IanO
Senior Member
Point being that it is interesting seeing a variety of gondola proposals coming down the pipe at a similar time due to their low impact, high capacity and tourism potential.
Prairie Sky Gondola | 76.2m | ?s | Prairie Sky | DIALOG
- Thread starter Kaizen
- Start date
archited
Senior Member
Yes, I get that.
David A
Senior Member
Apparently there is now. Councillor Janz seems to want to be a shoot first, ask questions later type of politician. I suppose the benefits is getting headlines and coverage.
It seems to have worked for some on the right, so I suppose it is not surprising some on the left are trying to copy this approach now too.
IanO
Senior Member
TAS
Senior Member
Here are more details from MJ's website outlining his opposition to gondola.
www.michaeljanz.ca
"As Peter Lougheed instructed, we must think like owners. This is our river valley and it is intended for public benefit to all of us, rather than exclusive or private profit. Development in the river valley according to the City Bylaw must be essential. This criteria alone should have seen the project rejected.
This project is not essential, and if it was, it would have been proposed by our Edmonton Transit System (ETS).
It is important to clarify that this idea was NOT birthed by City administration or City Council, but by a group of private developers through a design charente and contest."
And
"So who makes the money?
It’s not actually about the Gondola at all. It’s about private developers profiting on land around the Gondola route. We saw this with the Downtown arena as well - not the arena, but the land around the arena. Take a look for yourself at who are involved in the Gondola project and their affiliations. Many of these same folks were connected to the downtown arena deal. (interesting, they appear to have taken the names down: https://www.prairieskygondola.com/contact-us, But I think there may be others named here. https://anchor.fm/beljan-developmen...la-and-Mtis-Nation-Blatchford-Project-e17dshq)"
Ground the Gondola
www.michaeljanz.ca
"As Peter Lougheed instructed, we must think like owners. This is our river valley and it is intended for public benefit to all of us, rather than exclusive or private profit. Development in the river valley according to the City Bylaw must be essential. This criteria alone should have seen the project rejected.
This project is not essential, and if it was, it would have been proposed by our Edmonton Transit System (ETS).
It is important to clarify that this idea was NOT birthed by City administration or City Council, but by a group of private developers through a design charente and contest."
And
"So who makes the money?
It’s not actually about the Gondola at all. It’s about private developers profiting on land around the Gondola route. We saw this with the Downtown arena as well - not the arena, but the land around the arena. Take a look for yourself at who are involved in the Gondola project and their affiliations. Many of these same folks were connected to the downtown arena deal. (interesting, they appear to have taken the names down: https://www.prairieskygondola.com/contact-us, But I think there may be others named here. https://anchor.fm/beljan-developmen...la-and-Mtis-Nation-Blatchford-Project-e17dshq)"
The_Cat
Senior Member
Could you imagine what our downtown would be like without the Ice District? Yes, Katz has benefited from the construction of the Edmonton Tower, Stantec and other buildings. But Edmonton also benefits from other projects being built (with additional property tax dollars).
We've had this debate time and time again, and dragging this out will be lose-lose.
We've had this debate time and time again, and dragging this out will be lose-lose.
The_Cat
Senior Member
Also, this project will be financed with less public tax dollars, which will be critical with the upcoming budget debates.
Gronk!
Senior Member
Is Janz seriously flogging that dead horse known as the downtown arena deal? He's so anti-business it's not even funny.
tkoe_
Active Member
Such terrible logic. If ETS isn't prepared to build it, then it must be a bad project? If the developer makes private profit, then it must be a bad project? If the land around the stations is developed, then it must be a bad project?
Newsflash Councillor Janz, our downtown looks terrible and we're in desperate need of development. The City can't and shouldn't be expected to be the engine behind every project and initiative. The gondola may not end up being perfect, but the arguments against it seem quite foolish.
Newsflash Councillor Janz, our downtown looks terrible and we're in desperate need of development. The City can't and shouldn't be expected to be the engine behind every project and initiative. The gondola may not end up being perfect, but the arguments against it seem quite foolish.
occidentalcapital
Senior Member
ETS isn't in the business of "proposing" projects - they operate them. Janz doesn't even know how the City works.
The_Cat
Senior Member
Perhaps Janz could also complain about the vendors on the LRT projects.
Airboy
Senior Member
Was down in the valley this past weekend. Noticed survey stakes in areas along the right of way.
supaflyryguy
New Member
The traffic department is staffed by a bunch of Magoo's who don't even live in the city. Leaving the future of the city's transportation completely in the hands of a group that can't envision anything other than wide roads for large pickups will ensure we grow into a hostile wasteland that sucks for everyone.
ClaireYeg
New Member
Hello everyone, one of the members on this forum invited us to join the conversation and reading your comments we first want to thank you for your enthusiasm and support for our ropeway project in Edmonton. It means a lot to our team.
If you have any questions, ask away.
While waiting, we can confirm we are not asking for taxpayer dollars. We are a private company willing to fully-fund this project. And yea we will have sureties in place to protect taxpayers.
Also, our integration with ARC is independent from ETS in that it is managed by VIX in Australia. We have to pay into it to be part, which is a different contract than ETS'. We did have to ask for authorization to be part however, but this has no financial impact on the system. We still have to pay our own way. Integration is more about offering the flexibility to hop on and off from different modes of transportation, which has been shown to help people chose new ways of moving.
Lastly, we can confirm that attracting international investors, including FIFA to yeg, is all based on our ability to demonstrate innovative, forward thinking and daring ideas. We have been able to demonstrate that vibrancy and continuing that legacy will not only bring curiosity but also trust in our projects.
If you have any questions, ask away.
While waiting, we can confirm we are not asking for taxpayer dollars. We are a private company willing to fully-fund this project. And yea we will have sureties in place to protect taxpayers.
Also, our integration with ARC is independent from ETS in that it is managed by VIX in Australia. We have to pay into it to be part, which is a different contract than ETS'. We did have to ask for authorization to be part however, but this has no financial impact on the system. We still have to pay our own way. Integration is more about offering the flexibility to hop on and off from different modes of transportation, which has been shown to help people chose new ways of moving.
Lastly, we can confirm that attracting international investors, including FIFA to yeg, is all based on our ability to demonstrate innovative, forward thinking and daring ideas. We have been able to demonstrate that vibrancy and continuing that legacy will not only bring curiosity but also trust in our projects.
What do you guys feel is the biggest risk to the project? Have there been any recent setbacks?
A while back there was a survey that mentioned a $50 annual pass. Is this still something you're considering?
Will you be integrating your downtown station design with the new ped bridge?
Great to have you guys on the forum!