westcoastjos said:
Minus the existing complicated privately owned infrastructure. Something, something due diligence. I imagine plenty of sites out there are quite accessible with existing buildings or other private interests; it doesn't necessarily make it a good choice for public projects.
Click to expand...
Talk about a overstatement. It’s a large parcel of mostly unused parcel of land, they’ll figure it out.

Considering there will be direct LRT access, which is vital, I’d argue there’s not a lot of other options that are more accessible.
 
edmontonidiot said:
It's not a mystery, it's all about location.

Alberta is lacking in infrastructure. This site was chosen specifically because it's accessibility. If constructed it will be accessible by via the Henday and Highway II, not to mention bus and LRT. It's location is ideal to reduce strain from the Red Deer Regional Hospital as well. There have been talks between Edmonton city administration and the provincial government about creating a new overpass connecting Highway II to 30 Ave SW, which has room to be twinned for additional traffic.

It's the best possible location for a new hospital.
Click to expand...
Yes, the location is good and well thought out - the only problem is implementation.
 
northlands said:
Great info, but I fully 100% believe the UCP would walk away from this project, and cite all the wasted costs on the NDP's decision to purchase this land (despite the UCP doing site prep).
Click to expand...
Look what happened with the "superlab." Remember that the project was cancelled after the UCP defeated the NDP in 2019. At the time this decision was presented as a "win" for taxpayers--that it was cheaper to use the existing arrangement with private companies than to build that facility.

I could easily see the UCP government reversing the decision to build the SW hospital, stating publicly that "Despite our herculean efforts, we have been unable to find a way to proceed with this project in a cost-effective, fiscally-responsible manner for the foreseeable future."

The press release would go on to muse about the challenges of the current macroeconomic environment, the obligation of the government to deliver other badly-needed health facilities elsewhere in the province; the decision to prioritize projects located in ridings that actually voted UCP; the shortage of doctors meaning that even if a hospital were built there would be nobody to actually work there; the poor performance of the Edmonton Elks; the erratic behaviour of Vladimir Putin; the erratic behaviour of Britney Spears; urban coyotes stealing garbage from people's recycling bins; pipelines crossing the site of the proposed hospital; coyotes crossing the site of the proposed hospital; and the fact that Danielle Smith really misses hosting her radio show.
 
TravellingChris said:
Look what happened with the "superlab." Remember that the project was cancelled after the UCP defeated the NDP in 2019. At the time this decision was presented as a "win" for taxpayers--that it was cheaper to use the existing arrangement with private companies than to build that facility.

I could easily see the UCP government reversing the decision to build the SW hospital, stating publicly that "Despite our herculean efforts, we have been unable to find a way to proceed with this project in a cost-effective, fiscally-responsible manner for the foreseeable future."

The press release would go on to muse about the challenges of the current macroeconomic environment, the obligation of the government to deliver other badly-needed health facilities elsewhere in the province; the decision to prioritize projects located in ridings that actually voted UCP; the shortage of doctors meaning that even if a hospital were built there would be nobody to actually work there; the poor performance of the Edmonton Elks; the erratic behaviour of Vladimir Putin; the erratic behaviour of Britney Spears; urban coyotes stealing garbage from people's recycling bins; pipelines crossing the site of the proposed hospital; coyotes crossing the site of the proposed hospital; and the fact that Danielle Smith really misses hosting her radio show.
Click to expand...
See also: the living wall in the Federal Building. The UCP makes "cost-cutting" decisions that cost more for taxpayers on the regular if things don't fit the UCP identity.
 
edmontonidiot said:
Talk about a overstatement. It’s a large parcel of mostly unused parcel of land, they’ll figure it out.

Considering there will be direct LRT access, which is vital, I’d argue there’s not a lot of other options that are more accessible.
Click to expand...
Not really an overstatement when it was brought up in the past in planning reports, for example.

Page 9:

Two major utility corridors containing oil and gas pipelines and power transmission lines transect Heritage Valley in a southwest to northeast direction. These corridors offer the opportunity to provide recreational amenities in the form of green spaces and pedestrian and bicycle linkages to other communities and places of interest. Sensitive land uses such as schools and health care facilities should be kept away from the corridors, in accordance with established standards.
Click to expand...

