. Hardly knew any of my neighbours at any point. Now I own a house in the suburbs. I know just about everyone on my street, and frequently see these people more than I would see the people in my building when living downtown. Great community spirit out here. Downtown everyone seems like they live closer together, but there is no interaction, besides a cold 'hello' in the elevator.

    Downtown/central living is great. I loved it for all the reasons you state as a young adult. Loved being close the to action, walking distance to all the night spots, and great restaurants. But there's a lot more to life than restaurants and bars.

    Now that I've grown up, I don't desire those things as much, and wanted a bigger kitchen and personal living space, a backyard to relax and enjoy, grow things. A place to raise my family. Need a place to store all my recreational gear, bikes, kayaks, snowboard, camping gear. Doesn't work so well downtown. I dont go out to restaurants and bars like I used to in my 20s. Prefer to cook my own healthy meals myself.

    The odd time I need to go to the arena to catch a game, LRT works great.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    "The isolation is the biggest reason I can never buy in the suburbs. " What a misnomer that is.

    I lived downtown/Oliver for 15+ years. Hardly knew any of my neighbours at any point. Now I own a house in the suburbs. I know just about everyone on my street, and frequently see these people more than I would see the people in my building when living downtown. Great community spirit out here. Downtown everyone seems like they live closer together, but there is no interaction, besides a cold 'hello' in the elevator.

    Downtown/central living is great. I loved it for all the reasons you state as a young adult. Loved being close the to action, walking distance to all the night spots, and great restaurants. But there's a lot more to life than restaurants and bars.

    Now that I've grown up, I don't desire those things as much, and wanted a bigger kitchen and personal living space, a backyard to relax and enjoy, grow things. A place to raise my family. Need a place to store all my recreational gear, bikes, kayaks, snowboard, camping gear. Doesn't work so well downtown. I dont go out to restaurants and bars like I used to in my 20s. Prefer to cook my own healthy meals myself.

    The odd time I need to go to the arena to catch a game, LRT works great.
    Agree with this 100%

    We have thought about an infill next, or something with an attached garage here in the burbs... and well being in Windermere we have so much right close to us its awesome, neighbours are awesome (minus the odd duck).

    I definitely don't think Suburbia is dying anytime soon.

  52. #52

    Default

    Meds nailed it again. When you live in a highrise or concentration of people it ends up being an anonymous environment. Whereas living on a Single Family residential unit block you know everybody on the block.

    But something as well in that post is that people transition in life. They grow from one want or preference to another. Its why such old ideas as "Millenials don't like" this are so abjectly silly is that we know people go through different stages in life. When for instance life does not revolve around bars and restaurants.

    if one is a student of history this "Suburbs are dying" mythos has been circulating, ironically, since the 50's when the postwar mode was exploding.

    It always narrows down to pundits that just hate the notion of suburbs. Its always just that.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  53. #53

    Default

    Further to the anonymity of crowds I'll offer the hiker paradox.

    Walk on a crowded trail, be next to 100's of people and you will get few hellos.

    Walk on the path less travelled and virtually every person you come into contact with will say hello, and vice versa.

    This of course has nothing to do with hiking, its just hardwired into humans that we don't say hello in crowded enviroments we think its silly to, and that we would be saying hello constantly. Crowds = LESS interaction.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  54. #54
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,367

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ... I lived downtown/Oliver for 15+ years. Hardly knew any of my neighbours at any point. Now I own a house in the suburbs. I know just about everyone on my street, and frequently see these people more than I would see the people in my building when living downtown.
    Not to argue the remainder of your post as it relates to changing lifestyle needs, which seems entirely legitimate to me.

    BUT, in my buiilding, at least on my floor, I throw open the door every year round Christmas for an open floor party.

    I know everyone on my floor! And everyone knows everyone else.

    So yes, it can be anonymous and strangely lonley in the core. But that's not because it has to be.
    ... gobsmacked

  55. #55

    Default

    Agreed. Isolation is a condition you make yourself, suburbs or downtown, or rural.

    I'm still waiting for the usual comments about the suburbs being bland, boring, repetitive . Feed me please! Someone usually makes this comment by now.

  56. #56
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Central Edmonton can't compete with the burbs and perhaps that's the real problem. Stop trying to compete.

    Central Edmonton needs to be central Edmonton. Keep working on the strengths it already has and targeting the demographic that already thrives here. Stop trying to be the 'be all end all'. Stop trying to be 'everything for everyone'
    Bingo.
    The 80's and 90's are proof that NOT trying to make the core more diverse, comfortable, and liveable doesn't work. If it's not growing, it's dying. We're going down the right path (for once).

  57. #57

    Default

    lol the 80's and 90's are proof that Alberta should not rely so much on the oil economy. Massive recession is what killed downtown and whole big huge government job reduction. Not a lack of amenities, or lack of tax incentives as proposed in the conversation you are coming in on sideways.

  58. #58

    Default

    Yep, endless growth is not the answer. Rather than desiring growth let's aim for improvement, OK? and for all areas.
    There can only be one.

  59. #59
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,367

    Default

    I know the CoE has done lots with RHW and 104 St for example, and the good old GoA with MacEwan, Norquest, Leg plaza, et al.

    But it all started with first CP, then CN pulling their railyards out of DT. Been uphill ever since.

    Railtown - that's where it started. Where multi-use trails started in fact, IIRC.
    ... gobsmacked

  60. #60

    Default

    Thanks McBoo. I've wanted to share this sentiment for a long time - particularly when certain folk perpetuate the idea that downtown was "dying" at that time. If not for Railtown, multi-use trails and the Save-On Foods none of what followed would be in place.

    And I distinctly remember the chatter at the time was what a lame "suburban style" development Railtown would be. Undoubtedly it could be better but be thankful it's there as a pillar of all that followed.

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
  •