Results 1 to 100 of 100

Thread: City eyes expansion south to airport

  1. #1

    Exclamation City eyes expansion south to airport

    City eyes expansion south to airport

    --Annexation should wait for regional plan, argues Leduc County manager

    Gordon Kent, With files from Scott McKeen, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: 6:13 am July 22, 2008


    Edmonton has quietly reopened the controversial annexation issue with a move to take over a large chunk of Leduc County that includes the Edmonton International Airport.

    City councillors authorized staff to start informal annexation negotiations with the county and other interested groups following a private meeting last month to discuss the idea.

    According to a confidential city report obtained by The Journal, south-central Edmonton needs more room to grow because it doesn't have a 30-year supply of land.

    Article Link:
    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...d-a2a44cdb8c29

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    The southern fuse has been officially lit

  3. #3
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Capital Region
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Had to happen some time, best to get it over with now so that real negotiations can then begin.
    Edmonton, Capital of Alberta

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveB View Post
    Had to happen some time, best to get it over with now so that real negotiations can then begin.
    Good - hope Sherwood Park is next, it would be nice to bring all the industry in the East on stream to city coffers.

    In saying that - the logic for annexation - that we need new sprawl sububrs in the South, doesn't really thrill me, I guess that's just an excuse to get the airport though. It would sort of be nice if the QEII was filled with houses all the way from airport to Edmonton too (wouldn't seem so far away then).

  5. #5
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    IMO - the main reason is to ensure transit to YEG. That has been stalled for years now with the petty infighting between the C of L and Edmonton.

    The residential component and the potential industrial is also a good boon. Port Alberta anyone? Who do you think has done the most work on this concept, the C of L or Edmonton? 3 guesses, first two don't count.
    Onward and upward

  6. #6
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,241

    Default

    For $1.7mil a year in taxes, let them keep it.
    Seriously though the city can only grow one way and the natural migration is south to the airport. A no brainer.
    I wonder if the provincial government will see it that way?

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    For $1.7mil a year in taxes, let them keep it.
    Seriously though the city can only grow one way and the natural migration is south to the airport. A no brainer.
    How about growing denser instead of out? With rising gas prices, isn't that a no-brainer too?

  8. #8
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    For $1.7mil a year in taxes, let them keep it.
    Seriously though the city can only grow one way and the natural migration is south to the airport. A no brainer.
    How about growing denser instead of out? With rising gas prices, isn't that a no-brainer too?
    except we - particularly from a regional perspective - are already "out there". the airport exists. the industrial development on the east side of the highway already exists. henday already exists. and the current respite in the housing market won't last another year.

    there are some large infrastructure investments needed for the city's near-term growth needs that are not going to disappear. this is about making decision surrounding those investments so that as much as possible they support more density than they would otherwise. what's happening downtown and at the quarters or with vftc and strathern will go up but nothing everything can go up. if you work at nisku or the airport, living close to where you work can in fact be a smaller footprint solution. as would the construction of lrt and transit links that work in both directions during both rush hours rather than just one-way twice a day.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    as would the construction of lrt and transit links that work in both directions during both rush hours rather than just one-way twice a day.
    I guess our city is destined to look like a lolipop, with the AHD ringing the bulk of it, and a stick to the South. I'm not saying it is wrong, I realize also that this is probably the reality to a large extent already, and will make the airport "feel" closer with a bit of luck, at least people will actually land at Edmonton's airport, not Niskus. It is still interesting though that we could be approving yet more land for new suburbs (which will happen if this is to facilitate LRT expansion) - when there is already a reasonably significant supply of land approved for development on other edges of the city. We continue to grow out, I guess that is just irreversible destiny though, given the extent of industry on the edge's.
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-07-2008 at 03:32 PM.

  10. #10
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    as would the construction of lrt and transit links that work in both directions during both rush hours rather than just one-way twice a day.
    I guess our city is destined to look like a lolipop, with the AHD ringing the bulk of it, and a stick to the South. I'm not saying it is wrong, I realize also that this is probably the reality to a large extent already, and will make the airport "feel" closer with a bit of luck, at least people will actually land at Edmonton's airport, not Niskus. It is still interesting though that we could be approving yet more land for new suburbs (which will happen if this is to facilitate LRT expansion) - when there is already a reasonably significant supply of land approved for development on other edges of the city. We continue to grow out, I guess that is just irreversible destiny though, given the extent of industry on the edge's.
    part of the constraints surrounding where development will occur is not just "land approved for development" but the infrastructure necessary to develop/service it. if there is no capacity in our existing servicing for water and sewers and roads and transit, you can't develop the land without building that infrastructure. you then have to recognize that most of that infrastructure is linear, not circular so the "densist", most efficient way to use it will also be linear. you want new development to be as close as possible to it if it is existing and at the same time if you have to build new infrastructure you want it where it where it will support as much additional density as possible in as short a time as possible without duplication. you're "lollipop" won't retain that shape for long.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  11. #11
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    For $1.7mil a year in taxes, let them keep it.
    Seriously though the city can only grow one way and the natural migration is south to the airport. A no brainer.
    How about growing denser instead of out? With rising gas prices, isn't that a no-brainer too?
    No!
    Many of the outlying communities are also annexing land. If all the future growth goes to these burbs that will be greater sprawl than if it were adjacent to Edmonton.
    An adequate supply of serviced land will help keep the cost down. A limited supply will drive up costs.
    Last time the provincial government handed out infrastucture grants it was partly bases on the number of roads within the municpality. More roads more grants.
    The grants were also partly based on non residential tax base. Edmonton has to take advantage of the industry that could be generated by Port Alberta, we cannot allow that tax revenue to go to another municipality again. Edmonton is better positioned to promote and help develop YEG than the C of L.
    The city should continue to promote densification but it should not try and dictate it.
    Last edited by Glenco; 22-07-2008 at 11:45 PM. Reason: spelling

  12. #12
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Until the city is governed by a single planning body and all communities are growing inward, you cannot expect to hold Edmonton to one standard and the rest to another. That two-faced approach is the main reason this debate has gone on for so long and embittered so many.

    As for this stretch, to alleviate your car concerns moahunter, there is an LRT spine along this entire sector..
    Onward and upward

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    As for this stretch, to alleviate your car concerns moahunter, there is an LRT spine along this entire sector..
    I don't have car concerns Richard. It doesn't even need LRT likely, as a good portion of anyone who is going to be living in these areas are going to be working out there as well. Why else would you want to live next to an airport with planes buzzing over all the time? (Actually, I know that isn't fully true - there are many people who commute from Leduc to Edmonton downtown).

    As I mentioned above, I'm not that worried about this, it is what it is, I realize the horse has bolted on Southern sprawl, so the city might as well profit from it IMO (and all the commerce we can pick up, given they feed to a large extent off the population of Edmonton). It is not the only growth option though, and it is not a "no-brainer" that it is the only growth option (I have lived in cities with a green-belt, which is a different model, that does not cause the sky to cave in, as some on here would suggest).
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-07-2008 at 06:15 PM.

  14. #14
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    135

    Default

    I'm thinking Edmonton should annex everything to Highway 19/625, and the Airport itself.

    Minus Nisku, Beaumont, and Devon. Or including if they want it.

  15. #15
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,358

    Default

    Am I the only one who thinks this "leak" is a negotiation ploy? I'd rather see Edmonton and Leduc co-operate on a regional transit plan that serves YEG. Isn't that one of the purposes of the regional board?
    “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

  16. #16
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    No, you're not...inject a little pressure...
    Onward and upward

  17. #17

    Default

    About time!

