[TAS]

I don't think pretending our downtown is wonderful is going to help improve things. Unfortunately it needs a lot of improvement now, it would be delusional at best to believe otherwise.

Just curious though, have you read any posts by anyone on here who has said that our downtown is wonderful in any kind of delusional way?

Or are you thinking certain politicians or business leaders who think that way?

 

[dunno]

Lets remember we are focusing on downtown here, not necessarily the city as a whole.

I don't think pretending our downtown is wonderful is going to help improve things. Unfortunately it needs a lot of improvement now, it would be delusional at best to believe otherwise.

Winnipeg and Hamilton are such totally different places. I actually have been to and like both, they have different pluses and minuses and are not easily comparable to here.

Hamilton, when I went, didn't seem to have a very big downtown, but what it has seemed good. Winnipeg has a lot of nice older buildings, but perhaps not the dynamic future growth potential we can really take advantage of if we do things right and are smart about it. I think by virtue of its location, Hamilton will probably do well in the future.

After Calgary and Saskatoon, Winnipeg is probably Edmonton’s closest analogue. It’s older and smaller but the culture is similar. There’s a lot both can learn from each other and there are many parallels, even downtown. They’re festival-forward, artsier cities (though these days I’d say Wpg is better at the latter by a small margin) that have an emphasis on universities and government services and are frustratingly suburbia-centric.

Winnipeg heavily benefits from legacy urbanism to make it more interesting but it’s a city focused on the burbs like Edmonton. Destination retail never goes downtown really and its main intersection is designed to facilitate car traffic only. The state of Winnipeg’s downtown in general has many analogues to ours. Portage Place to City Centre. Recent exits from the Bay and other major retailers. Arena-adjacent new glassy high-rise districts with private public plazas. Wider than necessary roads. Dominance of marginalized populations and a negative perception of it. Sprawling legislature campuses. Secondary universities on the downtown periphery. Etc. Their downtown is prettier and more interesting mostly because of historical grandeur, better riverfront connections, some interesting infill, and the quirky Exchange District amenities, but otherwise many, many similarities in economic and political realities.

 

[Tropical]

I'm a bit flummoxed by these comparisons. Winnipeg and Hamilton are absolutely not superior places for urban, pedestrian focused spaces (the suggestion that the Exchange District or James Street exceed Old Strathcona is... borderline bizarre).

I think that the frustration lies with our progress vs the best compatibles - Ottawa and Calgary. These cities show visibly more improvement over the past 15 years, but these differences are rather marginal. I'll use Calgary as an explicit example.

Beltline/Mission vs Old Strathcona/Garneau - comparable
Kensington vs West Oliver/124 Street - very close to comparable (particularly once the Mercury Blocks and West LRT are complete)
Inglewood vs Ritchie - close to comparable
Bridgeland vs Highlands or French Quarter - close to comparable

Calgary is not ahead in terms of walkable grocery in these areas (Inglewood stands out as food desert minus boutiques). The Valley Line's construction puts our rail transit network effectively on par. It's truly only downtown where the disparity is very stark - and you're welcome to update me on where that stands after Nordstrom's and The Bay (eventually) pull out.

Ottawa is also very marginally ahead - and if you've ever taken a walk around Hull across the river (it's not particularly good...) you may begin to second guess that thought.

I feel your frustrations. And as much as they are warranted, I fear they are clouding your vision.

 

[David A]

Just curious though, have you read any posts by anyone on here who has said that our downtown is wonderful in any kind of delusional way?

Or are you thinking certain politicians or business leaders who think that way?

I think the approach by politicians and business leaders here in general is delusional and has mostly been for a long time.

Its not an accident we have got to where we are. It is a result of a lot of inaction and poor choices. I suppose it is a failure of leadership.

There is also a bury our heads in the suburban sand mentality more broadly which also goes with that.

 

[Munanyo]

I agree it's much more appropriate for Edmonton to compare itself to Calgary and Ottawa vs Winnipeg and Hamilton.

