Whattagame
Active Member
I know, right? I mean, why would posters on a high-rise-centric forum want high-rises to be built?
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Avenuer
Senior Member
Yup, was a bit skeptical when the rezoning was approved in April 2017 and am considerably more skeptical now, nearly 8 years later with no movement or official updates. I want to see high-rises built everywhere in Edmonton but this proposal is definitely one of the least likely to happen in my eyes.
archited
Senior Member
Avenuer
Senior Member
haha well that goes to show you how long it's felt since we've heard any official news on the project...
IanO
Superstar
Throwback Thursday!
ChazYEG
Senior Member
What stands out to me, in the article, is one thing that annoys the hell out of me in Canada (and NA in general): someone complaining that we didn't have enough public consultation, etc, etc... as much as I appreciate public input in PUBLIC projects, private enterprises should NOT be subject to public consultation.
It's my land, if I submit a proposal and the authorities responsible for doing so approved it, under the law, than to hell with the public. I've been in Edmonton for less than half a decade, and I don't have enough fingers to count how many good proposals were shut down by NIMBYism, usually show through project consultations.
bonk
New Member
It's not your land though. It was City land. Yes I understand as a corporation you would say "to hell with the public" but it's reasonable for people not to want the City to say that.
"City Council approved a proposal to
privatize a stretch of Boyle Street’s
riverbank for an 80-storey tower in a
public hearing April 24.
The 7-5 vote in favour of the proposal
authorizes the City to sell parkland at
the top of Grierson Hill to the Alldritt
Land Corporation for a luxury hotel
and condo tower with an adjacent
“publicly accessible” private park."
Whattagame
Active Member
Public consultation and rational decision making are not mutually exclusive. If it's pure NIMBYism, then I get it, but if that sentiment is rooted in problems that can be addressed through better design, then a responsible corporate citizen will welcome community input to ensure that they maintain a healthy relationship with the community in which they operate.
Quarmenitos
New Member
Any updates yet?
CaptainBL
Active Member
Interesting comments from Ashley Salvador on the state of this project and how it is impacting the CRL losing money:
"As of March 2023, projections have us losing between $24M and $69M. Unfortunately, a significant part of that $24M projection depends on the 80 storey Alldritt tower being built. You can listen to me ask administration about our projections on February 22, 2022 here. I have little confidence that the Alldritt tower is about to be developed. In my view, we are looking at something very close to a $69M loss on the investments previous councils have directed."
www.ashleysalvador.com
"As of March 2023, projections have us losing between $24M and $69M. Unfortunately, a significant part of that $24M projection depends on the 80 storey Alldritt tower being built. You can listen to me ask administration about our projections on February 22, 2022 here. I have little confidence that the Alldritt tower is about to be developed. In my view, we are looking at something very close to a $69M loss on the investments previous councils have directed."
Unpermitted Parking Lots Shouldn't Get a Free Pass
This week, Edmonton’s Urban Planning Committee will discuss a report in response to a motion I made regarding unpermitted surface parking lots in the core. The report shows that 89% of surface parking lots in Downtown are operating without permits.
www.ashleysalvador.com
IanO
Superstar
My lord this area has been so mismanaged.
kcantor
Senior Member
^
some - if not most - of the fault rests with the crl program criteria itself, not with how it was/is managed.
the crl by design is limited to making capital investments. past a certain point, and possibly even before that point, the quarters didn’t need capital investment, it needed animation. it needed more nuit blanche, more retail, more galleries, more local commitments from and to places like the nook. as well as more development, the quarters needed to animate the main floor of the gibson block and the double tree hotel and the salvation army buildings and the old green papaya and the storefronts and repair shops on 95 street…
past a certain point, the quarters didn’t need more bricks and mortar, more planters and benches and ever wider sidewalks, it needed people on those sidewalks with somewhere to go and there crl is ill equipped to generate them. the city’s lack of recognition in that regard and their refusal to support their crl investments by also supporting the complementary animation components is what’s really to blame, not mismanagement by those in charge of the crl program. they managed what they were given within the limitations they were also given.
to blame aldritt for not yet proceeding with something that wasn’t even contemplated when the quarters crl was implemented is more than a little disingenuous in assigning blame for the crl’s non-performance financially. if the city had delivered on the quarters vision, aldritt may well have been underway.
some - if not most - of the fault rests with the crl program criteria itself, not with how it was/is managed.
the crl by design is limited to making capital investments. past a certain point, and possibly even before that point, the quarters didn’t need capital investment, it needed animation. it needed more nuit blanche, more retail, more galleries, more local commitments from and to places like the nook. as well as more development, the quarters needed to animate the main floor of the gibson block and the double tree hotel and the salvation army buildings and the old green papaya and the storefronts and repair shops on 95 street…
past a certain point, the quarters didn’t need more bricks and mortar, more planters and benches and ever wider sidewalks, it needed people on those sidewalks with somewhere to go and there crl is ill equipped to generate them. the city’s lack of recognition in that regard and their refusal to support their crl investments by also supporting the complementary animation components is what’s really to blame, not mismanagement by those in charge of the crl program. they managed what they were given within the limitations they were also given.
to blame aldritt for not yet proceeding with something that wasn’t even contemplated when the quarters crl was implemented is more than a little disingenuous in assigning blame for the crl’s non-performance financially. if the city had delivered on the quarters vision, aldritt may well have been underway.
Barnaby
Senior Member
At this point I'd be happy with the city offering a developer lottery or design competition for the Quarters lots that are for sale, on the condition that development begins immediately.
The decay is not worth the $5-10 million that they may eventually get some day. The parking lots should also all be closed aggressively.
The decay is not worth the $5-10 million that they may eventually get some day. The parking lots should also all be closed aggressively.
EtoV
Active Member
Agreed. It feels a bit like the city heard, 'build it and they will come', and thought that applied to pavers and benches. People still need to have reasons to go to the area, things to do, and feel safe. A bunch of nice streets in between gravel parking lots isn't going to do much.
IanO
Superstar
Good points Ken, but I distinctly recall options on the table to accelerate housing projects with a per door subsidy for the first 500-1000 units, but phase two of the park went forward instead.
It was a lack of prioritization and needing to get momentum going.