    I have lived in Edmonton my whole life...bring it on.

    Sick n tired of my property taxes going UP.

  18. #18
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    I am for annexation.

    Edmonton needs a bigger tax base to further provide for the future.

    Taxes keep going higher and higher, so something has to give.

    In fact, annexation of Sherwood Park and St. Albert would be even better.

  19. #19

    Default

    I'm for annexation, Edmonton needs to serve it's airport.

  20. #20
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Annexation plan angers counties:

    An Edmonton push to annex a big part of Leduc County could create discord on the new regional board charged with co-operatively creating a metro-area growth plan, Parkland County's mayor says.
    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...8-87d945ed8e4f

  21. #21

    Default

    Premature annexation strikes Edmonton
    --Plan to grab airport will only alarm neighbours

    Scott McKeen, The Edmonton Journal
    Published: 2:03 am July 23, 2008


    What would Freud say about Edmonton's dream to enlarge its southern region and embrace the International Airport?

    Edifice complex? Aerial fixation? You-know-what envy?

    Me? I'm calling it a clear case of premature annexation. City council clearly jumped the gun politically with its scheme to annex a huge tract of land in Leduc County.

    The rash move not only puts at risk a shaky truce in the embattled Edmonton region, but perpetuates an unsustainable pattern of development, urban sprawl.

    Link:
    http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...9-b1adf4ee41c7

  22. #22
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    Scott are you aware of Leduc's desire and plan regarding annextion of lands north of the Devon highway?

  23. #23

    Default

    I thought this bit was interesting:

    The old worry was that Edmonton, if it slowed suburban development, would lose population to the bedroom communities.

    With gas prices rising, that is less of a worry. And given the high cost of servicing sprawl, so what?
    I think we do need to give more thought as to whether we should be acquiring even more land for suburban developments, or even TOD developments which could instead be promoted within city limits. Maybe it's time for Edmonton to say, we have enough new neighborhoods allocated? We could potentially acquire Leduc, amalgamate with them, or work with them, without laying the foundation for more residential development South of the current border. Perhaps let Leduc or someone else bear the cost of that type of development, if they want it? As I'm not convinced it is in the interest of existing Edmonton residents to see growth in their land prices deflated / restricted by endless expansion of the city limits - we already IMO have a large enough residential footprint for a city of perhaps twice our population. There are plenty of existing neighborhoods that are well overdue for revitalization before plotting even more new ones that will add to City residents infrastructure cost relative to what smart growth could do. The city has been making decisions in favour of densification, it would be a bit hypocritical to me, to now also turn around and make decisions that will result in even more of the cost of sprawl being borne directly by Edmonton residents.
    Last edited by moahunter; 23-07-2008 at 09:25 AM.

  24. #24
    never answered e-mail
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Peachland
    Posts
    1,579

    Default

    L(ed)uc! I am your father. Join me and we can end this chaos and rule this region together as father and son...

  25. #25
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,982

    Default

    This is a logical annexation, the city should have control of the airport and since it is obvious that people want to build houses in South Edmonton there should be ample land to develop and allow it.
    As far as the sprawl issue goes, Glenco said it best, the city should encourage densification, not dictate it.
    In this case though, expanding south is an efficient thing to do. Edmonton is an industrial city and the majority of jobs are on the edges of the city. In this case, more people drive from Edmonton to work in Nisku, than drive from Leduc to work in Edmonton.

  26. #26

    Default Annexation - Do It Now Or Lose The Opportunity

    I own land in both Edmonton and in the proposed "annexation" area in the County of Leduc. I support annexation. Two observations follow:

    The majority of the owners in the County are likely to be supportive of the City's plans to annex the land. The politicians in the County are likely to put up a fuss because they face a loss of power and a sizeable tax base. I believe the politicians have a responsibility to negotiate for reasonable compensation from the City for the loss of tax revenues but I believe they have to be careful that their "fight" reflects their constituent's best interests. The politicians in the County need to poll the owners of the land and then get on with negotiating a deal.

    The County have proven to be excellent stewards of the subject land over the last several years but their ability to provide the required infrastructure for development is questionable. The County adopted the North Area Structure Plan approxiamately 4 years ago and to date they have not succeeded in completing a development. The problem for the majority of the land west of QE II is that the most cost effective servicing route is from the north. In short the City is in the best position to provide services to the County land. As the areas on the southern edge of the City are poised to be developed shortly it is critical for the City to plan for additional servicing capacity for these areas now.... The problem is that the City cannot plan additional services when they do not control the land.

    In my view annexation needs to proceed quickly so that development can proceed in an orderly manner...
    Last edited by urbantown; 23-07-2008 at 11:13 PM. Reason: error

  27. #27

    Default

    Any idea of the current population of this area?

  28. #28
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,247

    Default

    Big cities like any large organization have an inherent problem, they are by and large inefficient, you witness this when trying to apply for a building permit and other things. Once you reach a certain size while you can profit from some efficiencies in scale you seem to become so bureaucratic that these outweigh any benifits.

    Personally I think Alberta should consider a Oregon approach and tell cities these are your boundaries period, you will not grow past them, grow higher, not outwards.

    As for the specific about Edmonton annexing the airport, there are arguements for and against. The airport certainly services Edmonton more then just Leduc, but to have Edmonton annex all the land from the south boundary to the airport would only encourage more sprawl.

    As for taxes, if Edmonton actually streamlined approaches they would encourage growth within the city rather then pushing companies to build elsewhere.

  29. #29
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Big cities like any large organization have an inherent problem, they are by and large inefficient, you witness this when trying to apply for a building permit and other things. Once you reach a certain size while you can profit from some efficiencies in scale you seem to become so bureaucratic that these outweigh any benifits.

    Personally I think Alberta should consider a Oregon approach and tell cities these are your boundaries period, you will not grow past them, grow higher, not outwards.

    As for the specific about Edmonton annexing the airport, there are arguements for and against. The airport certainly services Edmonton more then just Leduc, but to have Edmonton annex all the land from the south boundary to the airport would only encourage more sprawl.

    As for taxes, if Edmonton actually streamlined approaches they would encourage growth within the city rather then pushing companies to build elsewhere.
    which didn't actually stop their sprawl in the least. it just means you drive out of one city and into another, just like you do in greater vancouver or toronto or phoenix or los angeles... artificial limits don't stop urban sprawl - they encourage it either by eliminating the ability to do comprehensive planning or adding redundant layers of jurisdiction than increase the competition for that sprawl rather than halting it.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  30. #30
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Big cities like any large organization have an inherent problem, they are by and large inefficient, you witness this when trying to apply for a building permit and other things. Once you reach a certain size while you can profit from some efficiencies in scale you seem to become so bureaucratic that these outweigh any benifits.

    Personally I think Alberta should consider a Oregon approach and tell cities these are your boundaries period, you will not grow past them, grow higher, not outwards.

    As for the specific about Edmonton annexing the airport, there are arguements for and against. The airport certainly services Edmonton more then just Leduc, but to have Edmonton annex all the land from the south boundary to the airport would only encourage more sprawl.

    As for taxes, if Edmonton actually streamlined approaches they would encourage growth within the city rather then pushing companies to build elsewhere.
    which didn't actually stop their sprawl in the least. it just means you drive out of one city and into another, just like you do in greater vancouver or toronto or phoenix or los angeles... artificial limits don't stop urban sprawl - they encourage it either by eliminating the ability to do comprehensive planning or adding redundant layers of jurisdiction than increase the competition for that sprawl rather than halting it.
    That's the way I see it as well... so instead of building within Edmonton's city limits, they'll build just outside the limits in Leduc county... not much of a difference really. Or a better example is Sherwood Park... which should (and everything in between) be part of the Edmonton.