Winnipeg and Hamilton, with all due respect to them, have gone through downward spirals for decades and are only just now starting to show signs of somewhat turning around (I mean that in the aesthetic and development front, not crime and social disorder which are especially bad there).

Economically, politically and culturally, Edmonton is in the same breath (even if below) with Calgary + Ottawa and all three share very similar populations. With that said, both these two cities do outshine Edmonton on the "urban feel" front and it isn't a terrible idea to see what has and has not been working for those comparable cities. And being from Ottawa, I can tell you that while the city suffers from being caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare of a system (NCC, city, feds, city of Gatineau etc.) the city has done a good job of integrating the old existing fabric and modernizing it for todays need (see Elgin Street).

All three cities however suffer from out of control urban sprawl, lacklustre transit and having trouble catering to both the central downtown crowds vs. the suburban base.

 

[David A]

I agree it's much more appropriate for Edmonton to compare itself to Calgary and Ottawa vs Winnipeg and Hamilton.

Winnipeg and Hamilton, with all due respect to them, have gone through downward spirals for decades and are only just now starting to show signs of somewhat turning around (I mean that in the aesthetic and development front, not crime and social disorder which are especially bad there).

Economically, politically and culturally, Edmonton is in the same breath (even if below) with Calgary + Ottawa and all three share very similar populations. With that said, both these two cities do outshine Edmonton on the "urban feel" front and it isn't a terrible idea to see what has and has not been working for those comparable cities. And being from Ottawa, I can tell you that while the city suffers from being caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare of a system (NCC, city, feds, city of Gatineau etc.) the city has done a good job of integrating the old existing fabric and modernizing it for todays need (see Elgin Street).

All three cities however suffer from out of control urban sprawl, lacklustre transit and having trouble catering to both the central downtown crowds vs. the suburban base.

Good points. I think comparisons to similar sized cities are better for this discussion. Ottawa has a lot of nicer older buildings which they seem to have done a good job with integrating and modernizing , but of course it is an much older city so has much more to work with. It does not have many tall buildings or much of a skyline or business district.

When I was there some years ago, it seemed quite well maintained, better than here, so the downtown was fairly nice and pleasant, but I wouldn't say vibrant. I suspect part of their problem as you said is they have too much government attention, so planning and development in the central area can be quite constrained. Perhaps our problem is the opposite.

Overall, I think we might actually do a bit better on urban sprawl than the other two, but it is an ongoing challenge for all.

 

[dunno]

I'm a bit flummoxed by these comparisons. Winnipeg and Hamilton are absolutely not superior places for urban, pedestrian focused spaces (the suggestion that the Exchange District or James Street exceed Old Strathcona is... borderline bizarre).

I think that the frustration lies with our progress vs the best compatibles - Ottawa and Calgary. These cities show visibly more improvement over the past 15 years, but these differences are rather marginal. I'll use Calgary as an explicit example.

Beltline/Mission vs Old Strathcona/Garneau - comparable
Kensington vs West Oliver/124 Street - very close to comparable (particularly once the Mercury Blocks and West LRT are complete)
Inglewood vs Ritchie - close to comparable
Bridgeland vs Highlands or French Quarter - close to comparable

Calgary is not ahead in terms of walkable grocery in these areas (Inglewood stands out as food desert minus boutiques). The Valley Line's construction puts our rail transit network effectively on par. It's truly only downtown where the disparity is very stark - and you're welcome to update me on where that stands after Nordstrom's and The Bay (eventually) pull out.

Ottawa is also very marginally ahead - and if you've ever taken a walk around Hull across the river (it's not particularly good...) you may begin to second guess that thought.

I feel your frustrations. And as much as they are warranted, I fear they are clouding your vision.

