News   Apr 03, 2020
 7.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2020
 2.8K     0 

Edmonton Real Estate Market

Given how much trouble we've had getting transit oriented development off the ground here, it's not surprising that the planning team would try and focus the TOD growth onto only some of the stations. There's so many parts of town with lots of "potential" for densification, but clearly not enough demand to go around.
However under a federal directive to increase density around stations, I can't imagine there will be any pushback from the city.
I'm not a researcher by trade but how can a study be done on "transit" stations that don't even exist yet?" - "future stations."
 
I'm not a researcher by trade but how can a study be done on "transit" stations that don't even exist yet?" - "future stations."
You mean how they chose Avonmore as their example in the article?
It's a weird choice to make their point, yeah. The analysis they're referencing is from this https://www.jacobdawang.com/blog/2024/all-lrt-stops/ where they looked at all existing and future stations for land use and growth, which is useful data for comparison. But if you were going to cherrypick a data point to show poor land use around transit, you should use an older station that's had plenty of time to mature like McKernan Belgravia.
 
Well, not just Avonmore -- the article also mentions a plethora of other stops that don't exist yet:

Indeed, Dawang’s analysis shows that between 2001 and 2021, the population grew by 10% or less near several stops, including the Meadowlark, Grovenor/142 Street, Glenora, Stony Plain Road/149 Street, Bonnie Doon, and Jasper Place LRT stops. His research also shows that, over the same period, the population has fallen near more than a dozen stops, including the Aldergrove/Belmead, Glenwood/Sherwood, and Millbourne/Woodvale stops. “There are a lot of stations in residential areas that have grown very little over the past 20 years,” he said.
 
But if you were going to cherrypick a data point to show poor land use around transit, you should use an older station that's had plenty of time to mature like McKernan Belgravia.
There has been demand for dense housing in this area though. Being NIMBY central, the pushback has been strong until the recent ZBR.

I have to imagine that Glenora will see comparatively rapid densification compared to Belgravia because of the less regulation on land use.

I'm not worried about TODs in Edmonton though. We're only 3-4 years from Edmonton's #1 trip generator being attached to the LRT system.
 
If you want to investigate where TOD hasn't taken off, try Station Pointe, Clairview, South Campus or Southgate.
 
If you want to investigate where TOD hasn't taken off, try Station Pointe, Clairview, South Campus or Southgate.
Station Pointe - poor market fundamentals.
Claireview - I would argue they have experienced a decent amount of development around this station over the past 10-15 years. The majority of the surface parking is City-owned Park n' Ride. https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.6017903,-113.4127618,676m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
South Campus - Entirely controlled by the UofA.
Southgate - Existing shopping mall on the east and low density housing on the west. Somewhat landlocked.
 
I feel this is a bit of a glass half full debate, focusing on three or four locations where TOD has not taken off. So there are other locations where it has either done better or has more potential.
 
You mean how they chose Avonmore as their example in the article?
It's a weird choice to make their point, yeah. The analysis they're referencing is from this https://www.jacobdawang.com/blog/2024/all-lrt-stops/ where they looked at all existing and future stations for land use and growth, which is useful data for comparison. But if you were going to cherrypick a data point to show poor land use around transit, you should use an older station that's had plenty of time to mature like McKernan Belgravia.

Avonmore was a bad example for their analysis here. While it could have been skipped as a station when they built the Valley Line, the LRT was going to run through this area anyway so it was probably a concession to the residents of this area who would have their houses fronting a train. McKernan is probably another example of this, but it actually has decent usage from a lot of students renting in the area. Same for Twin Brooks (as controversial as this station was).
 
Why not? This is EXACTLY what we are seeing in other cities across the glove. Sure some will make sense before others, but even Mckernan is heading that way.

It's interesting how high the ridership in Calgary is and they have virtually no TOD. What they have, which I'm not suggesting we copy, is lots of parking at many of their stations

In essence their system is for drivers who can park for less outside of city centre, where it is quite expensive there, and take the train in.
 
Yeah I
It's interesting how high the ridership in Calgary is and they have virtually no TOD. What they have, which I'm not suggesting we copy, is lots of parking at many of their stations

In essence their system is for drivers who can park for less outside of city centre, where it is quite expensive there, and take the train in.
Aren't their numbers a bit inflated too because of the fare free zone downtown? That's something I read some time ago, but can't find out if it's legitimate or not.
 
Calgary has 30% more people to draw from and a Downtown that has 4-5x workers... helps with transit usage, TOD or not.

That said, Calgary has more density near transit locations and while they might not be true TOD (although changing), they are more walkable and accessible to more folks.
 

Back
Top