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,247

    Default

    Oh Oregon did this approach state wide, asked the cities in the 1970's what their boundaries would be, and said fine, and you will not be allowed to grow past them, so one city can't annex the next, farmland outside of the original plan can't be developed.

    There are some legal challenges which the state has recently lost regarding property rights, but by and large this model has seemed to work for Oregon. One area where it hasn't is in Vancouver Washington just across the Columbia. Washington state of course isn't subject to Oregon laws and some businesses and people are deciding to move there and commute to Portland. This problem of course could come into play in Lloydminster as well, but on a big picture it does seem to work.

    To do this effectively we need a government with the political stamina to do this, you're never going to see this from Stelmach. He can't even do much more then waffle about major issues.

  32. #32
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Big cities like any large organization have an inherent problem, they are by and large inefficient, you witness this when trying to apply for a building permit and other things. Once you reach a certain size while you can profit from some efficiencies in scale you seem to become so bureaucratic that these outweigh any benifits.

    Personally I think Alberta should consider a Oregon approach and tell cities these are your boundaries period, you will not grow past them, grow higher, not outwards.

    As for the specific about Edmonton annexing the airport, there are arguements for and against. The airport certainly services Edmonton more then just Leduc, but to have Edmonton annex all the land from the south boundary to the airport would only encourage more sprawl.

    As for taxes, if Edmonton actually streamlined approaches they would encourage growth within the city rather then pushing companies to build elsewhere.
    I'm with kcantor et al on disagreeing with this one. Greater Portland isn't sprawl? I think you're wrong here.

    The main source of your argument is one I've heard in the regional debate for quite some time - BIG = INEFFICIENT. I don't have direct access to my councilor. It takes too long for a permit. I don't get a Christmas card hand written in the mail from the Mayor. Blah blah blah. ..yet, 9 times out of 10, when pressured to see how efficient they are, these models of efficiency fall flat on their face time and time again. Small town politics are actually nastier than faceless bureaucracy in my experience. If you don't like Billy Bob because you caught him knocking boots with Sally Jane at the high school prom, you can still 20 years later make Billy Bob's life a living nightmare by delaying, stalling, ignoring, hahahahaing, whatever. It gets personal. A little bigger town (St. Albert for example) could really start believing its own hype and become incredibly hard to deal with and overly bureaucratic. Nothing's perfect at all. I actually find the faceless bureaucrat easier to deal with, once you know the rules it follows. Then it is Pavlov's dog - stimulus action = stimulus response....dar dar dar...paid by the hour...do dee do dee do...
    Onward and upward

  33. #33
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    A general comment on sprawl.

    Isn't every other city/town/faux hamlet hiding behind specialized urban mistake looking at expanding? Doesn't that make this sprawl garbage moot?

    As for this particular piece, not only will it be a controlled transit corridor for Edmonton, but as you get near the airport, there are protected zones to attempt to prevent the noise abatement malarkey that forced YEG out there in the first place. How much of this is actually residential sprawl vs placement of warehousing and industry?
    Onward and upward

  34. #34
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,358

    Default

    Wasn't it Bill Smith's idea to annex the QE2 corridor to YEG for LRT extension?
    It reminds me of West Germany and that single road connection to West Berlin during the Iron Curtain years.
    “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

  35. #35

    Default

    ^ Right you are (as if there was any doubt).

    "The county resisted a similar annexation plan in 2004 promoted by mayor Bill Smith, which was shelved following his defeat in that year's election."

  36. #36
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Agree with the above comments on sprawl. The land is going to be developed whether we want that or not. But with Port Alberta (hopefully) on the rise, the city would be stupid not to secure that potential tax base, before it becomes another Strathcona County situation, and only receives minor "spinoff" benefits.

  37. #37

    Default

    The problem of allowing Leduc County to develop the area southwest of Edmonton using the "Oregon model" is that the County will have a difficult time servicing the land to an urban standard at a reasonable cost. (ie the sanitary sewer is located east of highway

    Municipalities around typical US cities have much bigger lots and a lower servicing standard (ie no storm sewers and septic fields). If you allowed this type of development to occur you will encourage an even greater degree of urban sprawl.

    The City needs to annex now so that the services can be over-sized in new south Edmonton subdivisions. Future residential density in the annexed areas needs to be increased not decreased...

  38. #38

    Default Density Of Annexed Area

    Quote Originally Posted by debos View Post
    Any idea of the current population of this area?
    The area is rural with no acreages. The population is likely no more than 300 to 400 people as a rough guess...

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Isn't every other city/town/faux hamlet hiding behind specialized urban mistake looking at expanding? Doesn't that make this sprawl garbage moot?
    ?
    Why do they have to expand out? Can't they expand up, or in, like London, and other European cities? London kept growing with a green belt didn't it? If you read the suggestion above, it is about doing it on a Provincial basis. Or, it could be done on a regional basis. I think you will see calls for this increase, as people get more and more concerned about the sustainability of sprawl, and sick of their land prices being depressed by endless sprawl. And, even if the Province or Region doesn't agree - why do we care in Edmonton, if other cities choose to sprawl (except to the extent we will ultimatley annex them)? Maybe that can be a difference for Edmonton - we could choose not to bear the costs of sprawl, but leave it to our bedroom communities? I think it is a totally valid debate, and one that Edmonton, the region, and the province should have, rather than automatically accept the status quo as the only way. Because, it is not the only way, or necessarily the best way, as we can see from other cities around the world, that have been around a lot longer than we have. We don't have to follow the limitless footprint, forever depressed land value model followed by cities like Houston, we can consider alternatives that are more directly consistent with desnification / sustainability / not destroying farmland (which many people want for "local" food now, or even industry growth).
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-07-2008 at 06:59 PM.

  40. #40
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by urbantown View Post
    ...
    Municipalities around typical US cities have much bigger lots and a lower servicing standard (ie no storm sewers and septic fields). If you allowed this type of development to occur you will encourage an even greater degree of urban sprawl.
    ...
    so you're saying there would be a real downside to reading things like this:

    "In addition, two models and several inventory homes have been started in Austin’s Colony located east of Austin on FM969. Homes in West Park Estates will be priced from the $260’s and in Austin’s Colony the homes will start in the low $110’s."

    those aren't the lot prices, those are the new home prices.

    and the margins aren't much different in austin texas than they are here and the city's themselves are remarkably similar. what is different are the input costs (such as servicing standards and levy's and fees and school and park reserve allocations and approval times and road widths and...). they might not have gutters and downspouts (those are options) but they will have hardiplank instead of vinyl siding.

    as for encouraging a greater degree of urban sprawl, that's really only the case if you have drastically different standards within a region. if standards and delivery costs are similar, sprawl is likely to be discouraged, not encouraged if the "affordability line" moves further in because - all other things being equal - people move out for the price differential and affordability, not for the drive. if we can make things more affordable and more efficient without having to go further out, we will reduce sprawl rather than nurturing it.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  41. #41
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    135

    Default

    I really hope Edmonton can annex as much surrounding farmland as possible. Edmonton's planning may not be great but it's sure as hell better than 15 house subdivisions that consists of Parkland County, Sturgeon County, Strathcona County, etc.

