[Avenuer]

Former Mayor Don Iveson voted against the Alldritt project. His reason was that the location of the project blocked the view of the river valley from Jasper Ave. It's difficult to oppose a project of that stature but I agree with his view. Besides blocking the view of the river valley, the public access to it would have also been restricted. The original plan presented a compromise or remedy to that concern but it still meant funneling Jasper Avenue foot traffic through the private domain of the proposed facility. Perhaps not the end of the world but not ideal either. In the long run, the City would probably be better off to acquire that property and develop it into a primary river valley access point in a style similar to the promenade on 100 Avenue. The funicular presently offers connectivity to the river valley trails but another funicular in the Alldritt location would create a circular flow pattern without needing to deal with Alldritt's mercantile objective. The Alldritt location is also a good location for the skywalk that been talked about because it's not cramped like the 100 Street location and the absence of traffic noise would give its visitors a better experience. If that backdrop doesn't spur development of the Quarters, than I have no idea what might. Not holding my breath though because it wouldn't be a big surprise if the City spends all of its money on bike paths out to the boonies and then approves a low cost housing project for the Quarters.

Basic market economics make a tower at this site a no-go in Edmonton currently - it's geotechnically challenging and the construction costs for high-rise concrete right now don't make sense, hence why there are minimal cranes in the sky right now. It has nothing to do with 'City spending all of it's money on bike paths' - that's a weird take.

You may see 'low-rise' stuff built in the Quarters/Boyle Street because that is where the market is right now, but at least it'll add new units to the area. Even if it's an affordable project, as long as it's well-designed, I don't care, it's adding more active uses and bringing more people to the area.

 

[David A]

As opposed to what the City did with Hall D?

A tower of any height would be much less intrusive when it comes to protecting view corridors while providing animation and access.

I realize the city set a very low bar here, no interaction with the street, just a big blank wall and blocking the view. I sure hope the private sector will do much better in this case.

 

[TAS]

As opposed to what the City did with Hall D?

Hall D (built by the city) opened in 2006, about two years into Mandell's first term as mayor.

Was this, in part, where his no more crap statement came from (he made the statement in his state of the city address in 2006 I read) or was he talking more in general?

 

[Out of Towner]

Basic market economics make a tower at this site a no-go in Edmonton currently - it's geotechnically challenging and the construction costs for high-rise concrete right now don't make sense, hence why there are minimal cranes in the sky right now. It has nothing to do with 'City spending all of it's money on bike paths' - that's a weird take.

You may see 'low-rise' stuff built in the Quarters/Boyle Street because that is where the market is right now, but at least it'll add new units to the area. Even if it's an affordable project, as long as it's well-designed, I don't care, it's adding more active uses and bringing more people to the area.

Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.

 

[Out of Towner]

As opposed to what the City did with Hall D?

A tower of any height would be much less intrusive when it comes to protecting view corridors while providing animation and access.

Hall D (?? convention center) in front of 97Street is exactly the kind of visual dead end that should be avoided.

 

[kcantor]

Hall D (?? convention center) in front of 97Street is exactly the kind of visual dead end that should be avoided.

Which was exactly my point…

 

[Gronk!]

This is one of the select areas downtown where there is a good view of river valley from Jasper Avenue, It would be a good idea for whatever is built to preserve as much of this as possible, as well as access to river valley.

I really don't see the point of preserving river valley views when that Russian church is standing in the way.

 

[kcantor]

I really don't see the point of preserving river valley views when that Russian church is standing in the way.

There's still quite a stretch from the church back to the convention centre...

 

[archited]

The Russian orthodox church is part of preservable history.

 

[devobersver]

Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.

This is incorrect. The city's budget for bike lanes from 2023-2027 was $100M, most of this budget has yet to be spent.

 

[Avenuer]

Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.

If you think the City would (somehow) choose to acquire and develop, a market high-rise condominium project, which would need much more than $100M, you are quite out to lunch.

Equating potential City funding for a singular high-rise residential project to a City-wide active transportation network is even more of a stretch, honestly. Not the same things at all.

 

[thommyjo]

Not a weird take at all if you're a rate payer. The City budget for bicycle paths last year alone was $100M and since the City's treasury has its limitations, Council sets priorities. If rate payers were given the choice between acquiring and developing the Alldritt property or bike paths to the boonies, I believe they would choose the former. Moreover, I didn't advocate for anybody to build a high rise on the property. How you came up with that is what is weird.

100mil over 4 years.

25/year.

It equates to a couple of bucks annually for the average household. Basically non material.

Also, false dichotomies aren’t helpful. Our active transportation funding is less proportionally than even its mode share. Arguably the most objective approach would be to tie those together (which would still fail to address 50+ years of unequal funding we should work to catch up on too).

 

[Out of Towner]

This is incorrect. The city's budget for bike lanes from 2023-2027 was $100M, most of this budget has yet to be spent.

You're right. Instead of saying "last year alone," I should have said "was approved." Sorry for any confusion it may have caused.

 

[Out of Towner]

100mil over 4 years.

25/year.

It equates to a couple of bucks annually for the average household. Basically non material.

Also, false dichotomies aren’t helpful. Our active transportation funding is less proportionally than even its mode share. Arguably the most objective approach would be to tie those together (which would still fail to address 50+ years of unequal funding we should work to catch up on too).

If the cost is only a couple bucks to the average household, then cyclists should be able to pay to register their bicycles, pay for insurance, pay for bike path upkeep, and pay for parking. I mean, there's so many of you guys using the paths, it shouldn't be a problem to cover the cost of them. Or at least make a contribution for your transportation convenience. Basically non material.

 

[Out of Towner]

If you think the City would (somehow) choose to acquire and develop, a market high-rise condominium project, which would need much more than $100M, you are quite out to lunch.

Equating potential City funding for a singular high-rise residential project to a City-wide active transportation network is even more of a stretch, honestly. Not the same things at all.

The only one talking about the City developing a high-rise condominium project on the Alldritt property is you. I posited that expenditures on bicycle paths have been prioritized by the City and that it's budget doesn't permit other things to be done. The City doesn't have the money to do everything.