Metro 78 | 23m | 6s | Pinto Properties | Frank Hilbich

What do you think of this project?

  • I dislike it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I dislike it a lot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    42
The administration report will be available on Thursday or Friday this week. I encourage you to take a look at.

This project checks many boxes on what Edmonton is looking for not just in terms of infill.

Social equity is one of the backbones of Metro 78. It will bring housing affordability to the location. It’s not in some remote suburban neighbourhood or busy arterial road.
.
Metro 78, meets many Council's policies and objectives outlined in the City Plan, but it took three years, after intense public engagement and design adjustments to get to a point where we could see the project advance to Public Hearing.

Doing the right thing shouldn’t be so hard…

Just to recap, some of Metro’s key features include:

The project will meet a set of CMHC criteria related to affordability, and the developer will commit to maintaining that affordability level for at least 10 years.

It will be a car-free environment, meaning, it does not provide any vehicle parking for residents - only bicycle parking.

It will provide one subsidized transit pass for each unit and two passes for units with two or more bedrooms for 10 consecutive years.

The developer will donate $100,000 to the community for the redevelopment of Charles Simmonds park.

The developer will build a plaza on city’s land, which will remain 100% public.

The developer will build a new two blocks long alley.

Metro 78 takes the ARP vision to another level bridging the gap between the limitations that framed the 2014 ARP vision with the 2021 City Plan vision of 2 million people.

While the ARP concept shows new infill along the corridor turning their back to the community, Metro 78 has its main entrances facing existing residences, and an inviting atmosphere to encourage them to come to the plaza.

The plaza will have plenty bicycle and scooter parking, a bicycle repair station, a coffee shop/restaurant, and a dayhome for six children.

Family housing will be duplexes with ample space for children.

Rooftop amenities will be designed to 8-80 year old with specific areas for adults and children.

Many TOD projects approved in Edmonton have a tower component and are phased according to market demands. Some phases may not be completed within a generation timeframe – they are generational TODs.

Metro 78 is a one-phase mid-rise development with no towers.

It’s a granular TOD.

My children will see it to become a reality.
 

Attachments

  • 172457C2-32BF-4752-9BAF-441D1F69CC85.jpeg
    172457C2-32BF-4752-9BAF-441D1F69CC85.jpeg
    207.4 KB · Views: 112
The administration report will be available on Thursday or Friday this week. I encourage you to take a look at.
The documents are now live! The report is here, and you can find all the other documents here (note that there are a few associated bylaws). I'll be sure to write the ward councilor (Janz) in support of this, and CC my ward's councilor, and I encourage all of you to do the same. This is an absolutely stellar proposal, but seeing as the public engagement had something like 9 in support - 110 in opposition, we shouldn't assume this will pass. We need to push for it, because this really sets a new standard for TOD infill developments.
Metro78.PNG
 
I'd encourage you to write to all of Council, not only Janz or your ward Councillor. They will all be hearing from those opposed. If you send it to clerk@edmonton.ca or council@edmonton.ca they will all receive it. If it only goes to the ward councillor with a smattering of others it doesn't show up in the public record and it's alot easier for them to ignore you if the opposition is more vocal. If their colleagues all know that they are also hearing from supporters as well it helps keep them accountable.

It would also be great to have positive voices, who either live in the University area or who work in the area or who use LRT or who are looking for affordable and central housing options, to sign up to speak.
 
I think it's also important to stress that this project is in McKernan not Belgravia. It's on the west side of the LRT but north of 76th Ave. The two Leagues often work together but they're very different in approach and demographics. Belgravia is alot more resourced and more aggressively opposed to redevelopment of any kind.
 
I think it's also important to stress that this project is in McKernan not Belgravia. It's on the west side of the LRT but north of 76th Ave. The two Leagues often work together but they're very different in approach and demographics. Belgravia is alot more resourced and more aggressively opposed to redevelopment of any kind.
Well today I learned… Who in the gerrymandering hell came up with these neighbourhood boundaries?

38F3B615-DFAD-4A31-BC7A-3857EBE05E59.png
 
Well today I learned… Who in the gerrymandering hell came up with these neighbourhood boundaries?

View attachment 423672

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.
 
Well today I learned… Who in the gerrymandering hell came up with these neighbourhood boundaries?

View attachment 423672
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:
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.
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.
 

Back
Top