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by e909 View Post
    I really hope Edmonton can annex as much surrounding farmland as possible. Edmonton's planning may not be great but it's sure as hell better than 15 house subdivisions that consists of Parkland County, Sturgeon County, Strathcona County, etc.
    I have no issue with annexing the farmland to make the Airport part of Edmonton, or create a nice greenbelt / industry belt, but we can choose not to fill it up with more residential subdivisions (which is what is being proposed). I'd rather the city focused on fixing up some of our existing neighborhoods, developing the muni lands, and encouraging more infill / density, rather than endless, hick town, build along the motor way, sprawl. We can leave that to the hick towns, or work with them to discourage it. If nothing else though - I want to see the Council debate it's footprint. I just hope we don't end up with more sprawl by annexation stealth without a proper debate on what is a sustainable footprint.
    Last edited by moahunter; 24-07-2008 at 07:45 PM.

  43. #43
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by e909 View Post
    I really hope Edmonton can annex as much surrounding farmland as possible. Edmonton's planning may not be great but it's sure as hell better than 15 house subdivisions that consists of Parkland County, Sturgeon County, Strathcona County, etc.
    I have no issue with annexing the farmland to make the Airport part of Edmonton, or create a nice greenbelt / industry belt, but we can choose not to fill it up with more residential subdivisions (which is what is being proposed). I'd rather the city focused on fixing up some of our existing neighborhoods, developing the muni lands, and encouraging more infill / density, rather than endless, hick town, build along the motor way, sprawl. We can leave that to the hick towns, or work with them to discourage it. If nothing else though - I want to see the Council debate it's footprint. I just hope we don't end up with more sprawl by annexation stealth without a proper debate on what is a sustainable footprint.
    What I'm saying is even Edmonton's sprawl is so much better than the eventual fate of our surrounding farmlands. The new SW in Edmonton is fairly dense compared to Parkland County which share roughly the same population.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    Wasn't it Bill Smith's idea to annex the QE2 corridor to YEG for LRT extension?
    It reminds me of West Germany and that single road connection to West Berlin during the Iron Curtain years.
    There never was a western owned road connection to Berlin. If you drove or took a train from West Germany to West Berlin, you had go through the DDR and clear Soviet customs.

    With better regional planning, there be no need for the annexation. Once again, the Alberta government could do something.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    I'm for annexation, Edmonton needs to serve it's airport.
    Annexation should not be needed for that.

    Vancouver, Victoria and Toronto all have airports outside the city limits and all serve the airports with public transit. If Edmonton was serious about LRT or public transit to the airport, it could be done by siting down with the Airport and Leduc County and working out an agreement - or even better, getting the Provincial government to provide new legislation for regional transit.
    ETS Trolley Buses - 1939 to 2010 - R.I.P.

  46. #46
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    I'm for annexation, Edmonton needs to serve it's airport.
    Annexation should not be needed for that.

    Vancouver, Victoria and Toronto all have airports outside the city limits and all serve the airports with public transit. If Edmonton was serious about LRT or public transit to the airport, it could be done by siting down with the Airport and Leduc County and working out an agreement - or even better, getting the Provincial government to provide new legislation for regional transit.
    Not quite true. In Vancouver they have another level of regional government called GVR or something similar. They are responsible for transit in the whole region. So it is not quite so simple as two municipalities getting together and cooperating. So if you are going to come up with an example as to how Edmonton fails in this regard please find a better one.

  47. #47
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    /\Glenco, stop injecting logic!

    BC Transit is provincially run. ETS is city. BC Transit can pretty much go where it wants as the owners of the land can basically do what they want. This malarkey of "all the city needs to do is negotiate" blah blah blah...what do you think they've been doing lightrail? The Province is so not interested in being a transit provider. Leduc wants free bus service in exchange for allowing service to YEG. So, hello stalemate.

    This annexation is more about Port Alberta - which Edmonton and the EEDC have done the work for. So, we do the work and Leduc reaps the rewards...gee, that's fair.
    Onward and upward

  48. #48

    Default

    In fairness, Glenco and RichardS, re-read the last sentence here:

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasH View Post
    I'm for annexation, Edmonton needs to serve it's airport.
    Annexation should not be needed for that.

    Vancouver, Victoria and Toronto all have airports outside the city limits and all serve the airports with public transit. If Edmonton was serious about LRT or public transit to the airport, it could be done by siting down with the Airport and Leduc County and working out an agreement - or even better, getting the Provincial government to provide new legislation for regional transit.
    Although personally I don't oppose annexation at all, but the core issue to me is proper transit to YEG one way or the other.
    Last edited by JayBee; 27-07-2008 at 09:48 AM.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  49. #49
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I did read that last sentence, but regional transit is not the same a provincially run and mandated...
    Onward and upward

  50. #50

    Default

    ???

    "Provincial government to provide new legislation" is basically equivalent to "mandated", and while the scope could be enlarged provincewide, it may as well be rhetorically inclusive as well. Lightrail's point, if I may, is that annexation isn't neccesary, and by considering the amount of annexation that coincided with the creation of BC Transit or Translink itself, you've practically proven the thesis you're debating.

    Not to worry though, because it is true.

    Also not to worry though, because the annexation proposal is obviously as well justified as any ever have been. SW Edmonton has grown by approximately one St. Albert in the last decade or so, and if we look 3 decades down the road, it's more than reasonable to ask for that land, especially given that it appears the landowners in question actually support the action.

    And finally, let me be the first to re-propose that the whole problem is counties who build residential subdivisions. If they are competing with cities, they've been unfairly awarded something like 300 years of growth space, and thus Sherwood Park ought to be severed immediately from Strathcona county, and Counties of Leduc, Strathcona and Sturgeon should stop breaking the implicit law.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  51. #51
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    JayBee. Think about it. This is Alberta. This is Edmonton. Legislation can be as loosey goosey as possible here so as not to appear to tread on the "autonomy" of others. The province can mandate a transit authority for the Edmonton area, but allowable routes and who gets what % age of the revenue/bears the costs will be up for debate between each municipalities "autonomous" transportation planning departments. Hence, there is a difference here between the province saying BLAMMO - METS vs the province TAKING OVER transit a la BC and making it provincially controlled everywhere - thereby removing arguments.
    Onward and upward

  52. #52
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Does Leduc even have transit service?

    I think this whole annexation discussion brings up some interesting thoughts. I think it's really about time that Edmonton annex St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Leduc, Nisku, etc. There's no economic or cultural or whatever reason to justify the replication of services. It's only hurting Edmonton from gaining status on the world stage, not helping us. Could you imagine if Millwoods, Strathcona, Jasper Place, etc were all cities now? It would be absurd, and so is having the City of St Albert, the "whatever" of Sherwood Park, city of leduc, etc.
    Last edited by e909; 27-07-2008 at 09:31 PM.

  53. #53

    Default

    RichardS:

    The regional superboard?

    Richard, you probably remember that I suggested annexation of YEG aeons ago, in order to simplify some form of transit to YEG. I also seperately cast doubt on the need to annex St. Albert, as it was a non-priority compared to annexing YEG. I've also lauded Metro Vancouver's Translink system multiple times and would do so again at the drop of a hat.

    I'm arguing neither against annexation nor a provincial transit authority, but agreeing with lightrail that either would work, and making it work should absolutely be our priority. (And should have been since around 1961...)

    You're making some grand distinction between whatever the regional superboard could accomplish on transit (in theory-yet-to-be-tested it certainly has the power to direct taxes to LRT or other regional transit initiatives) and what the province would do by creating "Alta-Transit" or whatever, and likely following BC's lead, in turn create "Edmonton Translink".

