Jasper Gates Redevelopment | 90m | 30s | RioCan | Stantec

What do you think of this proposal?

  • I dislike it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I dislike it a lot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    13

scooterz

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
18
Reaction score
112
Received the post-card below in the mail today about a redevelopment project planned for Jasper Gates (the large shopping / commercial area on the SW corner of Stony Plain Road and 149 Street).

There will be an open house to discuss the project from 6 - 8 p.m. next Wednesday, November 28th at the Orange Hub (10045 156 Street, Room # 333).

Jasper Gates Rezoning.jpg

Jasper Gates Rezoning 2.jpg
 
Wow Stantec is on this project:D. Excited to hear about this one!
 
I attended the open house last night. There were representatives of RioCan, Stantec and CoE present, as well as councillor Andrew Knack. Most of the display boards were fairly general, and I've copied them below if anyone is interested.

The rezoning is expected to go before council in Fall of 2019, and if approved the project will occur in stages to maintain access to anchor tenants, especially Safeway and TD Bank. Those tenants would likely move into new space in the base of a higher density building in the future.

A significant green space is planned to run North-South through the parcel of land, one display board suggested that there was an opportunity to re-open 150 street. There was also some talk of strengthening pedestrian/bike connections to the MacKinnon ravine, which begins immediately across 149 street from this development.

Jasper Gates 1.jpg
Jasper Gates 3.jpg
Jasper Gates 4.jpg
Jasper Gates 6.jpg
Jasper Gates 7.jpg
Jasper Gates 10.jpg
Jasper Gates 12.jpg
Jasper Gates 14.jpg
Jasper Gates 15.jpg
IMG_3648.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3648.jpg
    IMG_3648.jpg
    222.4 KB · Views: 577
@westcoastjos Good Pictures! Was planning to come too, but something came up.

I think that this project will come up against some community scrutiny, though. I can already hear "MAX DENSITY" and "SAVE THE LITTLE BUISNESSES" (even though this will actually bring more customers and help the area :rolleyes:)
 
@westcoastjos yeah sorry I should have made a separate post for the other stuff. But I do like your pictures!
 
I think that the Bonnie Doon concept has set a high standard and any of these TODs -- in order to gain respect and support -- will have to be every bit as thoughtful. It will be really interesting to see RioCan's next proposal as it zeroes in on a more detailed concept.
 
Access from the west end to downtown sucks (as it does from all sectors of the city). The redevelopment of this parcel would be a good opportunity to finally improve the flow from 100 Avenue to Stony Plain Road.

InkedJasper Gates 1_LI.jpg
 
@gordonparet Welcome to the forum!

Given that the Valley Line LRT is slated to run down SPR, I'm not sure there'd be much point. Certainly not fiscally sound as it would require the city to acquire a very expensive piece of land for what would only amount to shaving off maybe a few seconds in time savings for people driving (if that).
 
I would think that the costs would be similar to the proposal that shows 150 Street running through the development. The intersection at 150 St. and 100 Ave. will likely introduce yet another set of traffic lights. Costs for the roads would likely be born by the developer.

Maybe it's time to revisit a freeway down Mackinnon Ravine? (kidding although I wouldn't be against it)

Two of my pet peeves in Edmonton are the dead ends at 100 Street and 149 Ave. and Gateway at Sask. Drive. Can't think of any other major cities in North America that has this poor of access to the downtown core from the major highways that enter the city.
 
@gordonparet I don't imagine the 150 St connection would be anything more than a two-lane, mixed-mode street that provides benefit to the residents and amenities planned for the site. A wider arterial road designed only to convenience peak-hour commuters provides no such benefit to the developer.

Many of those dead-ends are a result of how transportation planning has shifted and changed over time - i.e., turning historical main streets into commuter arterials, splitting traffic into one-ways across distinct arterials, and of course the prep work that was the beginning of METS before it was cancelled.

Modern transportation planning recognizes that past planning practices have been detrimental to cities and communities, exactly because they focused on the fastest and most efficient ways to move cars across large distances, rather than thinking about how they serve people, or how they can build a city that provides people with more choice about how they move about, or choice on how far they have to move for any given trip.

So sure, we could "fix" those places where some extra turns are required, but we have to realize those those fixes provide no real long-term benefits to managing traffic in a rapidly growing and urbanizing city, nor to building more livable communities throughout.
 

Back
Top