Stationlands Residential Towers | 90m | 25s | Qualico | DIALOG

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    61
As far as I am aware the pedway was roughed in to almost 103A Avenue. The remaining portion required to be constructed would be beneath 99 Street from where Churchill Station currently sits.
 
jason403 said:
I think the trouble with all these types of projects is that there is generally a net positive benefit, but those in leadership need to evaluate opportunity cost. The question is not simply if money spent is good for the city, but is this the best use of spending when there is a budget constraining project funding. (Not to say I agree or disagree with the current pedway, but it is important to question these projects. Whether to question them after previous administrations have approved something is another can of worms)
Click to expand...
I agree completely.

The pedway may in the end be the right tool through the CRL for downtown, but I don't think Council is creating additional regulatory uncertainty if it decides against borrowing for an underground pedway to a condo tower. No developer is entitled to public funds and it certainly shouldn't be up to a developer to determine if a project is in the public interest -- that is what Council can and should be doing.

There is no question this situation is difficult for the developer, but IMHO this is the Council that Edmontonians elected and we all knew it wasn't going to be status quo. It may be that we have collective regrets at the end of this mandate or it may be that we finally stop making the same mistakes we've made for years. Only time will tell.
 
I suppose it is the prerogative of the current city council to change things and there may be good reasons. However, I don't know if being against it all along is a very strong reason in itself. Also, I don't recall this really being an issue in the civic election, so is there a mandate to change it?

It would be unfortunate if the project didn't go ahead and if it does council could get blamed and have to wear it. Given there was no great controversy with what the previous council approved, I don't think voters will be happy if the actions of the current council kill a project that could be a catalyst to redeveloping a neglected and long undeveloped area.

I also have some reservations about Councillor Stevenson. Perhaps it is too early to conclude for sure, but she seems to come across or is being portrayed by some as being smarter than everyone else. Its great she has experience in city planning, but our city planners don't have a great reputation for either listening to people or being visionary. Being a good Councillor requires both.
 
EPCOR Tower was constructed without a pedway connection and the residential tower and midrise to the north are planned to be built without a pedway connection south of 104 Ave as well (as far as I know). Is a pedway from Churchill Station north across 103A/104 Ave absolutely critical for building out the rest of the Stationlands site?
 
David A said:
I suppose it is the prerogative of the current city council to change things and there may be good reasons. However, I don't know if being against it all along is a very strong reason in itself. Also, I don't recall this really being an issue in the civic election, so is there a mandate to change it?

It would be unfortunate if the project didn't go ahead and if it does council could get blamed and have to wear it. Given there was no great controversy with what the previous council approved, I don't think voters will be happy if the actions of the current council kill a project that could be a catalyst to redeveloping a neglected and long undeveloped area.

I also have some reservations about Councillor Stevenson. Perhaps it is too early to conclude for sure, but she seems to come across or is being portrayed by some as being smarter than everyone else. Its great she has experience in city planning, but our city planners don't have a great reputation for either listening to people or being visionary. Being a good Councillor requires both.
Click to expand...

Councillor Stevenson has thus far portrayed herself to be a know it all due to her planning background. Planning is not the sole thing involved in the development gambit...
 
David A said:
I suppose it is the prerogative of the current city council to change things and there may be good reasons. However, I don't know if being against it all along is a very strong reason in itself. Also, I don't recall this really being an issue in the civic election, so is there a mandate to change it?

It would be unfortunate if the project didn't go ahead and if it does council could get blamed and have to wear it. Given there was no great controversy with what the previous council approved, I don't think voters will be happy if the actions of the current council kill a project that could be a catalyst to redeveloping a neglected and long undeveloped area.

I also have some reservations about Councillor Stevenson. Perhaps it is too early to conclude for sure, but she seems to come across or is being portrayed by some as being smarter than everyone else. Its great she has experience in city planning, but our city planners don't have a great reputation for either listening to people or being visionary. Being a good Councillor requires both.
Click to expand...
While the new council is still relatively new, the early results are speaking to another council in a long history that doesn't seem to be able to work with/prioritize/understand the business community in Edmonton. For decades, the city has changed mayors and council members yet one thing has remained constant - a downtown of commerce or development that does not seem to be able to gain traction from a supportive council.

Whether it be companies like Shaw that left downtown in the 90s due to fighting with with Mayor Reimer, Mayor Iveson's time and council in which ample red tape, bureaucracy and permitting processes hampered small businesses from successfully operating (one of many publicly disclosed examples: https://edmontonjournal.com/news/lo...se-owner-roasts-city-for-permitting-headaches), to now Anne Stevenson opening up old agreements to renege especially when this was not an election issue, which creates regulatory uncertainty for future developers and businesses and may cause this project to not go ahead in an area that badly needs it.

As I posted in another thread, Chinatown business leader's have been decrying for years that they have gotten little to no support from the City on a litany of issues that are driving patrons and good business out of the district (https://globalnews.ca/video/8532144...fed-up-with-crime-vandalism-nobody-feels-safe). Early results for this council have not been encouraging that this history will change.
 
Avenuer said:
EPCOR Tower was constructed without a pedway connection and the residential tower and midrise to the north are planned to be built without a pedway connection south of 104 Ave as well (as far as I know). Is a pedway from Churchill Station north across 103A/104 Ave absolutely critical for building out the rest of the Stationlands site?
Click to expand...

To this point, I'm still not fully understanding why an underground pedway is essential here and in terms of public opinion on this, I think that might need to be addressed if this does get media coverage. People have no idea about the Stationlands Project and what is being proposed or not being proposed.
 
CaptainBL said:
While the new council is still relatively new, the early results are speaking to another council in a long history that doesn't seem to be able to work with/prioritize/understand the business community in Edmonton. For decades, the city has changed mayors and council members yet one thing has remained constant - a downtown of commerce or development that does not seem to be able to gain traction from a supportive council.

Whether it be companies like Shaw that left downtown in the 90s due to fighting with with Mayor Reimer, Mayor Iveson's time and council in which ample red tape, bureaucracy and permitting processes hampered small businesses from successfully operating (one of many publicly disclosed examples: https://edmontonjournal.com/news/lo...se-owner-roasts-city-for-permitting-headaches), to now Anne Stevenson opening up old agreements to renege especially when this was not an election issue, which creates regulatory uncertainty for future developers and businesses and may cause this project to not go ahead in an area that badly needs it.

As I posted in another thread, Chinatown business leader's have been decrying for years that they have gotten little to no support from the City on a litany of issues that are driving patrons and good business out of the district (https://globalnews.ca/video/8532144...fed-up-with-crime-vandalism-nobody-feels-safe). Early results for this council have not been encouraging that this history will change.
Click to expand...

Perfectly said. I think many fail to see the pandora's box that has potentially been opened by reneging on a previous council decision.
 
BASE said:
I wasn't planning to tune in but saw this posted on here. If I was betting I would say they won't be changing course based on the way it would shake investor confidence.
Click to expand...

That the council link to this discussion was posted here- much appreciated.
Agreed, from councillors I've heard speak, including Mayor Sohi, I would say this project will be moving forward.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top