News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.7K     0 
Oilers99 said:
The City has already basically said lands south of 41 Ave SW are not going to be developed. Between that and substantial completion the City is controlling greenfield development despite many thinking they are not. Further to the point above, if City of Edmonton proper halts all greenfield development that development will go to the surrounding towns with people using services but not paying municipal taxes and secondly, we love talking about our affordability, restrict supply that affordability will be significantly eroded.
Click to expand...
While there are a number of services like roads that would be used by people from the surrounding communities if the development moved out there, there are also lots of services that Edmonton wouldn't be required to provide to these areas. Transit service, emergency services, utilities, etc. that are very costly to deliver - especially to these sprawling neighbourhoods. I have seen a lot of the information on the tax costs/benefits of these neighbourhoods if they are contained within the city limits (where they are a significant drain on financial resources relative to their tax base), but it would be really interesting to see an analysis of the cost of having these people sprawl into surrounding communities to Edmonton and whether that would be better or worse than allowing the development within the city limits.
 
YegMark said:
While there are a number of services like roads that would be used by people from the surrounding communities if the development moved out there, there are also lots of services that Edmonton wouldn't be required to provide to these areas. Transit service, emergency services, utilities, etc. that are very costly to deliver - especially to these sprawling neighbourhoods. I have seen a lot of the information on the tax costs/benefits of these neighbourhoods if they are contained within the city limits (where they are a significant drain on financial resources relative to their tax base), but it would be really interesting to see an analysis of the cost of having these people sprawl into surrounding communities to Edmonton and whether that would be better or worse than allowing the development within the city limits.
Click to expand...
THIS.

Unless Edmonton says it’s no longer doing transit and libraries and rec centres in new suburbs, why are people so afraid of people living in Beaumont?

Good. Enjoy the crap commute and poor city amenities if you’re still trying to work in Edmonton. Or appreciate the smaller town feel and local amenities that do exist there….but don’t put the burden on the city to service you so far away when we have lots of underdeveloped land that’s cheaper to service centrally.

Letting there be a bit of a greenbelt is actually good. It reminds people that they are visitors and removes the entitlement that continuous development creates. We can’t afford to service all the new suburbs until our existing areas are redeveloped more.
 
Okay let there be a greenbelt, there’s another city that had a greenbelt instituted and very quickly you saw what happened to its affordability. The city is Toronto. Artificially restricting supply where there is not geographic constraint has a negative affect on affordability.
 
Oilers99 said:
Okay let there be a greenbelt, there’s another city that had a greenbelt instituted and very quickly you saw what happened to its affordability. The city is Toronto. Artificially restricting supply where there is not geographic constraint has a negative affect on affordability.
Click to expand...
A very different city than us as someone that lived there. Green belts 100% are a risk for affordability of home prices.

But affordability isn’t a singular metric of home price.

Transportation, taxes, quality of amenities…all matter.

And Toronto did that while failing to allow significant infill due to restrictive zoning laws.
 
I get that Marquis looks detached but that's the next closest spot developers' were able to build in that region of the city given existing residential in Quarry Ridge, the mobile home park, golf courses, Kuhlman's Garden, Sunstar Nursery, etc...

I suppose an argument could be made the Gorman area should have been fully built out before Marquis began although I don't know what level of residential is in store for the small remaining area of Gorman.
 
BASE said:
I get that Marquis looks detached but that's the next closest spot developers' were able to build in that region of the city given existing residential in Quarry Ridge, the mobile home park, golf courses, Kuhlman's Garden, Sunstar Nursery, etc...

I suppose an argument could be made the Gorman area should have been fully built out before Marquis began although I don't know what level of residential is in store for the small remaining area of Gorman.
Click to expand...
I thought Gorman was mostly planned for industrial?
 
Jspr said:
I thought Gorman was mostly planned for industrial?
Click to expand...
IMG_8870.jpeg
 
Tropical said:
This is why I'd love to see a southern extension all of the way to YEG funded. An existing and operational LRT line would do wonders for what kind of sprawl we see built along the QE2
Click to expand...
Development charges (offsite levies) could be used to assist in the City's contribution for the extension. As you get towards the airport, some industrial lands have already developed. It would be better to have the offsite levies amended before more development occurs.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top