    There is no grand distinction in sight. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other where the riders would be concerned, as long as transit happens to be as much a provincial as regional priority.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by e909 View Post
    I think this whole annexation discussion brings up some interesting thoughts. I think it's really about time that Edmonton annex St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Leduc, Nisku, etc. There's no economic or cultural or whatever reason to justify the replication of services.
    I would like to see annexation or merger as well. Can annexation happen though? My understanding, which may be wrong, is that it is the Province's vote. Now, a large part of the power base of this PC government is actually in the bedroom communities around Edmonton. So, would they vote that way? What will they gain? Perhaps there are enough special interest groups, trying to develop farm land, with enough money to make that happen? I don't know, it would be interesting to see.

  55. #55
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JayBee View Post
    RichardS:

    The regional superboard?

    (...).
    IF...and I mean IF it has the right teeth. If it is ACRA, and from what I hear so far it is with some veto, then this is not going to fix transit and could be why the annexation bid is proposed...

    Transit MUST be a provincial priority.
    Onward and upward

  56. #56

    Default

    Like it or not, we agree.
    Let's make Edmonton better.

  57. #57
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,358

    Default

    My biggest problem with annexation - when does it end?

    Let's say Edmonton absorbs St. Albert, Sherwood, Fort Sask, Devon, Spruce and Leduc. Then massive new cities...er...bedroom communities sprout up in Morinville, Vegreville, Calmar, Wabamum and Redwater to replace them. Guess what? We have the same problem all over 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

  58. #58
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    My biggest problem with annexation - when does it end?

    Let's say Edmonton absorbs St. Albert, Sherwood, Fort Sask, Devon, Spruce and Leduc. Then massive new cities...er...bedroom communities sprout up in Morinville, Vegreville, Calmar, Wabamum and Redwater to replace them. Guess what? We have the same problem all over again.
    That's a good point.

    I think the annexation should obviously go up to wherever there's no geographical split (i.e., sherwood park).

    I'm not sure that people will start suddenly fleeing the city in mass evacuations if Edmonton were to control St. Albert and the like.

    I think the Province needs to take more of a role in determining the growth status of some communities. I'm all for free markets and the such, but I'm just worried in 50 years that Edmonton-Calgary will just be one sprawling city that ends from High River to Morrinville. That needs to be prevented. Edmonton and Calgary are in much better positions to stop that than Parkland County, Strathcona County, etc are.

  59. #59

    Default

    Please don`t Annex St Albert. We don`t need a small city with next to no tax base.

    On principle I do not agree with annexation of existing municipalities, but I go agree with this proposal. Port Alberta is Edmonton`s baby, The Airport is our baby and the Nisku Industrial park exists because of Edmonton. Normally I would say that we should not be expanding housing southword either BUT if Port Alberta becomes a reality then it is going to require a small city to run it, and those people deserve to live close to work. I don`t like the idea od spreading further south, but if estimate population growth becomes a reality, we are going to need the room.

    Just on pure speculation Leduc seem incapable of any sort of planning and seems happy just to soak up the tax dollars from the airport. If you look at other bedroom communities such as St. Albert and Sherwood park etc they are thriving. Do you think of Leduc as thriving? I personally don't. What does leduc add to the capital region?

  60. #60
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,597

    Default

    As far as the tax base goes don't forget that the City of Leduc and Leduc County are two very different entities. Both have pretty good industrial tax base(s)

  61. #61

    Default

    My biggest problem with annexation - when does it end?

    Let's say Edmonton absorbs St. Albert, Sherwood, Fort Sask, Devon, Spruce and Leduc. Then massive new cities...er...bedroom communities sprout up in Morinville, Vegreville, Calmar, Wabamum and Redwater to replace them. Guess what? We have the same problem all over again.

    By then, you and I will have likely shuffled off our mortal coil, will be too senile to understand or care about it, or will live on our own private island in the tropics, again, not worried about it.

    I would expect this won't be a reality for another 50 years. Redwater a bedroom community? Morinville, on the other hand, almost is already...

    Vegreville and Redwater are an hour away from the city limits. Not an issue of those supporting a large commuter population, unless the hiway speed limits are increased to 150km/h+...

  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    For $1.7mil a year in taxes, let them keep it.
    Seriously though the city can only grow one way and the natural migration is south to the airport. A no brainer.
    How about growing denser instead of out? With rising gas prices, isn't that a no-brainer too?
    Agree. How geographically larger is this city going to get? We can't keep up with infrastructure, snow removal and so on as it is. Expansion inwardly, density, no more outward growth.

  63. #63
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    Expansion is inevitable, anything else is stagnation.

    I'm getting a chuckle out of all this. Listen up you tinpot gods in the City and County of Leduc. Do you think the airport would even be there if you were the only "city" in the region? It's there because of Edmonton's existence - get it? Let's see the percentage of passengers disembarking at EIA who actually go to Leduc. Get real, you guys.

    The rail link is already there - has been since the airport's inception. All it needs is a short spur off to the airport and for running rights over the CP rails to be negotiated, no need for a dedicated LRT line. It's not like the CP line is the busiest in the world (20 trains a day?), scheduling regular LRT service out there should be a piece of cake.

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Expansion is inevitable, anything else is stagnation.
    Has London kept expanding even though it has a green belt? Seems it has. I would argue, sprawl is stagnation, if you want to see a lively city, visit a city that is dense. We don't have to sprawl out, we can instead expand up, and in. Downtown jumps to mind as an area of the existing city that is half empty, many of our inner neighborhoods are too, not to mention the promise of the Muni lands. We, the city residents, can choose to prioritise fixing aging neighborhood decline first, if we want, which is something I hope our Council considers. It would be well beyond ironic, for our Council to on the one hand be blowing smoke about densification and sustainability, and then on the other hand, to approve an expanded footprint. No point in bemoaning "why oh why won't investors build in the Quarters?", when those potential investors would instead rather lobby for prioritising a billion dollar SLRT expansion to support new wealthy south edge neighborhoods.

    In saying that, I agree that Leduc has no reason to exist if not for Edmonton - annexation makes sense. But, we don't have to spread residential neighborhoods further out - we can choose a better way, that will instead enhance land values of existing residents, rather than depress them further. IMO it is time for our Council to start leading, instead of always being dictated to by investors. This Council makes tough decisions, I'd like to see them debate this issue properly, not just automatically assume that these new neighborhoods are a given.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-08-2008 at 08:26 PM. Reason: clarification - making shorter, trying to waffle less

  65. #65
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    The Green Belt around London has, in the main, been a success since its inception in the mid-1950's. However, it's constantly under pressure and will increasingly be so. A nation one third the size of Alberta with the population about double that of Canada, and about one third of that concentrated in the south-east, has to house its citizens somewhere.

    To be fair, Edmonton is expanding 'up and in'. Witness the future Century Park in the south side, the projected projects in Strathearn and on Stony Plain Road. In addition, the conversion of the former so-called railway lands adjacent to downtown. I applaud all these initiatives. That said, I have no problem with expansion southwards to the EIA. It remains inevitable, stagnant or not. London's Heathrow, although officially in the county of Middlesex, is firmly within London's Green Belt.

