What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    62
kcantor said:
As opposed to what the City did with Hall D? :(
Click to expand...

Hall D (built by the city) opened in 2006, about two years into Mandell's first term as mayor.

Was this, in part, where his no more crap statement came from (he made the statement in his state of the city address in 2006 I read) or was he talking more in general?
 
Avenuer said:
Basic market economics make a tower at this site a no-go in Edmonton currently - it's geotechnically challenging and the construction costs for high-rise concrete right now don't make sense, hence why there are minimal cranes in the sky right now. It has nothing to do with 'City spending all of it's money on bike paths' - that's a weird take.

You may see 'low-rise' stuff built in the Quarters/Boyle Street because that is where the market is right now, but at least it'll add new units to the area. Even if it's an affordable project, as long as it's well-designed, I don't care, it's adding more active uses and bringing more people to the area.
Click to expand...
Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.
 
kcantor said:
As opposed to what the City did with Hall D? :(

A tower of any height would be much less intrusive when it comes to protecting view corridors while providing animation and access.
Click to expand...
Hall D (?? convention center) in front of 97Street is exactly the kind of visual dead end that should be avoided.
 
David A said:
This is one of the select areas downtown where there is a good view of river valley from Jasper Avenue, It would be a good idea for whatever is built to preserve as much of this as possible, as well as access to river valley.
Click to expand...

I really don't see the point of preserving river valley views when that Russian church is standing in the way.
 
Out of Towner said:
Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. The city's budget for bike lanes from 2023-2027 was $100M, most of this budget has yet to be spent.
 
Out of Towner said:
Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.
Click to expand...
If you think the City would (somehow) choose to acquire and develop, a market high-rise condominium project, which would need much more than $100M, you are quite out to lunch.

Equating potential City funding for a singular high-rise residential project to a City-wide active transportation network is even more of a stretch, honestly. Not the same things at all.
 
Out of Towner said:
Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.
Click to expand...
100mil over 4 years.

25/year.

It equates to a couple of bucks annually for the average household. Basically non material.

Also, false dichotomies aren’t helpful. Our active transportation funding is less proportionally than even its mode share. Arguably the most objective approach would be to tie those together (which would still fail to address 50+ years of unequal funding we should work to catch up on too).
 
thommyjo said:
100mil over 4 years.

25/year.

It equates to a couple of bucks annually for the average household. Basically non material.

Also, false dichotomies aren’t helpful. Our active transportation funding is less proportionally than even its mode share. Arguably the most objective approach would be to tie those together (which would still fail to address 50+ years of unequal funding we should work to catch up on too).
Click to expand...
If the cost is only a couple bucks to the average household, then cyclists should be able to pay to register their bicycles, pay for insurance, pay for bike path upkeep, and pay for parking. I mean, there's so many of you guys using the paths, it shouldn't be a problem to cover the cost of them. Or at least make a contribution for your transportation convenience. Basically non material.
 
Avenuer said:
If you think the City would (somehow) choose to acquire and develop, a market high-rise condominium project, which would need much more than $100M, you are quite out to lunch.

Equating potential City funding for a singular high-rise residential project to a City-wide active transportation network is even more of a stretch, honestly. Not the same things at all.
Click to expand...
The only one talking about the City developing a high-rise condominium project on the Alldritt property is you. I posited that expenditures on bicycle paths have been prioritized by the City and that it's budget doesn't permit other things to be done. The City doesn't have the money to do everything.
 
Out of Towner said:
If the cost is only a couple bucks to the average household, then cyclists should be able to pay to register their bicycles, pay for insurance, pay for bike path upkeep, and pay for parking. I mean, there's so many of you guys using the paths, it shouldn't be a problem to cover the cost of them. Or at least make a contribution for your transportation convenience. Basically non material.
Click to expand...
We do, by paying property taxes and driving less on average than non biking households (meaning less of a tax burden and contribution to congestion and road damage).

And many of the neighborhoods with the highest cycling rates are also central and more expensive. Meaning higher property taxes than all the car dependent suburbanites who require 2x as many roads to live their daily lives.

And once again, car registration doesn’t pay for roads. Neither does insurance. And most car parking is free and requires 5-8x the space of a car. Property taxes pay for our roads buddy. Not sure how many times a dozen of us need to tell you this.
 
Out of Towner said:
The only one talking about the City developing a high-rise condominium project on the Alldritt property is you. I posited that expenditures on bicycle paths have been prioritized by the City and that it's budget doesn't permit other things to be done. The City doesn't have the money to do everything.
Click to expand...
You’re the one bringing up bike infrastructure in a thread about that property though…
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top