northlands
Senior Member
Well today I learned… Who in the gerrymandering hell came up with these neighbourhood boundaries?
- Thread starter SRC Admin
- Start date
Sunny1
New Member
I think this reflects historical development patterns and land ownership. The McKernan CL was est in the 30s and Belgravia's in the mid-50s. It's been this way since then as far as I know.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
As far as I recall from a community league newsletter, when I lived there, Sunny is right that it's always been this way. The newsletter said that it used to be a subtle thing, before 114 widened so much and the lrt bisected the two parts of McKernan.
The reason the league wants to keep it, according to the newsletter, is that it's home to a lot of dense development, and they don't want to loss a not-insignificant chunk of their residents to Belgravia. According to this city report, grants to community leagues are primarily distributed on a per capita basis, meaning the McKernan league has a financial incentive to keep this area under its purview.
Either way, it's an enticing pocket for them to keep, and they don't want to lose it just because of how the 114/lrt corridor developed.
Last edited:
David A
Senior Member
Makes sense. I remember before 114 street was widened, it was so congested and that was a long time ago when there was much less congestion in Edmonton's traffic. Unfortunately there are a limited number or routes to the University from the south and it made sense for the LRT to go there, but it does have the effect of dividing that community. I also suspect the area to the south and west has a bit different demographics, so the boundaries did and still does make sense.
IanO
Senior Member
Sounds like a pretty rough ride tonight at the community open house or hearing?
thommyjo
Senior Member
Submitted some emails. Sure hope this gets approved. If not…why are we even building LRT??
northlands
Senior Member
Any updates?
Goes to Public Hearing September 13.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
northlands
Senior Member
I have never watched one of these before so I have no frame of reference, but from the little I watched, it was sure a prepared and coordinated motion of non-support by a lot of speakers (presenters?).
Canadian 001
Active Member
Wait so it flopped?
It was referred back to administration and will probably show up in a public hearing in December. The original referral motion (proposed by Janz) said the height should be reviewed, but thanks to an amendment from Knack that text was removed.
The proposal was delayed but it should come back almost completely unscathed, just a few minor adjustments.
The NIMBYs got to the mayor this time. Not surprising as this area is very well connected politically. The meeting running until 9:45 probably didn't help either haha.
Last edited:
Canadian 001
Active Member
Worst case scenario:
the developer completely gives up and the site is sold to Niche developments Cancelled after a year
Then sold to the City of edmonton
Greenspace
Senior Member
Sounds like with the height out of the question this should pass next time.
Marcolangzi
New Member
The outcome of last night public hearing was frustrating to say the least.
It is troubling to hear that area redevelopment plans are covenants between the city and residents and therefore should not be changed, which would then be considered a break of trust.
It is troubling to hear that area redevelopment plans are covenants between the city and residents and therefore should not be changed, which would then be considered a break of trust.