    If a Green Belt idea develops here, then it all depends on where Edmonton (or the Province) decides to designate it. Sprawl may yet have a long way to go.
    Last edited by howie; 05-08-2008 at 01:57 AM.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    If a Green Belt idea develops here, then it all depends on where Edmonton (or the Province) decides to designate it. Sprawl may yet have a long way to go.
    It will definitely happen at some point Howie - you only have to look around Canada to see that the larger cities are all moving this way, the only question is, "how long will it take for Edmonton to wake up and learn from elsewhere?". Council / Region will eventually stop making "exceptions" for this favoured development or another one. For these will be very favored developments, when you consider the immense cost of LRT and infrastructure expansion. More overpasses on Gateway anyone? More recreation centres and schools for wealthy new neighborhoods (while schools in declining neighborhoods are closed)?. We have to set our footprint, otherwise underutilized land in the boundary will never be developed when there is cheaper land further out, that can be marketed as "exclusive" and "safe". I'd rather we left those outskirts for industry / farming, and I think there will be a growing political will for this, especially when you hear all the talk at the moment about growing local food and similar (which is not really that consistent with building new neighborhoods on local farms).
    Last edited by moahunter; 05-08-2008 at 10:11 AM.

  67. #67
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Expansion is inevitable, anything else is stagnation.

    I'm getting a chuckle out of all this. Listen up you tinpot gods in the City and County of Leduc. Do you think the airport would even be there if you were the only "city" in the region? It's there because of Edmonton's existence - get it? Let's see the percentage of passengers disembarking at EIA who actually go to Leduc. Get real, you guys.

    The rail link is already there - has been since the airport's inception. All it needs is a short spur off to the airport and for running rights over the CP rails to be negotiated, no need for a dedicated LRT line. It's not like the CP line is the busiest in the world (20 trains a day?), scheduling regular LRT service out there should be a piece of cake.
    While I completely agree on your airport comment, the train one is a non starter. Shullte service will demand frequency, and CP will never ever give this shuttle the right of way. Their trains will take the #1 role. Plus, like the CN tracks, their union will be up in arms unless their union members have the jobs running/maintaiing this shuttle. The only way this will work unfortunately is to have trains on their own track and maintained by their own people. If this type of co-operation with CP was possilbe, it would be in place already. Lord knows many have tried.
    Onward and upward

  68. #68
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    "Running rights" is not the same thing as "right of way". It merely means a negotiated arrangement is made to run one company's trains on another company's tracks.

    If you take a look at how the railways in the UK are run, you'll see that such and such company owns the trains, another owns the tracks, another handles the signalling, another the stations, and so on. Union members are union members regardless of which company employs them. So I think this makes your argument moot, notwithstanding sheer bloody- mindedness on the part of CP.

    On the point of frequency of service, as I pointed out, at 20 or so trains per day, the CP south of Edmonton is incredibly underused in traffic terms. A sharing agreement would be a win in terms of job opportunities for union employees, a win for CP in terms of revenue, a win for the City of Edmonton in not having to shell out millions for a new track, and most of all, a win for all us good citizens who need and deserve frequent and efficient service out to our (and it is ours, Leduc) airport.

  69. #69
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ...and as I said before, this has been tried here in Canada, and failed given the current construct of the railways and the subsequent union agreements. The UK is the UK. We're here.

    Union members are not union members. The ATU is not CUPE... There are fights constantly between unions as to who gets to do what, or turn what bolt, or operate what crane, or touch that motor, so it isn't that simple. They want the membership $$ to go to their coffers, not another's.
    Onward and upward

  70. #70
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    Only in Canada, you say. Pity. :-0

  71. #71
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,600

    Default

    As it was mentioned previously in this thread, if it weren't for Edmonton, the International Airport wouldn't exist. And to quickly go off topic, if it weren't for Edmonton, Sherwood Park wouldn't exist. Anyways the city of Edmonton is expanding south quicker and quicker. All the residential that has been booming on the southside has long ago jumped Ellerslie road and is pushing towards the airport faster than we really realise. Also if they start building the south NAIT campus and start building the new intermodal railyard that will only further closing the gap between the city and the airport. Edmonton must annex the parts of Leduc county that have a direct and major impact on the city of Edmonton, most notably the airport.

    Oh and on a little sidenote, because of the possibility of plans of the removal of Gateway park for new road construction, I think that Gateway should be moved sooner than later. How about moving it closer to the Airport where an information center would be better to serve all the people coming into the city via the airport and also QE2.
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

  72. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    I am for annexation.

    Edmonton needs a bigger tax base to further provide for the future.
    Those taxes could not cover the infrastructure necessary for a viable community. Hopefully, the land is for light rail expansion.

  73. #73
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    both
    Onward and upward

  74. #74

    Default Edmonton Über Alles!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonic Death Monkey View Post
    My biggest problem with annexation - when does it end?

    Let's say Edmonton absorbs St. Albert, Sherwood, Fort Sask, Devon, Spruce and Leduc. Then massive new cities...er...bedroom communities sprout up in Morinville, Vegreville, Calmar, Wabamum and Redwater to replace them. Guess what? We have the same problem all over again.
    Lets's annex everything south of Edmonton. Leduc, Ponoka, Red Deer, Calgary, Lethbridge, Montana, Mexico... Edmonton Über Alles!

    Expanding Edmonton is crazy. Whiehorse YT had problems with people building homes outside its boundries without permits and other problems. They decided to expand their boundries to 416km2 with a population of only 20,000 (116 people/km2) compared to Edmonton`s current area of 684km2.

    This meant that the city had control of these new residents. Now paying city taxes residents demanded better roads, water, sewage, fire protection, snow removal, garbage collection and everything that the other residents received. Developers bought cheap land built new subdivisons far away from 'downtown' and made huge profits. This cost the city a fortune but they were bailed out with massive subsidies from the territorial government (read: Federal Government).

    Even after annexation people still built just outside the boundries of Whitehorse, that extend 25km south of downtown (equal to Leduc to downtown Edmonton) and the problem repeats itself.

    Maybe we should annex north too! Let's annex Whitehorse!
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  75. #75
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,247

    Default

    Hmm PRT that is almost drawing the map the way it used to be, Northwest Territories extended a lot further then it does now;
    http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/o.../1870-v5-e.jpg

    Personally sprawl control should either be a regional or provincial responsibility, annexxing the airport isn't really going to work, Edmonton currently is too sprawling as it is, and while it's getting close to current boundaries in the west and south, there is still that huge land bank to the NE that is undevelopped, this will probably become the next Millwoods or (I hope not) NE Edmonton Common

  76. #76
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by howie View Post
    Expansion is inevitable, anything else is stagnation.
    Has London kept expanding even though it has a green belt? Seems it has. I would argue, sprawl is stagnation, if you want to see a lively city, visit a city that is dense. We don't have to sprawl out, we can instead expand up, and in. Downtown jumps to mind as an area of the existing city that is half empty, many of our inner neighborhoods are too, not to mention the promise of the Muni lands. We, the city residents, can choose to prioritise fixing aging neighborhood decline first, if we want, which is something I hope our Council considers. It would be well beyond ironic, for our Council to on the one hand be blowing smoke about densification and sustainability, and then on the other hand, to approve an expanded footprint. No point in bemoaning "why oh why won't investors build in the Quarters?", when those potential investors would instead rather lobby for prioritising a billion dollar SLRT expansion to support new wealthy south edge neighborhoods.

    In saying that, I agree that Leduc has no reason to exist if not for Edmonton - annexation makes sense. But, we don't have to spread residential neighborhoods further out - we can choose a better way, that will instead enhance land values of existing residents, rather than depress them further. IMO it is time for our Council to start leading, instead of always being dictated to by investors. This Council makes tough decisions, I'd like to see them debate this issue properly, not just automatically assume that these new neighborhoods are a given.
    Yes, the greater London area is no different than many of our suburban areas. Get real. There is no city / region that has stopped outward growth other than those that are geographically constrained.

