News   Apr 03, 2020
From the Editor: A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Topping Off March 2020: What's Hot on SkyriseEdmonton
 10K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
News Roundup for April 2, 2020
 3.7K     0 

Downtown

"We want Downtown to be a thriving place for people to live and work. But I wouldn't live there. And I would maybe work there some of the time. Also I don't give a shit if Downtown businesses are going under, that's a private industry problem. Anyway, here's a tax increase."

A business-friendly Downtown and a nanny state Downtown are opposite ends of the same spectrum.
 
Went to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce's "Municipal Leadership Dinner", great event, but when asked about RTO for City employees Knack emphasized the importance of council "staying true to their word" and dropping an estimated $5M in costs to have staff return to office full-time, which might be better spend on growing permitting teams or industry grants. Earlier in that same discussion, he pointed out how having 1000 families in Downtown for a large volleyball tournament hosted in 2025 (?) generated around $40M for the local economy in less than a week, due to spending on hotels, restaurants, etc.

Seems to me like that's having it both ways. Is having people spend money in Downtown important or not?
 
He also mentioned the importance of 'staying true to our word' (with the unions), but I do then ask, what about staying true to

Here's hoping that with the Feds coming back that the City does in fact move back to at least a 4 day work week for most and brings back a number of those who now mostly/fully work from home where possible. I don't expect all roles/positions to return as we have indeed 'evolved with the times', but still strongly believe that a good % should return.
 
policyenthusiast said:
Went to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce's "Municipal Leadership Dinner", great event, but when asked about RTO for City employees Knack emphasized the importance of council "staying true to their word" and dropping an estimated $5M in costs to have staff return to office full-time, which might be better spend on growing permitting teams or industry grants. Earlier in that same discussion, he pointed out how having 1000 families in Downtown for a large volleyball tournament hosted in 2025 (?) generated around $40M for the local economy in less than a week, due to spending on hotels, restaurants, etc.

Seems to me like that's having it both ways. Is having people spend money in Downtown important or not?
Click to expand...
He was referring to the volleyball Canada nationals that brought 1000 families to the city from out of town that brought that economic activity in(which Calgary has now outbid Edmonton for and is now hosting).

I think they are different things to some extent as one is about out of town visitors.

Was at the event too.
 
IanO said:
He also mentioned the importance of 'staying true to our word' (with the unions), but I do then ask, what about staying true to

Here's hoping that with the Feds coming back that the City does in fact move back to at least a 4 day work week for most and brings back a number of those who now mostly/fully work from home where possible. I don't expect all roles/positions to return as we have indeed 'evolved with the times', but still strongly believe that a good % should return.
Click to expand...
WFH was basically a temporary response to an unprecedented event, if someone on our past city council promised that would be permanent I feel that was rather foolish of them.
 
policyenthusiast said:
Seems to me like that's having it both ways. Is having people spend money in Downtown important or not?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is disputing the importance of people spending money downtown. It's just a matter of details. For example, the Infill Infrastructure Fund's webpage says that the supports it spent an average of $8,794 per unit. If we assume an average of 1.3 people per unit, that works out to around 730 new residents. Around 1,280 city staff work hybrid as of January, 2026. So then it comes down to what kind of downtown we want going forward. Do we want to bring 1,280 people into the office 5x a week instead of 2x per week, and aim for a downtown that is vibrant during weekday business hours but pretty desolate the rest of the time; or do we want to have an additional 730ish residents that have the potential to support downtown 24/7, while also filling in some more empty lots?

I'm not trying to make that question seem loaded. I've said in the past how I feel, but the fact of the matter is that we have very limited resources to go around and need to make every dollar count. It's not a "yes, and" conversation; every dollar we spend on bringing office workers in more frequently is a dollar not spent on bringing more residents living downtown, and vice versa. I'm not saying that one option is better than the other, but I will say that people who don't support return-to-office mandates as a tool for downtown revitalization can still very much want downtown to succeed. I go out of my way to shop and eat downtown, I visit downtown's parks, I write council in support of motions that fund services and initiatives that support downtown, and just like you I want even more people to support our downtown; even if we disagree on the methods to increase that customer base.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top