Then there is this diagram that shows the existing row - in the fine print, there are six operational pipelines at the time of the map that bisect the hospital land, plus the north/south ATCO pipeline to the east.

Again, it was not really an overstatement when it took me 10 minutes of googling to see the inherent issues that would need to be considered during design. Sure, they will probably figure it out, but how much extra time and cost does that add to the project? I would argue significant scope creep. You can see the pipeline row on google maps using the terrain view that extends southeast and northeast of the project site. The lines will likely need to be relocated AND upgraded to class 4 lines. Meaningful work has yet to begin on infrastructure relocation.

Yes, the project will likely proceed, but when will it open for service to the public when the healthcare system in Edmonton has already stretched to its limits 10 years ago? Another 10 years from now? 15? I would argue we are well within our rights to point out the poor planning and lack of due diligence that was done in choosing this site. Sorry, but when I read articles about people waiting over 24 hours in an emergency room, I think I should be able to say that our government isn't doing a very good job at fixing the problem.
 
TravellingChris said:
Look what happened with the "superlab." Remember that the project was cancelled after the UCP defeated the NDP in 2019. At the time this decision was presented as a "win" for taxpayers--that it was cheaper to use the existing arrangement with private companies than to build that facility.

I could easily see the UCP government reversing the decision to build the SW hospital, stating publicly that "Despite our herculean efforts, we have been unable to find a way to proceed with this project in a cost-effective, fiscally-responsible manner for the foreseeable future."

The press release would go on to muse about the challenges of the current macroeconomic environment, the obligation of the government to deliver other badly-needed health facilities elsewhere in the province; the decision to prioritize projects located in ridings that actually voted UCP; the shortage of doctors meaning that even if a hospital were built there would be nobody to actually work there; the poor performance of the Edmonton Elks; the erratic behaviour of Vladimir Putin; the erratic behaviour of Britney Spears; urban coyotes stealing garbage from people's recycling bins; pipelines crossing the site of the proposed hospital; coyotes crossing the site of the proposed hospital; and the fact that Danielle Smith really misses hosting her radio show.
Click to expand...
Don't forget about the Federal government, I expect they will somehow blame them also. Sorry to hear about Britney's divorce, especially if it will impact us getting a hospital.
 
westcoastjos said:
Not really an overstatement when it was brought up in the past in planning reports, for example.

Page 9:



Then there is this diagram that shows the existing row - in the fine print, there are six operational pipelines at the time of the map that bisect the hospital land, plus the north/south ATCO pipeline to the east.

Again, it was not really an overstatement when it took me 10 minutes of googling to see the inherent issues that would need to be considered during design. Sure, they will probably figure it out, but how much extra time and cost does that add to the project? I would argue significant scope creep. You can see the pipeline row on google maps using the terrain view that extends southeast and northeast of the project site. The lines will likely need to be relocated AND upgraded to class 4 lines. Meaningful work has yet to begin on infrastructure relocation.

Yes, the project will likely proceed, but when will it open for service to the public when the healthcare system in Edmonton has already stretched to its limits 10 years ago? Another 10 years from now? 15? I would argue we are well within our rights to point out the poor planning and lack of due diligence that was done in choosing this site. Sorry, but when I read articles about people waiting over 24 hours in an emergency room, I think I should be able to say that our government isn't doing a very good job at fixing the problem.
Click to expand...
Maybe Jason Kenney with his new appointment on the ATCO BoD will help get the ATCO pipe dealt with?

Hahahahahha
 
westcoastjos said:
Not really an overstatement when it was brought up in the past in planning reports, for example.

Page 9:



Then there is this diagram that shows the existing row - in the fine print, there are six operational pipelines at the time of the map that bisect the hospital land, plus the north/south ATCO pipeline to the east.

Again, it was not really an overstatement when it took me 10 minutes of googling to see the inherent issues that would need to be considered during design. Sure, they will probably figure it out, but how much extra time and cost does that add to the project? I would argue significant scope creep. You can see the pipeline row on google maps using the terrain view that extends southeast and northeast of the project site. The lines will likely need to be relocated AND upgraded to class 4 lines. Meaningful work has yet to begin on infrastructure relocation.