I don't think you're reading what I'm saying. In aggregate, Winnipeg and Hamilton offer better urban-focused spaces. It's largely because they're older and have more pre-war urbanism that's intact. Old Strathcona, if you'll refer back to my posts, is something I continually bring up as something that sticks out as an urban highlight for Edmonton. Winnipeg's Osborne and Corydon or Hamilton's Dundas (I actually haven't referenced James St in this thread), the closest analogues to Whyte, don't compare favourably. But the thing with Edmonton is there's Whyte and then there's everything else. Not that everything else is a write-off, but my point is that compared to similarly sized cities (Calgary, Ottawa) as well as smaller cities (Winnipeg, Hamilton), there's a lot left to be desired. Winnipeg's "Whyte Ave equivalent" may not hold up against it, but it has the Exchange, Wolseley, Old St Boniface, the West End, West Broadway, in addition to the Osborne-Corydon area, along with many less vibrant areas with incredible urbanism that you simply don't find here.

As for your Calgary comparisons...

Beltline/Mission - overall comparable to Old Strathcona, but it depends on what you want. 17th Ave has densified a lot more than Whyte has, and has more big format stores (Canadian Tire, Best Buy, Urban Fare), in addition to a lot of boutiques. I already said that IMO Whyte still has more character. 4th Street in Mission does really add to it though. The closest sister main street that Whyte has is 109th Street, which, for as nice as some of the businesses on the strip are, it's an absolutely terrible stroad that isn't friendly to cyclists or pedestrians. 4th is much more pleasant. The only commercial area of Garneau that's pleasant to walk is the half-block of 89th Ave with Sugarbowl et al.

Kensington to 124th and West Oliver - I do not see it. I do think Kensington has suffered from increased competition from Bridgeland, Marda Loop, Inglewood, and the East Village, but it's still a far more complete urban neighbourhood with more vibrancy in general than 124th gets.

Inglewood to Ritchie. I don't mean to be rude, but have you been down 9th Ave on a Saturday? Ritchie's 76th is nowhere near comparable. Ritchie is a couple strip malls and a patchwork of small businesses on 76th Ave. It's more like a cute little village. Inglewood has a major main street with strong historic bones that is often nearly as busy as 17th or Whyte. Inglewood used to be more comparable in vibrancy to 124th, but its really shot ahead and thus we don't really have an equivalent to it.

Bridgeland vs French Quarter or the Highlands. Nope. 1st Ave and Edmonton Trail are busier commercial streets than 112th Ave that activate the neighbourhood a lot more than the Highlands normally gets. The French Quarter's commercial activity is concentrated in one weird subterranean building and the Highlands is a great neighbourhood, but it's not exactly busy (and that's fine - not everywhere needs to be 17th or Whyte). There's little to no densification or expansion of commercial activity (beyond the Gibbard Block reno, which was already commercial). There is a bit of the village-y vibe between Bridgeland and the others, but the feel is different. On the residential side, the Highlands is older mansions and some SFH infill, with tree-lined streets and river valley views. The French Quarter is mostly 1940s homes with a few older ones and some infill. Bridgeland is less historically wealthy, so while it has old homes, there's no Magrath Mansion, but by contrast its seen a lot of high-density condo development that have transformed it more dramatically. I'd honestly say Bridgeland is a bit closer to Westmount/124th, even though the commercial activity is more split up in the former.

 

[dunno]

I agree it's much more appropriate for Edmonton to compare itself to Calgary and Ottawa vs Winnipeg and Hamilton.

Winnipeg and Hamilton, with all due respect to them, have gone through downward spirals for decades and are only just now starting to show signs of somewhat turning around (I mean that in the aesthetic and development front, not crime and social disorder which are especially bad there).

Economically, politically and culturally, Edmonton is in the same breath (even if below) with Calgary + Ottawa and all three share very similar populations. With that said, both these two cities do outshine Edmonton on the "urban feel" front and it isn't a terrible idea to see what has and has not been working for those comparable cities. And being from Ottawa, I can tell you that while the city suffers from being caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare of a system (NCC, city, feds, city of Gatineau etc.) the city has done a good job of integrating the old existing fabric and modernizing it for todays need (see Elgin Street).

