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

'I write council in support of motions that fund services and initiatives that support downtown'

And that's the problem. The fact city hall continues to use limited tax dollars for various initiatives to compel people to come downtown. And it STILL isn't working. (because if it was, people would not need to be compelled to come downtown. They would make the choice to, without the need for a taxpayer funded program)

Having ALL government employees back would. More people on trains and busses. More people in pedways. People (non-zombie ones) beget more people.

And all without the need to come up with 'motions that fund services and initiatives that support downtown'. Lead by example. (which the city is not)
 
whattheheck said:
The fact city hall continues to use limited tax dollars for various initiatives to compel people to come downtown. And it STILL isn't working.
Click to expand...
To the contrary, I'd argue that the past few years have been quite fruitful on that front. The Warehouse Park has led to 1,800 residential units on adjacent properties being planned, under construction, or already completed. The Infill Infrastructure Fund has supported more than 4,400 units, many of-which are downtown (some of-which are by Warehouse Park, but not all). The Downtown Student Housing Incentive will fund a minimum of 500 units for students, and the projects must have a building permit by November 2026. The CRL extension means that hundreds more units will be built north of Rogers Place by 2028, with thousands more to follow over the coming ten years. The extension also brings us an Attainable Housing Fund, with details TBD (the council package was delayed to allow for negotiations with the province and private industry to improve the program that gets recommended to council).

Not only does all of this improve downtown's vibrancy and business environment during a larger range of hours and days than ending hybrid work, but it also spreads the benefits out more. These residential developments are all over downtown, whereas COE workers are concentrated in the blocks surrounding city hall.
 
On the WFH front is there any common ground that on days of really bad weather and poor road conditions that workers who can work from home should just stay home thereby also improving the likely long commute for people who do have to drive around?

And if somebody is feeling under the weather or has a cough, but can still work ok, should they just wfh? Or how about a parent with sick kids that maybe doesn't have to miss work by taking a family care day or day off, but instead can get work done at home and attend meetings because virtual meetings are an option now when they weren't prior to 2020?
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's an either or, but rather a better balance given that COVID is over. Yes, the world has changed and work can be approached in a variety of ways, but it's about ensuring flexibility when needed for all, while bring folks back to the office in a more meaningful way.
 
CplKlinger said:
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.
Click to expand...

A large chunk of the people who currently WFH for the city don’t think the same way as you, and if they weren’t working from the office DT would stick to their bubbles out in the suburbs.
 
CplKlinger said:
To the contrary, I'd argue that the past few years have been quite fruitful on that front. The Warehouse Park has led to 1,800 residential units on adjacent properties being planned, under construction, or already completed. The Infill Infrastructure Fund has supported more than 4,400 units, many of-which are downtown (some of-which are by Warehouse Park, but not all). The Downtown Student Housing Incentive will fund a minimum of 500 units for students, and the projects must have a building permit by November 2026. The CRL extension means that hundreds more units will be built north of Rogers Place by 2028, with thousands more to follow over the coming ten years. The extension also brings us an Attainable Housing Fund, with details TBD (the council package was delayed to allow for negotiations with the province and private industry to improve the program that gets recommended to council).

Not only does all of this improve downtown's vibrancy and business environment during a larger range of hours and days than ending hybrid work, but it also spreads the benefits out more. These residential developments are all over downtown, whereas COE workers are concentrated in the blocks surrounding city hall.
Click to expand...
I would agree it is not all bad. However without more economic activity (ie. jobs) I feel there are limits to the number of people who will want to live downtown, so we also need to bring more jobs to (and back to) downtown.

The Student Housing Incentive is good and happening soon. I hope the CRL extension also helps increase residential over the longer term, but we have had ambitious plans in the past not come to fruition as much as hoped, so it may be too early to completely count on that.
 
As mentioned, an 'Attainable Housing Program' is forthcoming and so that should spur additional housing, but it begs the ongoing question of why is Downtown not carrying its own weight and being attractive enough to more people.

Why do people 'choose' Downtowns to live in? Root demand questions need to be better identified and supported.
Why do people 'avoid' central parts of a city?
How do we market these areas better and provide better experiences?
 
IanO said:
Why do people 'avoid' central parts of a city?
How do we market these areas better and provide better experiences?
Click to expand...

Something that would help right away is if the city reverted back to free evening and weekend parking (on non-event days).

The city put the cart before the horse when they implemented those changes. You need to make DT a place that people want to come visit first, rather than find ways to make them not want to come.
 
TAS said:
On the WFH front is there any common ground that on days of really bad weather and poor road conditions that workers who can work from home should just stay home thereby also improving the likely long commute for people who do have to drive around?

And if somebody is feeling under the weather or has a cough, but can still work ok, should they just wfh? Or how about a parent with sick kids that maybe doesn't have to miss work by taking a family care day or day off, but instead can get work done at home and attend meetings because virtual meetings are an option now when they weren't prior to 2020?
Click to expand...
I know at least for my employer all of that applies. There are mandatory days to be in, and then there is use some judgment but keep your leader informed. If you are thought to be abusing it there may be a gentle reminder.
 
CplKlinger said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s quite the opportunity cost that you argue here. More people working Downtown will increase the vibrancy of the area (even if only during working hours) to sufficiently attract more residents. You attract private capital for shops and restaurants serving office workers that’ll increase the amenities for residents. Plus, people are incentivized to move there for shorter commutes (I saw a Reddit post of a guy asking for building recommendations in Oliver because he was returning to office full-time and didn’t want the long commute from the suburbs anymore).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top