[cmd uw]

A last ditch effort. It’s unfortunate the Province basically shut the door after some initial work was done to repurpose/redevelop the site. That being said this won’t be an easy repurposing exercise given the size of the building. I can’t see any feasible approach without having to demolish portions of the building and adding some new uses/density. The real question is at what cost - and it won’t be cheap. And I really don’t think this is that big of a priority for the UCP. In fact I believe they have more to gain turning this land into a park from the community which could help secure more votes in the next election. Enough to win that riding, TBD.

 

[Dubas]

A last ditch effort. It’s unfortunate the Province basically shut the door after some initial work was done to repurpose/redevelop the site. That being said this won’t be an easy repurposing exercise given the size of the building. I can’t see any feasible approach without having to demolish portions of the building and adding some new uses/density. The real question is at what cost - and it won’t be cheap. And I really don’t think this is that big of a priority for the UCP. In fact I believe they have more to gain turning this land into a park from the community which could help secure more votes in the next election. Enough to win that riding, TBD.

NDP won Glenora by 7 thousand votes, and is represented by a former cabinet minister. I don't see a park changing that

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

The province can save the demolition costs and can probably work out a deal on remediation so they can come out ahead on that too. Then it will be up to whoever gets the property to make whatever they want to do, work.

I don't get why our governments won't let private groups TRY things (RAM, Gondola, Coliseum). If people want to invest, let them, just make sure the taxpayer is protected. Give the group the land with the stipulation that if the project isn't complete by x date then it reverts back to the government, or if the project is completed but becomes non-viable then the government gets to buy it for a massively discounted price. Let the private groups try things and if they don't succeed we get an improved asset for cheaper, we can always demolish later. It's not governments job to decide what will or won't be successful.

 

[erudyk_29]

NDP won Glenora by 7 thousand votes, and is represented by a former cabinet minister. I don't see a park changing that

Especially since I doubt there's a huge majority of the neighbourhood that's clammering to get another park, so much they'd change their vote. I mean, they have the River Valley, Ramsay and MacKinnon Ravine literally right beside this site. I can see Glenora objecting to housing particularly higher density or (gasp) affordable housing, but I would think a sizeable contingent being on board for recreational or commercial uses.

I could see a slim majority wanting a park, but I think you would also see a big chunk of residents objecting to having what would effectively be a giant pit right next to them for what's likely to be several years and preferring a remediation / renovation which would be less intrusive during construction.

 

[David A]

I don't get why our governments won't let private groups TRY things (RAM, Gondola, Coliseum). If people want to invest, let them, just make sure the taxpayer is protected. Give the group the land with the stipulation that if the project isn't complete by x date then it reverts back to the government, or if the project is completed but becomes non-viable then the government gets to buy it for a massively discounted price. Let the private groups try things and if they don't succeed we get an improved asset for cheaper, we can always demolish later. It's not governments job to decide what will or won't be successful.

Exactly! You would think that particularly a provincial government that frequently claims to be free enterprise would get this.

 

[Gus Haynes]

A last ditch effort. It’s unfortunate the Province basically shut the door after some initial work was done to repurpose/redevelop the site. That being said this won’t be an easy repurposing exercise given the size of the building. I can’t see any feasible approach without having to demolish portions of the building and adding some new uses/density. The real question is at what cost - and it won’t be cheap. And I really don’t think this is that big of a priority for the UCP. In fact I believe they have more to gain turning this land into a park from the community which could help secure more votes in the next election. Enough to win that riding, TBD.

Edmonton-Glenora in its current form is probably one of the safest NDP constituencies in the province. Danielle Smith cannot win it, even if she does something nice with the old RAM.

 

[Didama]

A last ditch effort. It’s unfortunate the Province basically shut the door after some initial work was done to repurpose/redevelop the site. That being said this won’t be an easy repurposing exercise given the size of the building. I can’t see any feasible approach without having to demolish portions of the building and adding some new uses/density. The real question is at what cost - and it won’t be cheap. And I really don’t think this is that big of a priority for the UCP. In fact I believe they have more to gain turning this land into a park from the community which could help secure more votes in the next election. Enough to win that riding, TBD.

haha yeah there is precisely zero chance of the UCP winning this riding any time in the next 20 years. But I guess that's part of the problem when it comes to any kind of Edmonton project.

 

[archited]

U.S. goes for Trump; Alberta Goes for Smith -- when will sanity return?

 

[_urbanite]

^
Never

"Maybe it's not the politicians who suck. Yeah, maybe something else around here sucks... like the public"

 

[David A]

I have no sympathy for those who moan about the quality of candidates. If you have to choose between bad and worse, choose bad. Because if you don't vote, someone else will choose and they may choose worse.

 

[_urbanite]

I have no sympathy for those who moan about the quality of candidates. If you have to choose between bad and worse, choose bad. Because if you don't vote, someone else will choose and they may choose worse.

That's ridiculous. If I have to choose between bad or worse, I'm just going to stay home. That's not real choice.

I would only vote for someone who actually deserves it.

 

[Airboy]

That's ridiculous. If I have to choose between bad or worse, I'm just going to stay home. That's not real choice.

I would only vote for someone who actually deserves it.

That is your right. But maybe get involved at the constituency level where you can have a change. work for a candidate that fits with your principals. I have held my nose a few times but there are good people running. they just need help. Its why recently I got back into helping a candidate.

 

[kcantor]

That's ridiculous. If I have to choose between bad or worse, I'm just going to stay home. That's not real choice.

I would only vote for someone who actually deserves it.

Then purposefully spoil your ballot as an expression of “none of the above”.

I’ve often thought “none of the above” should be on the ballot and counted and if it reached the first past the post spot then a by-election would have to be held until that was not the case.

 

[David A]

Then purposefully spoil your ballot as an expression of “none of the above”.

I’ve often thought “none of the above” should be on the ballot and counted and if it reached the first past the post spot then a by-election would have to be held until that was not the case.

There's an idea!