All three cities however suffer from out of control urban sprawl, lacklustre transit and having trouble catering to both the central downtown crowds vs. the suburban base.

Again, my point in bringing up certain places was to highlight that even smaller places outshine Edmonton in certain regards. Hamilton really isn't like Edmonton, though I'd argue that aside from size and heavy government presence, nor is Ottawa. They were both quite sleepy. Winnipeg and Edmonton share similarities due to being cold government Prairie cities with ample space and negative perceptions. I'm not saying they're siblings separated at birth (like Calgary perhaps), but there's more similarities than people are suggesting here. I've lived in both cities and know them both quite well.

You're right that Winnipeg's only recently turned around from decades of decline, but arguably Edmonton had a version of this too. Both cities faced declines in the '90s and early '00s, both cities have downtowns that lacked investment until recently. Also on the aesthetic front, Winnipeg's architecture standards over the past 20 years are much higher than Edmonton's, and more comparable to, well, most major Canadian cities. There's still ugly architecture, but it's not nearly as prominent as in Edmonton. The urban planning there is much worse, though, and that's something that Edmonton has really improved on.

 

[Tropical]

I don't think you're reading what I'm saying. In aggregate, Winnipeg and Hamilton offer better urban-focused spaces. It's largely because they're older and have more pre-war urbanism that's intact. Old Strathcona, if you'll refer back to my posts, is something I continually bring up as something that sticks out as an urban highlight for Edmonton. Winnipeg's Osborne and Corydon or Hamilton's Dundas (I actually haven't referenced James St in this thread), the closest analogues to Whyte, don't compare. But the thing with Edmonton is there's Whyte and then there's everything else. Not that everything else is a write-off, but my point is that compared to similarly sized cities (Calgary, Ottawa) as well as smaller cities (Winnipeg, Hamilton), there's a lot left to be desired. Winnipeg's "Whyte Ave equivalent" may not hold up against it, but it has the Exchange, Wolseley, Old St Boniface, the West End, West Broadway, in addition to the Osborne-Corydon area, along with many less vibrant areas with incredible urbanism that you simply don't find here.

As for your Calgary comparisons...

Beltline/Mission - overall comparable to Old Strathcona, but it depends on what you want. 17th Ave has densified a lot more than Whyte has, and has more big format stores (Canadian Tire, Best Buy, Urban Fare), in addition to a lot of boutiques. I already said that IMO Whyte still has more character. 4th Street in Mission does really add to it though. The closest sister main street that Whyte has is 109th Street, which, for as nice as some of the businesses on the strip are, it's an absolutely terrible stroad that isn't friendly to cyclists or pedestrians. 4th is much more pleasant. The only commercial area of Garneau that's pleasant to walk is the half-block of 89th Ave with Sugarbowl et al.

Kensington to 124th and West Oliver - I do not see it. I do think Kensington has suffered from increased competition from Bridgeland, Marda Loop, Inglewood, and the East Village, but it's still a far more complete urban neighbourhood with more vibrancy in general than 124th gets.

Inglewood to Ritchie. I don't mean to be rude, but have you been down 9th Ave on a Saturday? Ritchie's 76th is nowhere near comparable. Ritchie is a couple strip malls and a patchwork of small businesses on 76th Ave. It's more like a cute little village. Inglewood has a major main street with strong historic bones that is often nearly as busy as 17th or Whyte. Inglewood used to be more comparable in vibrancy to 124th, but its really shot ahead and thus we don't really have an equivalent to it.

