IanO said:
^^

Our District Energy System | Facilities & Operations

www.ualberta.ca www.ualberta.ca

^I would not say or agree that COE staff are 'incompetent', but perhaps lack the real-world/practical experience or fully understand the private housing market, its forces, pressures, costing and layering of everything on a final $/sqft that's saleable. They get direction from Council to go explore things that are aspirational, currently popular or seen in the most recent Spacing or Dwell and then work to include these into the concept plans, reports and push them in the ASPs.

The disconnect that I usually come across (like I am now), is where personal ideologies and classic bureaucracy impedes:

1. the foundational ability of the private sector to deliver housing
2. the velocity at which it can get approvals and get housing to market
3. the reasonability of the private sector to work within ASPs/zoning requirements to provide a product that is viable for both the developer and purchaser
4. the reasonability of the offsite levies that must be spread across the development
5. the opportunity cost of working on a most complicated/costly/risky urban project versus a less complicated (although not without some of the above) greenfield
Click to expand...

this explains the issues with the city pretty succinctly, it will be interesting when this council approves their first NSP/ASP.
 
Oilers99 said:
they should probably stop trying to create some pie in the sky dream communities and sell to private developers who know what they are doing.
Click to expand...
And end up with a bunch of SFH in an area which could very well be one of the best TOD in the long term? No thanks.
 
ChazYEG said:
And end up with a bunch of SFH in an area which could very well be one of the best TOD in the long term? No thanks.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that private developers would build entirely SFH? it could be a mix of duplexes, townhouses, zero lot line homes, apartments, etc. You can institute density requirements that private developers have to meet.
 
We have so much vacant land slated for high density development. Let's just get a quick win, getting people with some disposable income living near the core. If there are some SFHs built, who cares. The overall density+urban design will be way better than the typical 60s/70s suburbs that neighbor it, and infinitely better than vacant land (like station pointe).
 
Oilers99 said:
this explains the issues with the city pretty succinctly, it will be interesting when this council approves their first NSP/ASP.
Click to expand...
There is a price sensitivity and what you get for your dollar in a home that government bureaucrats don't really get. There are a lots of competing developments and you can't get too far away from them price wise, even if you have some good and unique features.
 
kcantor said:
you might want to compare stadium yards to blatchford before you arrive at that sort of conclusion...
Click to expand...
I would love to, but Stadium Yards has more going on for it, in terms of reasons to densify, than the Exhibition Lands: proximity to Downtown, the stadium, access to River Valley trails and some density already existing in the area create a better environment.
 
www.sportsnet.ca

The end is nigh for the building once known as Northlands Coliseum

Northlands Coliseum. Edmonton Coliseum, Skyreach Centre, Rexall Place … Call it whatever you want, today it belongs to the mice.
www.sportsnet.ca www.sportsnet.ca

IMG_4285-scaled.jpeg


IMG_4279-scaled.jpeg


IMG_4264-scaled.jpeg


IMG_4286-scaled.jpeg


IMG_4253-scaled.jpeg
 
^
nice photographs of "demolition by neglect and indifference" while spending millions of dollars while you're at it. :(
 
kcantor said:
^
nice photographs of "demolition by neglect and indifference" while spending millions of dollars while you're at it. :(
Click to expand...
'Every time, purpose-built is cheaper than the transformation of this space,” Ladouceur said.'

She's likely not wrong - adaptive reuse of the building for something other than hockey or a similar activity that could be hosted at Rogers (which wouldn't fly anyways due to the arena deal), would be very, very expensive.
 
It was a good single purpose building that served us very well for many, many years (almost 50 years). I remember when I was quite young, seeing it built.

I also remember seeing the Edmonton Gardens torn down. This is how it goes. I suppose it should be celebrated as well as mourned.
 
Oilers99 said:
makes me emotional looking at those pics, many memories in there
Click to expand...
Yup, for one it was home to one of the best, if not the best, hockey teams ever - 5 cups in 7 years.

I know Toronto kept and repurposed their old Gardens. What did Montreal do? Did any other original 6 keep their arenas?
 
Avenuer said:
'Every time, purpose-built is cheaper than the transformation of this space,” Ladouceur said.'

She's likely not wrong - adaptive reuse of the building for something other than hockey or a similar activity that could be hosted at Rogers (which wouldn't fly anyways due to the arena deal), would be very, very expensive.
Click to expand...
I don't believe any of that to be true. There are hundreds of examples to the contrary -- one only need put on one's thinking cap (if one has one).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top