Exhibition Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | City of Edmonton

Not being in a position to or simply not wanting to is NOT the same as "can't". There were a host of potential repurposing options put forward and I'm pretty sure at least some of them - in addition to the multi-sport recreation centre - remain perfectly viable options for the building. Even if some of that $15 - 25 million was invested in one of them, it would be a damn sight better investment in the successful development of the surrounding area than spending it to create yet another vacant lot... Heaven knows if there is a shortage of anything in Edmonton it's not vacant lots.
 
archited said:
It's time to put some pressure on OEG -- maybe a scare related to boycotting events at the Roger's Place arena complex and all of the buildings and services in the Ice District might carry some public weight. The coliseum is a resource that should not be demolished and there are scores of uses that would not impact "the gate" at the ice district. At a minimum now is the time that the City should turn the Coliseum and adjacent lands over to a group that would re-purpose the building and thereby extend its usefulness to the City -- we definitely need a new Mayor and Council. I am going to encourage Cheryll Watson and Kim Krushell to pick up this argument in their run for Mayor.
Click to expand...
You stated our concerns on here has no IOTAS what so ever, so what is the sense of putting pressure? That said, let's hear your idea... we need it.

Madison Square Garden was already beaten up by the time the Oliers became part of the NHL. She is still standing as far as I know.
 
Clearshades said:
You stated our concerns on here has no IOTAS what so ever, so what is the sense of putting pressure? That said, let's hear your idea... we need it.
Click to expand...
I said nothing of the sort. I simply took issue with your idea that large groups should be involved in the design process and this is a good contra example of why that is wrong-headed. Specific design ideas were forwarded by many (separate) concerns to re-purpose the Coliseum and a large group (the City administration and the mindless politicos that fed off of their collective stupidity) pooh-poohed every last one of the serious proposals. Instead, Planning slice-and-diced the whole of the Northlands area into (as is typical of their efforts) three separate proposals and then asked the whole of the general population to weigh in on which of the three (ill-conceived) ideas they would like to see developed. Tell me --- how can any of this mindless exercise benefit anyone in the City. The whole point of this site (or at least one of the main ones) is to critique projects, concepts and ideas and especially those ones that are borne out of group-think. There is a difference between using a herd to come up with design and having individuals weigh in on the end results -- you should try to understand the difference, then we can talk.
 
kcantor said:
Even if some of that $15 - 25 million was invested in one of them, it would be a damn sight better investment in the successful development of the surrounding area than spending it to create yet another vacant lot... Heaven knows if there is a shortage of anything in Edmonton it's not vacant lots.
Click to expand...

So right. As the city noted when it introduced no parking minimums, there is as much as a 50% oversupply of parking. And the opportunity for more parking is part of its vision here? Disappointing.

I for one would be happy to join a law-abiding, mask-wearing protest in the ice district urging the OEG to relax restrictions on the coliseum. Public recreational use of what is being proposed there in no way competes with the arena. I was going to visit Braven for dining week on their patio but I think I will also take my business elsewhere.

I would also like to see former mayor Mandel not just speak up at city hall regarding the coliseum, but to the OEG - if he has not already. It would be nice to get some action going and see if anything can be done. Anybody good at staging a protest? Haha
 
I received this from OEG

"OEG is prepared to accommodate non-competitive operations in a repurposed Coliseum and is willing to work with the City to that end. We support amateur sport in many ways and are always open to helping bring new amenities and ideas to the city.

I’m not sure why the Journal chose to frame it that way, but we are not the barrier."
 
You may be right. I was disappointed in the EJ story though because they should have contacted the OEG for a response as the city says they are the key factor preventing anything from happening. Is it true? EJ should dig deeper if they are doing this kind of story.
 
my take is city administration is looking at an agreement and interpreting it literally. that’s their job - they carry out policy, they don’t make it, and that’s probably how things should be. should they also be presenting options to council and asking for directions? that’s also part of their job but it’s a finer line. it’s really up to council to ask for those options and their consequences. but even if there is a contract, from my perspective - and i’m not a lawyer - if one party breaks a contract, the other can sue for damages. if the city put another professional hockey team or held major concerts in the coliseum, oeg could probably prove and collect damages. if the city repurposed the coliseum for, say, a seniors facility or an urban farm or a host of other alternatives, none of which had any impact on oeg revenues or earnings, the damages to which they would be entitled would be zero. and if there were substantive penalties simply for the breach, the courts would likely consider that unconscionable and unenforceable. and i pluralized courts for two reasons - one referring to a court of law and the other to the court of public opinion.
 
archited said:
I said nothing of the sort. I simply took issue with your idea that large groups should be involved in the design process and this is a good contra example of why that is wrong-headed. Specific design ideas were forwarded by many (separate) concerns to re-purpose the Coliseum and a large group (the City administration and the mindless politicos that fed off of their collective stupidity) pooh-poohed every last one of the serious proposals. Instead, Planning slice-and-diced the whole of the Northlands area into (as is typical of their efforts) three separate proposals and then asked the whole of the general population to weigh in on which of the three (ill-conceived) ideas they would like to see developed. Tell me --- how can any of this mindless exercise benefit anyone in the City. The whole point of this site (or at least one of the main ones) is to critique projects, concepts and ideas and especially those ones that are borne out of group-think. There is a difference between using a herd to come up with design and having individuals weigh in on the end results -- you should try to understand the difference, then we can talk.
Click to expand...
You didnt stated that notion on this threat, but they were asserted on MEC thread. That said, I'm glad to see you can the value of this site and community dialogue. Let just leave it at that. I also agree this has to be saved, but, as citizens, if we're gathering around this, what should be our strategy- minus picket rallies at city hall? HOW DO WE APPROACH EDMONTONIANS WITH THIS REGARDS?
I think that is the key to saving it.
 
I agree with your comments @kcantor

I don't think there is one councillor who is strongly advocating for the coliseum to be repurposed. Or am I wrong.

And what I don't get is comments from Coun. Tony Caterina saying the city's hands are tied,

"It’s in their (OEG) court if they were to agree that it could be repurposed for some other use. That’s a question that, because of the binding agreements that are in place, we really have nowhere to manoeuvre,” he said.

REALLY?

I sent a message to Caterina to ask for more clarification here.

In terms of public actions, I guess contacting councillors, contacting Mandel's group advocating for this and contacting neighbouring community leagues like Bellevue, Alberta Ave, Eastwood to see what their stance is and if they are willing to advocate. I haven't heard anything from community leagues.
Also getting on board with groups like Basketball Alberta who are advocating for this coliseum project is another option for action.

But city council overall doesn't seem that interested but since they see info we don't, is it just not feasible? I just don't get it.
 
According to the response I received from Scott McKeen's office, nothing has been been decided on Coliseum's future.

"He would like to assure you that Council is nowhere near the decision point on this situation."
 
Just as a follow-up to my previous posts here, I have also heard from Coun. Esslinger and Knack who say nothing has been decided.on Coliseum and indicate they are open still,.

As noted above, I also got a response from McKeen who said he would like to hear more from Basketball Alberta. I sent messages to Caterina, Paquette, Nickel and Iveson as well on this but did not hear back.

Given that it falls in Caterina's ward, I think, that is disappointing. I'm not sure why he's not championing this idea of repurposing or even what he is advocating for regarding the Coliseum.

It's been several years now this building has been closed and doesn't seem like any progress either way in terms of repurposing or taking it down.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top