    Growth management plans and acts are instruments with the intent to increase densities, not stop outward growth. Don't get this confused.
    Last edited by ChrisD; 17-08-2008 at 10:53 PM.

  77. #77
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Stop interjecting logic into the rhetoric ChrisD...you're making too much sense...
    Onward and upward

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Yes, the greater London area is no different than many of our suburban areas. Get real. There is no city / region that has stopped outward growth other than those that are geographically constrained.

    Growth management plans and acts are instruments with the intent to increase densities, not stop outward growth. Don't get this confused.
    There are a number of cities around the world that have chosen to restrict their outward growth, even though they have plenty of land around them. Have other towns and cities continued to grow outward outside these cities borders? Yes. Do they care? No. There is no reason why Edmonton has to pay the infrastructure and maintenance costs of sprawl when we have more than enough land within our existing approved footprint for residential development. We can choose to be the premier oasis in a sprawling mass if we want. Edmonton has every right to make that choice, I hope we have politicians with the guts to do it sooner, rather than later. It will happen, it is just a matter of when. Our city won't forever keep selectively extending the boundaries to the favoured few for residential development, sooner or later we will have a Council with the courage to instead prioritise existing land owners in this city, instead of constantly trying to deflate land values by adding more low cost land at the edge (leaving behind undeveloped / underutilized land in the middle).
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-08-2008 at 10:48 AM.

  79. #79
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    Yes, the greater London area is no different than many of our suburban areas. Get real. There is no city / region that has stopped outward growth other than those that are geographically constrained.

    Growth management plans and acts are instruments with the intent to increase densities, not stop outward growth. Don't get this confused.
    There are a number of cities around the world that have chosen to restrict their outward growth, even though they have plenty of land around them. Have other towns and cities continued to grow outward outside these cities borders? Yes. Do they care? No. There is no reason why Edmonton has to pay the infrastructure and maintenance costs of sprawl when we have more than enough land within our existing approved footprint for residential development. (...)
    I disagree here. Cities with artificial land restrictions are not "happy" all the time. They DO care.

    Plus, you need to refer to Canadian models and Alberta practices for municipalities. Those that "don't care" usually have a different taxation model or established revenue/cost sharing models - something we definitely do not.

    Sprawl is but one of the issues, and issue #5 if it is lucky. Edmonton is the ONLY city in this region looking very seriously at inward growth, others are either tickling it with a feather, or just starting. To St Albert's credit, projects like the Grandin Mall conversion are an excellent first step.

    The big issues are really the footprint to attract and grow industrial developments, which Edmonton does NOT have. This needs to be put into the equation on this and every annexation bid in lieu of having a revenue sharing model. If we don't share, then I guess we compete. If, under the Alberta model for municipalities (MGA) we are to compete, then we need the commisurate resources (read land area) to do the same. Simple as that.

    If you take the ability to attract these industries, and apply the appropriate green belts (aka buffer zones) to these industries, Edmonton so does NOT have enough land. Not in any stretch of any wild imagination.

    The suburbs will grow. Period.

    Everyone in this debate needs to look past the vinyl-sided suburban junk red herring and see what the source of the real argument is - money and equitable opprotunity to attain more. Call it a tax grab, it is.

    Until the province or this regional board WITH TEETH insititues a model that allows for each and every city in the region to be treated the same and affords them all equitable growth strategies, this battle (and the requisite annexations) WILL continue. Please leave silly Uber Edmonton comments for the playground.
    Onward and upward

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    The suburbs will grow. Period.
    Some of our older suburbs are already contracting as the population ages, so what you say is not neccesarily true. Consider what happened to Detroit - the footprint grew, and grew, with no real increase in population. With a change in emphasis, I think there is opportunity for our suburbs to grow in and up instead of always out. There is also plenty of land within existing boundaries to be re-considered (the Muni and a large part of downtown jumps to mind). You can call that a silly view all you want, but I am not the only one with it, and a quick look at other cities will show that. You may be surprised at how much support there is for a re-think, and yes, Edmonton can lead even if the Province / region will not, and continue to encourage such leadership. It is a total cop-out to place the responsibility always on someone else, be it the province or the region (for it may never happen - which is what some may want). I have no issue with Edmonton expanding it's industrial / commercial footprint, but existing Edmonton residents don't need to subsidise even more new suburbs outside our exisitng boundaries. IMO, our Counicl has by its actions stated clearly that density is the way to go. Approving new resdiential neighborhoods outside the existing boundaries would IMO, be highly hypocritical. I'm looking forward to the debate though - I hope it happens this time, for its about time it did.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-08-2008 at 01:57 PM.

  81. #81
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,307
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The city knows it has to grow inwards though, and given the downtown push and new developments, I am so not worried.

    I stand by my subrubs will grow comment. A slight blip is not a trend my friend. Why would St Albert annex and Sherwood Park look to double?
    Onward and upward

  82. #82
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    The suburbs will grow. Period.
    [B]Edmonton residents don't need to subsidise .....
    I really hate the over use of this phrase. Is it not an investment? You don't get something for nothing. Sure there are risks involved in investing but if you don't you will never get a return.
    What you fail to acknowlegde or understand is if the city of Edmonton does annex this land it will be in control of future residential development to the south and not the county of Leduc or some new town that may pop up on the outskirts of the city. The city of Edmonton simply has to take control as development accelerates towards the airport

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Glenco View Post
    What you fail to acknowlegde or understand is if the city of Edmonton does annex this land it will be in control of future residential development to the south and not the county of Leduc or some new town that may pop up on the outskirts of the city. The city of Edmonton simply has to take control as development accelerates towards the airport
    I can live with Edmonton annexing the land, but I don't think it should be with the purpose of building residential developments. What you fail to miss, is that once Edmonton has control over this land, it also have responsibility for it. We have to shovel the snow, build a new recreation facility, maintain roads, provide transit, maintain parks, deal with re-zonings, etc. (the City is struggling to manage this with our existing footprint given how short labour is). While on the surface, we increase tax take, we also depress it in existing neighborhoods relative to what that take could be if development was pushed in, instead of out. If the city is serious about seeing developments like Century Park, VFC, Strathearn, Aurora proceed in the next generation or so, not to mention new townhomes in the inner city north, development of land in the North East, the Muni lands, the Quarters, and filling the empty lots downtown, it should IMO be aiming to green belt / industry belt this land.

    If anything - experience shows us to the South of the city is the last place we want to expand residential in right now, per the costs we are all bearing for the expansions of the last generation - various overpasses, twinning roads, traffic pressure on river valley bridges, facility demands, lack of schools (a provincial issue, but one that results in even more traffic) - not to mention perpetuating even more the constant wealth transfer South, leaving an impoverished North, East, inner city, and downtown, further and further behind. If Edmonton's decision to stop expanding out, means that Leduc builds a few more low end neighborhoods, then so be it, that's Leducs problem, they can deal with the cost of it if that's what they want (I suspect they may be smarter than that).
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-08-2008 at 06:24 PM.

  84. #84
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    thats a lot of land though so it would take more than our lifetimes to fill that all up with residential.

    On the density note, i am getting mixed signals from council. They say the wanna densify but how serious are they about it?

  85. #85
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    thats a lot of land though so it would take more than our lifetimes to fill that all up with residential.
    Whoa. I don't know how much lifetime you figure you have left (plenty, I hope), but given the rate of construction south of 23rd Ave., except for existing areas of Yellowbird, Twin Brooks and Mill Woods, it might be sooner than we all think. Stand on a chair in Rutherford or Callaghan and you can practically see the airport now.