Bridgeland vs French Quarter or the Highlands. Nope. 1st Ave and Edmonton Trail are busier commercial streets than 112th Ave that activate the neighbourhood a lot more than the Highlands normally gets. The French Quarter's commercial activity is concentrated in one weird subterranean building and the Highlands is a great neighbourhood, but it's not exactly busy (and that's fine - not everywhere needs to be 17th or Whyte). There's little to no densification or expansion of commercial activity (beyond the Gibbard Block reno, which was already commercial). There is a bit of the village-y vibe between Bridgeland and the others, but the feel is different. On the residential side, the Highlands is older mansions and some SFH infill, with tree-lined streets and river valley views. The French Quarter is mostly 1940s homes with a few older ones and some infill. Bridgeland is less historically wealthy, so while it has old homes, there's no Magrath Mansion, but by contrast its seen a lot of high-density condo development that have transformed it more dramatically. I'd honestly say Bridgeland is a bit closer to Westmount/124th, even though the commercial activity is more split up in the former.

If you rate Osborne-Corydon as "incredible urbanism", I'm just going to show myself out...

 

[ChazYEG]

Beltline/Mission - overall comparable to Old Strathcona, but it depends on what you want. 17th Ave has densified a lot more than Whyte has, and has more big format stores (Canadian Tire, Best Buy, Urban Fare), in addition to a lot of boutiques. I already said that IMO Whyte still has more character. 4th Street in Mission does really add to it though. The closest sister main street that Whyte has is 109th Street, which, for as nice as some of the businesses on the strip are, it's an absolutely terrible stroad that isn't friendly to cyclists or pedestrians. 4th is much more pleasant. The only commercial area of Garneau that's pleasant to walk is the half-block of 89th Ave with Sugarbowl et al.

I tend to agree on the densification, but There is some progress on the horizon, for Whyte, in this regard, so we'll have to wait and see what the next few years bring to this.

Kensington to 124th and West Oliver - I do not see it. I do think Kensington has suffered from increased competition from Bridgeland, Marda Loop, Inglewood, and the East Village, but it's still a far more complete urban neighbourhood with more vibrancy in general than 124th gets.

Again, the short-term future for West Oliver/Estmount/124 st looks bright. 102 Avenue between 121 St and 126 St is rapidly becoming a good axis for vibrancy, and with the addition of more retail and residential units on 122 and 123 st, as well as the CNIB building on Jasper ave, I think there is a case for this area becoming a better urban experience than Kensington in the very short -to-mid term. I also believe it will be miles ahead once the VLW opens, as it will help integrate it better, and Jasper Ave renos will likely be done by then.

 

[dunno]

If you rate Osborne-Corydon as "incredible urbanism", I'm just going to show myself out...

This discussion is getting ridiculous. Again, in aggregate, meaning, for the purpose of this discussion, the totality of the various notable urban neighbourhoods in Winnpeg, provide a stronger urban experience than Edmonton. Which, for as much as I don't like Osborne and Corydon, and have already said that it lacks in comparison to someplace like Whyte, can be included, not because it's a phenomenal urban experience, but because it does offer something that contributes to the urban experience of Winnipeg. I also think 124th Street isn't great, but it's still notable enough to be part of the discussion. In Calgary, I'm not a big fan of Marda Loop and Mission, but they are relevant to this comparison, and so I include them.

Edit: I would add that the residential areas around Osborne and Corydon at least are much more attractive than residential Strathcona-Queen Alexandra-Garneau. Ornate pre-war apartments, colourful homes, and grand mansions are on another plane compared to the walkups and wartime bungalows of those Edmonton neighbourhoods.

 

[ChazYEG]

One thing that I would like to add, in the comparison with Calgary, in particular, is the fact that Old Strathcona and Garneau are separated from Downtown by the river, and that our river is a much more difficult crossing than the Bow River. This makes any integration significantly more difficult.

I wonder what could be of downtown, and our urban experience, if that was not the case.

 

[dunno]

I tend to agree on the densification, but There is some progress on the horizon, for Whyte, in this regard, so we'll have to wait and see what the next few years bring to this.



