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

[Oilers99]

^^

Our District Energy System | Facilities & Operations

www.ualberta.ca

^I would not say or agree that COE staff are 'incompetent', but perhaps lack the real-world/practical experience or fully understand the private housing market, its forces, pressures, costing and layering of everything on a final $/sqft that's saleable. They get direction from Council to go explore things that are aspirational, currently popular or seen in the most recent Spacing or Dwell and then work to include these into the concept plans, reports and push them in the ASPs.

The disconnect that I usually come across (like I am now), is where personal ideologies and classic bureaucracy impedes:

1. the foundational ability of the private sector to deliver housing
2. the velocity at which it can get approvals and get housing to market
3. the reasonability of the private sector to work within ASPs/zoning requirements to provide a product that is viable for both the developer and purchaser
4. the reasonability of the offsite levies that must be spread across the development
5. the opportunity cost of working on a most complicated/costly/risky urban project versus a less complicated (although not without some of the above) greenfield

this explains the issues with the city pretty succinctly, it will be interesting when this council approves their first NSP/ASP.

 

[ChazYEG]

they should probably stop trying to create some pie in the sky dream communities and sell to private developers who know what they are doing.

And end up with a bunch of SFH in an area which could very well be one of the best TOD in the long term? No thanks.

 

[Oilers99]

And end up with a bunch of SFH in an area which could very well be one of the best TOD in the long term? No thanks.

What makes you say that private developers would build entirely SFH? it could be a mix of duplexes, townhouses, zero lot line homes, apartments, etc. You can institute density requirements that private developers have to meet.

 

[kcantor]

And end up with a bunch of SFH in an area which could very well be one of the best TOD in the long term? No thanks.

you might want to compare stadium yards to blatchford before you arrive at that sort of conclusion...

 

[soupcrate]

We have so much vacant land slated for high density development. Let's just get a quick win, getting people with some disposable income living near the core. If there are some SFHs built, who cares. The overall density+urban design will be way better than the typical 60s/70s suburbs that neighbor it, and infinitely better than vacant land (like station pointe).

 

[David A]

this explains the issues with the city pretty succinctly, it will be interesting when this council approves their first NSP/ASP.

There is a price sensitivity and what you get for your dollar in a home that government bureaucrats don't really get. There are a lots of competing developments and you can't get too far away from them price wise, even if you have some good and unique features.

 

[IanO]

'hardwood, SS, 'granite'' and call it a day.

 

[ChazYEG]

you might want to compare stadium yards to blatchford before you arrive at that sort of conclusion...

I would love to, but Stadium Yards has more going on for it, in terms of reasons to densify, than the Exhibition Lands: proximity to Downtown, the stadium, access to River Valley trails and some density already existing in the area create a better environment.

 

[Gronk!]

The end is nigh for the building once known as Northlands Coliseum

Northlands Coliseum. Edmonton Coliseum, Skyreach Centre, Rexall Place … Call it whatever you want, today it belongs to the mice.

www.sportsnet.ca

 

[kcantor]

^
nice photographs of "demolition by neglect and indifference" while spending millions of dollars while you're at it.

 

[Avenuer]

^
nice photographs of "demolition by neglect and indifference" while spending millions of dollars while you're at it.

'Every time, purpose-built is cheaper than the transformation of this space,” Ladouceur said.'

She's likely not wrong - adaptive reuse of the building for something other than hockey or a similar activity that could be hosted at Rogers (which wouldn't fly anyways due to the arena deal), would be very, very expensive.

 

[David A]

It was a good single purpose building that served us very well for many, many years (almost 50 years). I remember when I was quite young, seeing it built.

I also remember seeing the Edmonton Gardens torn down. This is how it goes. I suppose it should be celebrated as well as mourned.

 

[Oilers99]

makes me emotional looking at those pics, many memories in there

 

[TAS]

makes me emotional looking at those pics, many memories in there

Yup, for one it was home to one of the best, if not the best, hockey teams ever - 5 cups in 7 years.

I know Toronto kept and repurposed their old Gardens. What did Montreal do? Did any other original 6 keep their arenas?

 

[archited]

'Every time, purpose-built is cheaper than the transformation of this space,” Ladouceur said.'

She's likely not wrong - adaptive reuse of the building for something other than hockey or a similar activity that could be hosted at Rogers (which wouldn't fly anyways due to the arena deal), would be very, very expensive.

I don't believe any of that to be true. There are hundreds of examples to the contrary -- one only need put on one's thinking cap (if one has one).