Metro 78 | 23m | 6s | Pinto Properties | Frank Hilbich

What do you think of this project?

  • I dislike it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I dislike it a lot

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    31

nv96

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
442
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Westmount
We plan to respond to all comments on a report to the City, but since you brought it up, I'm happy to dedicate a special response to this one.

This idea of not following the ARP policies is flawed.

Anyone, developer, consultant or resident can apply to amend an ARP. This is the rule which we are following. The ARP fails to provide an economic mechanism to implement its vision. It explicitly says that developers should bear with the costs which may be done through direct control zoning, but doesn't say if the DC2 can increase the FAR, height or both. The ARP also fails to recognize that 78 Avenue is a pedestrian gateway. It only talks about vehicular gateways. This is the 2014 Planning mindset. We really question this approach.

Most importantly, the new City Plan approved last year takes precedence over any ARP. While the ARP restricts the height to four storeys, the City Plan designates the UofA area a Principal Node and 114 Street a Secondary Corridor. These designations open up opportunities for a range of building forms much more intense than four-storey buildings.

And before I forget, only firetrucks can back onto the plaza in case of an emergency. I doubt there would be kids playing there in case of a fire. Just saying...
Thanks for the insight sir! Neat stuff to read.
 

thommyjo

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 5, 2020
Messages
472
Reaction score
2,654
I'm just not sure everyone should get an equal say in zoning. We don't gove everyone an equal say in education or Healthcare or dozen other areas of society. We recognize that many areas require specialized knowledge and therefore should be left to professionals. Places for stakeholder engagement and democratic elections of officials make sense, but there can't be equal weighting of opinions for every decision. Nothing would get done.

Also, ill reflect on the ageism. That's not my intent, so im sorry. There is a problem though in the current model. It gives preferential treatment to, like mentioned, wealthier, older, retired, and white residents.

As a city, we need to be thinking about how to serve our aging demographics, 100%. We also need to look to the next generations though and the tens of thousands of immigrants moving to our city. The opinions of stay at home moms in glenora can't represent their communities or the city, let alone those hoping to live in the city.

The ARP in my neighbourhood was mostly developed by seniors. Is that appropriate when many of the decisions made will disproportionately affect families and younger residents?

This doesn't even step into the more sensitive areas like how ARPs can reinforce discrimination and racism. Our residents, for example, are on record going to council meetings and arguing against rental projects because of the types of people who rent. The explicit and suggestive comments were laced with dislike for lower income people, university students, singles, and ethnic minorities.

APPs often hide behind language for density, safety, charm, etc. But whether intentionally or not, they can become tools of gatekeeping, privilege, and increasing structural inequality.
 

Kaizen

Senior Member
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2017
Messages
2,129
Reaction score
10,922
Location
Edmonton
As expected there was a lot of opposition to this project, so disappointing...

WHAT WE HEARD REPORT
Online Public Engagement Feedback Summary
LDA20-0066 - Metro 78
PROJECT ADDRESS: 11416, 11419, 11420, and
FEEDBACK SUMMARY
This section summarizes main themes collected.
Number of Responses:
In Support: 9
In Opposition: 108
Mixed: 10
 

Attachments

  • WWHR LDA20-0066 Metro 78 (1).pdf
    161.3 KB · Views: 3

CplKlinger

Active Member
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
769
Reaction score
4,238
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
As expected there was a lot of opposition to this project, so disappointing...

WHAT WE HEARD REPORT
Online Public Engagement Feedback Summary
LDA20-0066 - Metro 78
PROJECT ADDRESS: 11416, 11419, 11420, and
FEEDBACK SUMMARY
This section summarizes main themes collected.
Number of Responses:
In Support: 9
In Opposition: 108
Mixed: 10
I'm still very surprised from that large disparity, given that the McKernan Community League voiced support for it in its community newsletter.
 

westcoastjos

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
1,140
Reaction score
3,226
Location
Edmonton, AB
Your comments @thommyjo are loaded with ageism-tainted bigotry. In a democracy everyone should get an equal say. I sense and understand your frustration. In your opinion at what age should people's ideas and opinions become irrelevant? "Planning" should not be a rigid platform and that is what "zoning" tends to do. "Planning" should not be prescriptive; it should be reactive to current needs -- and therefore planners should not lead development, they should qualify it in terms of community trends and growth generators. Cities have many examples of poor planning decisions... and what is valid for Central Paris, or Central New York City, or Central Los Angeles shows that Cities cannot and should not be planned in a one-size-fits-all idiom. Thinking more granular, neither should communities be designed in that manner. In Edmonton, Strathcona should not emulate the U of A precinct, nor the downtown precinct, nor Terwilliger. Marco's project maybe doesn't fit existing zoning, but it should be allowed to proceed because it is "need generated" in a location that is increasing in density. "Planning" should support it, not mandate it -- there is a difference.
Living in a democratic society doesn't mean you have equal say on everything. We all have the ability to vote for individuals that will govern at the municipal, provincial, or national level. Public servants also provide their best evidence based advice to elected officials who then make decisions on the path forward. Sometimes those decisions are not the best and bias can often enter into those decisions instead of rational thinking. At the end of the day, there are people in Administration and elected officials that we have enabled to make decisions on our behalf. Sometimes the public doesn't agree or is divided on policy decisions that the government makes - see the pandemic response as an example of that.

As far as engagement goes, representation matters, and unfortunately, our current methods of engagement are not capturing all demographics resulting in a one size fits all approach to planning input and ultimately, decisions. I think others have provided pretty good examples of the demographics that have the biggest influence on planning in most places.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the next steps of this project.
 

David A

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
336
Reaction score
1,408
Yes, everyone is entitled to their views and can express them. However, we often seem to forget these days, we live in a democracy, not an unanimity. So the bar for a project is not that it might have some negative or perceived negative impacts on someone nearby. It probably will. A better test is whether is is good overall and is reasonable given the location.

There is a LRT line running by right in front of it. Is the best use of that land really single family homes?

When I went first to university, I had a transit ride to where I lived. Everyday, I went by the single family homes on 114 St everyday thinking, why wasn't there more density there. It made and still makes no sense.
 

nv96

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 18, 2019
Messages
442
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Westmount
Yes, everyone is entitled to their views and can express them. However, we often seem to forget these days, we live in a democracy, not an unanimity. So the bar for a project is not that it might have some negative or perceived negative impacts on someone nearby. It probably will. A better test is whether is is good overall and is reasonable given the location.

There is a LRT line running by right in front of it. Is the best use of that land really single family homes?

When I went first to university, I had a transit ride to where I lived. Everyday, I went by the single family homes on 114 St everyday thinking, why wasn't there more density there. It made and still makes no sense.
Because it's a "**** you, I got mine" world there.
 

CplKlinger

Active Member
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
769
Reaction score
4,238
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
Because it's a "**** you, I got mine" world there.
As one person on Twitter put it: "Baby Boomers did that thing where you leave a single square of toilet paper on the roll and pretend it's not your turn to change it but with a whole society"
Disclaimer: I'm not saying old people should be left out of anything (or that all boomers are like this), the tweet just made me laugh and I thought it was apt.
 

David A

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
336
Reaction score
1,408
Perhaps at some point as the saying goes, we lost the plot. I say we in a general sense, as I am not quite old enough to be a baby boomer.

I am somewhat cynical. I expect this whole thing will repeat itself again to some degree as the very idealistic in the younger generation eventually gets older, have to take on responsibility and focus more on their own personal struggles.

Times have changed, there is no conventional war to protest right now, but some things we need to get right so younger people can have a decent future and that is something all generations need to work on together now.
 

Top