Again, the short-term future for West Oliver/Estmount/124 st looks bright. 102 Avenue between 121 St and 126 St is rapidly becoming a good axis for vibrancy, and with the addition of more retail and residential units on 122 and 123 st, as well as the CNIB building on Jasper ave, I think there is a case for this area becoming a better urban experience than Kensington in the very short -to-mid term. I also believe it will be miles ahead once the VLW opens, as it will help integrate it better, and Jasper Ave renos will likely be done by then.

Re: Whyte - I'm cautiously optimistic about the future with densification, but there's been a lot of false starts in Edmonton. If the Hat, Southpark phase II, the Mezzo site, and others can get going, it might be a bit different. Though to be fair, 17th Ave benefits contextually from being right next to their Oliver, and so even before the recent condos/infill, there was more ambient density. I do think the fact that despite this lower density, Whyte is still able to compare favourably to 17th (IMO) is a testament to how attractive and well-done it is. Sure, it could use a road diet, and should probably have LRT or some form of rapid transit, but it's still doing alright, even in the covid era of retail apocalypse. Far better than what's gone down across the river.

Re: West Oliver and 124th: I agree there's a lot of potential and, unlike Whyte, more already happening as we speak to expand the areas vibrancy, density, and overall attractive urbanism. But my comparisons are rooted in right now, and so, as it stands Kensington is still ahead. Hopefully they're more comparable in 5 years, but who knows for sure.

One thing that I would like to add, in the comparison with Calgary, in particular, is the fact that Old Strathcona and Garneau are separated from Downtown by the river, and that our river is a much more difficult crossing than the Bow River. This makes any integration significantly more difficult.

I wonder what could be of downtown, and our urban experience, if that was not the case.

You see this really with Kensington and, to a lesser extent, Bridgeland, which are across the river from Downtown, but don't feel so psychologically removed. It's a quick walk. 17th Ave would be like if Whyte Ave was where 124th Street or West Jasper Ave is.

 

[ChazYEG]

Re: West Oliver and 124th: I agree there's a lot of potential and, unlike Whyte, more already happening as we speak to expand the areas vibrancy, density, and overall attractive urbanism. But my comparisons are rooted in right now, and so, as it stands Kensington is still ahead. Hopefully they're more comparable in 5 years, but who knows for sure.

I agree that Kensington is still ahead, but I guess just marginally. This area of the city is already, in my opinion, pound per pound the best urban experience in Edmonton, if you consider the living/working/shopping/entertainment combination, especially when you consider that, as suburban as it looks, Brewery District is perfectly walkable for residents from anywhere between 120 st to 126 st and 107 ave to 100 ave, and it has some great retail options.

e: Whyte - I'm cautiously optimistic about the future with densification, but there's been a lot of false starts in Edmonton. If the Hat, Southpark phase II, the Mezzo site, and others can get going, it might be a bit different. Though to be fair, 17th Ave benefits contextually from being right next to their Oliver, and so even before the recent condos/infill, there was more ambient density. I do think the fact that despite this lower density, Whyte is still able to compare favourably to 17th (IMO) is a testament to how attractive and well-done it is. Sure, it could use a road diet, and should probably have LRT or some form of rapid transit, but it's still doing alright, even in the covid era of retail apocalypse. Far better than what's gone down across the river.

I do believe that, whenever we talk about good urban experiences and models for Edmonton, we should look at Whyte and try to understand what makes it so successful. I also agree that Whyte does compare favourably to 17th ave, and I am hopeful that 109 and 99 St will significantly improve in the next couple of years. 112 st/87 ave (between 112 and 109) can also complement the whole area's urban experience, and densification is well underway in this little section.

 

[ChazYEG]

In time: I wish they would develop the Brewery district into a more urban environment, maybe reducing the amount of surface parking, considering that their underground parkade is huge and very underused. Convert some of that into more retail, turn it more into a "Lifestyle Centre" than a power centre, where people fell more invited to walk between the stores. Especially with the LRT opening, and essentially 3 stations being adjacent to it, would do WONDERS for the urban feel.