Barnaby
Active Member
I'm thinking something to do with the parking lot view from Autograph's head office in the Warehouse District.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Avenuer
Senior Member
NE as far as Chinatown I can agree with you, but if you include the rest of McCauley and Alberta Ave in that, you are wrong. Tons of families in those neighbourhoods (including many playgrounds, daycaresm Commonwealth Rec Centre and a few schools) and 'unsafe' is just the perception, as they are both quite fine. There are both many family-sized houses under $600,000 in those areas as well as many amenities for kids too.
IanO
Superstar
Have your say on this IMPORTANT issue:
engaged.edmonton.ca
Purpose of Project
Planning policies and regulations restrict the creation of new surface parking lots in Centre City and have prevented a large number of legacy parking lots from obtaining a development permit. To balance parking availability in the core with the long-term goal of a dense, vibrant area, the City of Edmonton has created a time-limited program allowing some landowners to apply for a temporary development permit. No new parking lots will be created through this program.
Text Amendment
A proposed text amendment to Zoning Bylaw 20001 is required to introduce the Centre City Temporary Parking Use and associated regulations. The proposed Use will be added to the Medium Scale Residential (RM) Zone, Large Scale Residential (RL) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone and Downtown Special Area Zones.
The following regulations are proposed for this new use to enhance the appearance and safety of parking lots within Centre City:
Some existing parking lots are located within Direct Control (DC1) Zones. To allow for the new centre city temporary parking use on these sites, a rezoning of five Direct Control (DC1) Zones within Wîhkwêntôwin (Oliver), Central McDougall, and Queen Mary Park are required. The proposed rezonings include administrative updates to align with Zoning Bylaw 20001’s uses and general definitions. No changes to building height, scale, or intensity are proposed. The Proposed Rezoning Map and Zones can be found under the documents tab on the right.
LDA24-0260 Centre City Temporary Parking Lot Program
LDA24-0260 Centre City Temporary Parking Lot Program
engaged.edmonton.ca
Purpose of Project
Planning policies and regulations restrict the creation of new surface parking lots in Centre City and have prevented a large number of legacy parking lots from obtaining a development permit. To balance parking availability in the core with the long-term goal of a dense, vibrant area, the City of Edmonton has created a time-limited program allowing some landowners to apply for a temporary development permit. No new parking lots will be created through this program.
Text Amendment
A proposed text amendment to Zoning Bylaw 20001 is required to introduce the Centre City Temporary Parking Use and associated regulations. The proposed Use will be added to the Medium Scale Residential (RM) Zone, Large Scale Residential (RL) Zone, Mixed Use (MU) Zone and Downtown Special Area Zones.
The following regulations are proposed for this new use to enhance the appearance and safety of parking lots within Centre City:
- Maximum permit length (7-10 years)
- Minimum setback requirements
- Pathway requirements
- Vehicle access and circulation requirements
- Barrier-free parking space requirements
- Site grading requirements
- Lighting requirements
- Landscaping requirements, such as minimum tree and shrub requirements
Some existing parking lots are located within Direct Control (DC1) Zones. To allow for the new centre city temporary parking use on these sites, a rezoning of five Direct Control (DC1) Zones within Wîhkwêntôwin (Oliver), Central McDougall, and Queen Mary Park are required. The proposed rezonings include administrative updates to align with Zoning Bylaw 20001’s uses and general definitions. No changes to building height, scale, or intensity are proposed. The Proposed Rezoning Map and Zones can be found under the documents tab on the right.
IanO
Superstar
*note the lack of proper 'hard surfacing' ie. paving requirements and ONLY grading wording.
IanO
Superstar
My submission:
A dirt/gravel lot is simply not an acceptable 'hard surfacing' or appropriate anywhere in #YEGDT, graded or not.
While development plans are subject to changing market conditions where timing is critical, delays inevitable and flexibility needed for #developers, most of these lots have been bad neighbours for decades and undue a lot of the good work done throughout the #Downtown over the years by many, many others.
Having lived next to two dirt/gravel lots in a modern high-rise condo for two decades, these lots make neighbouring properties continuously filled with blown dust, drag mud onto sidewalks, alleyways and roadways following rainfall and become magnets for garbage and disorder, let alone the number of my guests who stepped out of their car into a muddy, wet, cold puddle in their dress shoes en route to a meeting in an office tower, off to the Citadel or a game. This IS the most basic example of the #brokenwindow theory.
Why is it that those who raise the bar for their properties, assets, investments; those who upkeep, maintain, wash, clean, have to deal with this lowest of low bar as neighbours? Why spend money on operations and maintenance if others simply do not care and are supported to do so by policy decisions?
It's time to require actual hard surfacing on these sites.
It's time for them to be accountable to their neighbours.
It's time to raise the bar for those visiting, working, being educated in and most importantly living there.
A well kept parking lot, is a safer lot, a more attractive lot, it will drive more revenue and might even attract a buyer for a higher an better use. A dirt/gravel lot in the core is akin to an overgrown yard with noxious weeds in other neighbourhoods.
You are better than that #Edmonton; first impressions are lasting. It's time to decide what kind of Downtown you want to be and what image you want to convey. Minimum standards and a legacy indeed.
A dirt/gravel lot is simply not an acceptable 'hard surfacing' or appropriate anywhere in #YEGDT, graded or not.