Yes, the project will likely proceed, but when will it open for service to the public when the healthcare system in Edmonton has already stretched to its limits 10 years ago? Another 10 years from now? 15? I would argue we are well within our rights to point out the poor planning and lack of due diligence that was done in choosing this site. Sorry, but when I read articles about people waiting over 24 hours in an emergency room, I think I should be able to say that our government isn't doing a very good job at fixing the problem.
Click to expand...
I work in oil and gas. I can tell you with confidence that both the city administration of Edmonton, and the provincial government weighed the cost when they carried out a land survey. Feel free to forward both entities your Google search results.

Again, in the context of the city plan, this location is ideal and can reduce strain on both the city and other municipalities. It’s a win win. If you want to invest hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure without conflict, fire up Minecraft in sandbox mode.

Edit: I’m rereading your comment. Specifically, your last paragraph, you understand the difference between the administration and city council for example? Right? Planning can take years, regardless if policy and policy makers are superseding.

Edmonton having a overburden health care system is a policy failure. A provincial policy failure that has nothing to do with this specific location being chosen. The provincial government for decades, chose not to invest.

We could have had multiple hospitals built in the past few decades, matching GDP and population growth. We chose not to do due poor policy, this has nothing to do this the planning of this specific location.
 
Last edited:
edmontonidiot said:
We could have had multiple hospitals built in the past few decades, matching GDP and population growth. We chose not to do due poor policy, this has nothing to do this the planning of this specific location.
Click to expand...
Two things can be true at the same time - a policy failure over decades and poor planning in this instance. :)
 
The site as mentioned was the best location from what I heard, The other location was west of the Miz near the reserve. Yes the Province owns the lad to the south of the Henday and west of 127st. In fact the Body farm was in that location. This new hospital was to have the Acute Care 500 bed hospital as the central focus but was also to have a long term care Serniors facity and other parts that are not always associated with hospitals. The last price I heard was up around 4B.
 
Airboy said:
The site as mentioned was the best location from what I heard, The other location was west of the Miz near the reserve. Yes the Province owns the lad to the south of the Henday and west of 127st. In fact the Body farm was in that location. This new hospital was to have the Acute Care 500 bed hospital as the central focus but was also to have a long term care Serniors facity and other parts that are not always associated with hospitals. The last price I heard was up around 4B.
Click to expand...
I imagine the price will continue to climb for the foreseeable future even with the reduction to certain services on offer and value engineering. The province will need to accept that the cost is what it is given the past avoidance of building any new facilities.
 
edmontonidiot said:
Edmonton having a overburden health care system is a policy failure. A provincial policy failure that has nothing to do with this specific location being chosen. The provincial government for decades, chose not to invest.

We could have had multiple hospitals built in the past few decades, matching GDP and population growth. We chose not to do due poor policy, this has nothing to do this the planning of this specific location.
Click to expand...
The problem is that for at least 20 years under various Conservative governments, failure to spend on necessary facilities was spun as a "win", as a "savings" for taxpayers. And the public bought it. Spending on pretty much anything except the bare essentials was portrayed as an evil. The fact that migrants from other Canadian provinces (as well as immigrants from abroad) were moving to Alberta in great numbers was trumpeted by the provincial government as proof that they were on the right track. The inherent flaw in this logic, of course, was that the more people who move here, the more schools and hospitals and seniors' facilities and public transit you need. Simply keeping taxes to a bare minimum and building next to nothing to, you know, serve all those people who relocate to Alberta, is lunacy.

The fact that the metro population of the capital region has increased by more than 50% since 1988, yet no new hospitals have been built (Westview and Sturgeon were both replacements) is a disgrace.

What I do find humorous, however, are the number of self-described "former Progressive Conservatives" (many now NDP supporters) on this board who love to bash the UCP. These are the same people who, as Progressive Conservatives, supported and voted for underfunding of health care and an atrophying of hospital capacity under Klein and his successors.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top