What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    64
yeggator said:
I definitely agree that there needs to be a new High Level Bridge to better link the economies of Old Strathcona and Downtown, but there is no need to tear the old bridge down. There's enough space east of the existing bridge to build a new bridge connecting 109th Street on a straighter alignment (it would cut through the Kinsmen soccer field and the western edge of the Legislature grounds, but still worth it), where you could run two-way vehicle traffic, intercity trains and potentially another cross-river LRT alignment. Then, you keep the old bridge for cyclists, pedestrians and the streetcar.
Click to expand...
I don't think that will solve the problem of Edmonton lacking an actual North/South corridor. The best we have is 75 street and that isn't saying much.

If this was City Skylines, I would personally build a 6 lane highway directly under the city... Problem solved.
 
yeggator said:
I definitely agree that there needs to be a new High Level Bridge to better link the economies of Old Strathcona and Downtown, but there is no need to tear the old bridge down. There's enough space east of the existing bridge to build a new bridge connecting 109th Street on a straighter alignment (it would cut through the Kinsmen soccer field and the western edge of the Legislature grounds, but still worth it), where you could run two-way vehicle traffic, intercity trains and potentially another cross-river LRT alignment. Then, you keep the old bridge for cyclists, pedestrians and the streetcar.
Click to expand...
I share your opinion that the streetcar is a unique and valuable heritage piece that most other cities don't have but there's little reason to believe that replacing the High Level would spell its demise. Surely a new bridge could be designed so that the view of the river valley from the streetcar wouldn't be disturbed. Extending the streetcar's route onto Whyte Avenue would be a popular tourist attraction. We're not talking San Francisco here but it would still add some interest for people visiting the city like the hop on hop off tour buses that some places have.
 
crisp said:
Hey @Out of Towner ... GET OUTTA TOWN!!!

lol jk, but seriously, replacing one of Edmonton's most iconic structures is definitely not the answer. I agree that vehicle connection is not ideal, and perhaps a new bridge (somewhere.... not near the high level....) or updated thoroughfare is needed to improve connectivity between the two very urban sections of the city. But I don't think it would be transformative in the sense that investment would come flooding in just becasue transportation has improved
Click to expand...
Improving transportation is about improving efficiency. As a rule, people will pick the most efficient way of getting somewhere or going about their business. The Rat Hole on 109th Street was removed and access to the north side has improved and economic development along the corridor is occurring. QE2 has been upgraded over the years and there's more economic development along it. The Feds want to create energy corridors because it improves efficiency. Improving the river crossing is the same concept.
 
NicolBolas said:
I don't think that will solve the problem of Edmonton lacking an actual North/South corridor. The best we have is 75 street and that isn't saying much.

If this was City Skylines, I would personally build a 6 lane highway directly under the city... Problem solved.
Click to expand...
We could extend the QE2 up 91st Street up to Argyll Road. But extending it further isn’t as useful and is very bad urban planning. North of Argyll, a freeway would have to go through Mill Creek, connect to Gateway through the rail yard (needs tunnelling) or up 75th Street (will raze portions of neighborhoods, doesn’t bring you that close to downtown). Anyways, I’ve noticed that traffic on Gateway/Calgary Trail tapers off north of 51st Street, cause I guess most drivers are connecting to the Whitemud or commuting to/from the industrial/retail areas around there. Just make the road connections to downtown more sensical. Two-way traffic on Walterdale and High Level and replace the hairpin turn on Saskatchewan Drive.
 
Unless my reading comprehension sucks, I think the article said the building have to be started by 2028.

Correct me if I'm wrong and send me back to an elementary school level reading level.
 
bodsbods9090 said:
The Gerein article TAS posted.

Yeah, my reading sucks. It DOES say 2028 is when building needs to start by.

Carry on!
Click to expand...
No no....honest mistake...the way that reporters type these days is atrocious....makes me wonder if Journalism school is even a "thing," anymore?
 
Please! We were just advised that this thread is about the Stantec Tower and not the condition of reporting and journalism school.
 
NicolBolas said:
I don't think that will solve the problem of Edmonton lacking an actual North/South corridor. The best we have is 75 street and that isn't saying much.

If this was City Skylines, I would personally build a 6 lane highway directly under the city... Problem solved.
Click to expand...
If this was Australia, we'd already have that massive underground highway like they have in Sydney and Melbourne.
 
Avenuer said:
If this was Australia, we'd already have that massive underground highway like they have in Sydney and Melbourne.
Click to expand...

There's an underground highway in Montreal IIRC.

Anyway, I agree with some posts from this morning - let's get back to the Stantec Tower.
Still no food court. 😟
 
MacLac said:
You’re right! OEG is obligated to finish 3 towers by 2028. There is a bunch of literature out there saying so. I know the province published a story on it
Click to expand...
I've seen documents for another little provincial-anchored project that compelled the developer to build additional space when the market got below x% vacant. The market went below x and the additional space was never built.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top