While development plans are subject to changing market conditions where timing is critical, delays inevitable and flexibility needed for #developers, most of these lots have been bad neighbours for decades and undue a lot of the good work done throughout the #Downtown over the years by many, many others.
Having lived next to two dirt/gravel lots in a modern high-rise condo for two decades, these lots make neighbouring properties continuously filled with blown dust, drag mud onto sidewalks, alleyways and roadways following rainfall and become magnets for garbage and disorder, let alone the number of my guests who stepped out of their car into a muddy, wet, cold puddle in their dress shoes en route to a meeting in an office tower, off to the Citadel or a game. This IS the most basic example of the #brokenwindow theory.
Why is it that those who raise the bar for their properties, assets, investments; those who upkeep, maintain, wash, clean, have to deal with this lowest of low bar as neighbours? Why spend money on operations and maintenance if others simply do not care and are supported to do so by policy decisions?
It's time to require actual hard surfacing on these sites.
It's time for them to be accountable to their neighbours.
It's time to raise the bar for those visiting, working, being educated in and most importantly living there.
A well kept parking lot, is a safer lot, a more attractive lot, it will drive more revenue and might even attract a buyer for a higher an better use. A dirt/gravel lot in the core is akin to an overgrown yard with noxious weeds in other neighbourhoods.
You are better than that #Edmonton; first impressions are lasting. It's time to decide what kind of Downtown you want to be and what image you want to convey. Minimum standards and a legacy indeed.
Offworld
New Member
I appreciate your post and your position on things. No need to wonder why downtown Edmonton is floundering. Ghetto shots like this remind me of how hard it would be to consider moving back to Edmonton. I could say a lot more but I'll let this picture speak the thousand words for me.
Barnaby
Active Member
Go to the past vs present thread. Downtown Edmonton is so much better than 15 years ago.
I agree with everything Ian said, but I don't think it's fair to act like the city isn't miles ahead of where it was.
IanO
Superstar
Sure, but that's an easy out.
Downtown Edmonton still generally looks, feels and acts like a city of 100,000... not 1.5million and certainly does not reflect a capital city.
Downtown Edmonton still generally looks, feels and acts like a city of 100,000... not 1.5million and certainly does not reflect a capital city.
Munanyo
Active Member
Downtown Edmonton no doubt still has a long way to go. I do think once the disaster construction zone that is the Valley West line, Warehouse Park, Parks project and some of the other miscellaneous wrap up (eventually) downtown will look aesthetically better and start to feel a bit more of a city that is 1.5 million residents.
David A
Senior Member
A person can find places in probably any city that are not great, so I don't feel we should start to overly generalize particularly compared to elsewhere, based on a picture.
But, if the intention is to highlight and bring attention to problems that exist in order to get action to fix or improve them, I support that 100%.
David A
Senior Member
Yes, it will continue to improve as these existing projects are completed and new larger buildings replace older smaller ones or fill empty lots.
Lets not lose sight of the fact we are a younger city and also smaller than some of the other places being often being compared to.
Also, it is harder to us to fill those spaces downtown because we are not a major financial centre so not as much demand for office buildings or for residential for those who work in them nearby. And unfortunately attracting more corporate offices downtown has generally seemed fairly low on the city's list of priorities.
roe_
Active Member
I am curious about why hard surfacing isn't a requirement. Seems like a reasonable ask that if you want to run a parking lot downtown, in addition to the flowers, trees and pathways they are proposing, you should probably also pave the lot.
thommyjo
Senior Member
Is the fear that paving makes it more permanent and the hope is that it’ll be developed sooner if not paved?
Could a sunset clause be added where it can only stay gravel if developed within 5 years. If at the end of the 5 years it’s not developed, a very large fine is imposed?
SarcasticMarmot
Active Member
That's the rational whenever I've pushed one of the councilors about it. Honestly, I think its bullsh*t. Digging up a paved lot is not going to be the breaking point to stop a development.
StoneCutter099
New Member
If we insist on pavement as a requirement, we must first insist that the property owners install a storm sewer system and connect it to the city's storm sewer utility. I think that there is a risk that would drive non-compliance as for some lots that's insisting on having them spend easily 6 or even 7 digits. Given that a great deal of the downtown sewer system is still combined with sanitary, can the downtown sewer system even handle the load? If no, will the added load on the infrastructure prevent additional development?
(A wee digression: we saw a tremendous risk associated with electrical capacity when the ICE District was being proposed along with other major projects like the RAM, NAIT's CAT Building, Stantec, JW Marriott, Edmonton Tower in the early 2010s - EPCOR really had a concern for a while that they wouldn't be able to accommodate the development with the grid as it was - could this be something similar? We also saw a period of time where the natural gas network was identified as being unable to provide the right volume and pressures for a while in the downtown core.)
Anyway, back to the questions on why they may be holding off on asking for hard surfacing... If the owner cannot pay, does that mean that they can't get a permit? If the owner cannot pay does that mean that the city takes the land? Paving can be tremendously expensive per square foot as well, so that compounds the issue. Given the state of commercial real estate, I think the downtown property owners may consider a requirement like that a bit crippling.
I'll be the first to admit that I may not know what I'm talking about... just theorizing on the why's of the topic.