  86. #86
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,247

    Default

    Of course if you decide to reduce sprawl then you will have higher density, this means that we as well will need to shift our thinking on how to handle disastors. Fires would become more of a problem as they are easier to spread. London (probably after 1666) decided that external surfaces of buildings must be fireproof, since then they haven't had any major fires spreading that weren't war induced.

    Getting back on topic should the city annex the airport, I have mixed feelings, would the airport exist without Edmonton no, but Edmonton hasn't exactly been the model of efficiency and planning with the land it has, better it be left the way it is for now otherwise we may get a strip mall city from Anthony Henday down to Nisku

  87. #87
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    ...but Edmonton hasn't exactly been the model of efficiency and planning with the land it has, better it be left the way it is for now otherwise we may get a strip mall city from Anthony Henday down to Nisku
    *shudder* We cannot allow that to happen under any circumstances.

  88. #88

    Default

    Ya, cause all the surrounding municipalities have excellent land use plans too... Better not let "evil" Edmonton get in there...

    I think Edmonton does a better job at land use management then most of the surrounding communities....

  89. #89
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Ya, cause all the surrounding municipalities have excellent land use plans too... Better not let "evil" Edmonton get in there...

    I think Edmonton does a better job at land use management then most of the surrounding communities....
    That may be very true, but the city can certainly do better.

  90. #90

    Default

    I think its a bit of a catch 22... or a damn if we do, damned if we dont...

    This is why a regional development plan needs to happen. As long as communities outside the borders of Edmonton are allowed to sprawl mindlessly, so should Edmonton. Why should Edmonton make itself non-competitive in trying to attract new residents..?

  91. #91
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I think its a bit of a catch 22... or a damn if we do, damned if we dont...

    This is why a regional development plan needs to happen. As long as communities outside the borders of Edmonton are allowed to sprawl mindlessly, so should Edmonton. Why should Edmonton make itself non-competitive in trying to attract new residents..?
    I totally understand what you are saying here... it is really important that we try to play on a level playing field.

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Why should Edmonton make itself non-competitive in trying to attract new residents..?
    Why would we be uncompetitve? We will have world class infill developments for new citizens, not to mention revitalized neighborhoods as seniors move into condos (many of them downtown - many new residents will head here first too). Century Park will offer plenty of space for those who must live in the South. We should strive to be the premium destination, not the downmarket one. The place where commutes are reasonable as our footprint is reasonable, and the downtown the premium place to be. Let Stoney Plain and Leduc carry on their low cost golf course housing expansions, it fills a niche in the market for those who don't mind commuting 20-30 minutes to the big smoke, but Edmonton doesn't have to pay for the direct maintenance cost that results from that niche.

    I agree a regional plan would be better, but it is not neccesary. Leadership is about leading, not following, being willing to embrace change, even if it is a fundamental change from the past. We don't always have to chase the lowest buck. As the biggest player in the Region, it is time IMO, for Edmonton to take charge and show the way forward.
    Last edited by moahunter; 22-08-2008 at 05:35 PM.

  93. #93

    Default Stuck On Density - Don't Miss The Big Picture

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    "What you fail to acknowlegde or understand is if the city of Edmonton does annex this land it will be in control of future residential development to the south and not the county of Leduc or some new town that may pop up on the outskirts of the city. The city of Edmonton simply has to take control as development accelerates towards the airport
    I can live with Edmonton annexing the land, but I don't think it should be with the purpose of building residential developments. What you fail to miss, is that once Edmonton has control over this land, it also have responsibility for it. We have to shovel the snow, build a new recreation facility, maintain roads, provide transit, maintain parks, deal with re-zonings, etc. (the City is struggling to manage this with our existing footprint given how short labour is). While on the surface, we increase tax take, we also depress it in existing neighborhoods relative to what that take could be if development was pushed in, instead of out. If the city is serious about seeing developments like Century Park, VFC, Strathearn, Aurora proceed in the next generation or so, not to mention new townhomes in the inner city north, development of land in the North East, the Muni lands, the Quarters, and filling the empty lots downtown, it should IMO be aiming to green belt / industry belt this land. " QUOTE BY MOAHUNTER



    The City should move quickly to annex the subject land for oodles of reasons. Edmonton should also plan for higher density within its borders. Planning to do both is the best strategy going forward.

    Edmonton's last annexation occurred 27 years ago and our future plan should incorporate a 30 to 50 year supply of land for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. Without annexation we will run out of land in the south somewhere between 10 to 20 years out. In the interim the County of Leduc has an approved ASP that allows for low density residential to be built in the subject area( 320 units per 160 acres)...Without annexing the land we will see sprawl occur at our southern borders in the near future...

    Annexation will allow the City to be more competitive by offering a long term supply of land to continue to attract people and industry to our City. Controlling the area will allow the City to build the infrastructure required (ie. LRT expansion) to continue to be progressive and competitive over the long term.

    Land banking the land is not a reasonable option as significant compensation would be owed to the landowners whose land values would be wiped out by such a move ( say 20,000 acres at $50,000 per acre equals One qBillion Dollars +/-)

    With respect to increasing the density of future residential development this is a "no brainer". My issue is that increased residential density in Edmonton can work quite nicely with annexation...

    " ANNEX AND DENSIFY NOW"
    Last edited by urbantown; 02-09-2008 at 12:16 AM. Reason: Want to respond to Moahunter's comments

  94. #94
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,065

    Default

    I noticed a lot of equipment standing along the rural road one mile north of Hwy 19 west of qe2. Sureway has erected a large sign in the field there to say they are hiring. I'm wondering if they are going ahead with the Crossroads ASP now that COE is annexing the land.

  95. #95

  96. #96
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,065

    Default

    No, it's further north, across from Flamans on Hwy 2. Google Crossroads ASP. It wouldn't copy and paste. Scroll down to the maps.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 27-06-2017 at 10:48 AM.

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    No, it's further north, across from Flamans on Hwy 2. Google Crossroads ASP. It wouldn't copy and paste. Scroll down to the maps.
    The land being stripped and serviced by Sureway is part of the Crossroads ASP and is owned by Remington Developments. The land was acquired in 2006 and development has been thwarted by Alberta Transportation and the City of Edmonton. It is great to see new industrial development finally starting on the site.

  98. #98
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton Downtown Core
    Posts
    4,401

    Default

    Some maps and documents in the to be amended lands. Remington does not all the land - and the site Urbantown mentioned may be owned by Rohit? Remax map shows large parcel of land for sale.

    Crossroads Area Structure Plan - document prepared by Focus for Remington Development Land - err Page 11 for close-up on who owns what land in the proposed Crossroad development.
    http://www.leduc-county.com/public/d...ocuments/12045

    Capital Corridor (Discovery Business Park) - a proposed development by Rohit Group of Companies
    http://www.rohitcommercial.com/wp-co...r-20150123.pdf

    Remax Maps: Land for Sale
    http://rcedm.ca/wp-content/uploads/2...s-Brochure.pdf

    Leduc County Land Ownership Map 1 - detailed
    http://www.leduc-county.com/public/d...ocuments/12407
    Last edited by EdmTrekker; 16-07-2017 at 10:50 AM.

  99. #99
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,436

    Default

    I certainly hope there's a right-of-way for the LRT.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  100. #100
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,313

    Default

    ^ The map shown on page 31 of the Area Structure Plan linked above by EdmTrekker shows a transit corridor following RR252. I'm assuming this will be for future LRT. On an earlier page there's a bulleted list with the entry: "municipal transit corridor has been identified."

    Nisi Dominus Frustra

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
  •