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

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    63
Well first of all, back to comment #546 a page or so back, that we are dealing with different pots of money. I suppose disregarding that concept one could also argue not to spend money on bridges, the LRT or bike lanes, and only spend on affordable housing.

Second the words affordable housing and downtown together somewhat irk me. It might be an unintentional goal to turn downtown into the dumping ground for the poor and unwanted from elsewhere, but I feel we really need affordable housing throughout the city, not just downtown.

Third, this is a pedway system expansion. Yes, currently it mainly serves this one project, but bigger picture here - other developments may occur nearby in the future. We are providing an incentive to encourage to build in a long vacant/underutilized, neglected area in close proximity to downtown.
 
Gronk! said:
After reading @Daveography's latest post and pondering a bit more, I'm wondering if that $26M CRL could have been used for buying that park in front of the Hotel Mac, or for funding the proposed new Warehouse Park?
Click to expand...
The warehouse park is being funded by the CRL.
www.edmonton.ca

Warehouse Park | City of Edmonton

Turning parking lots into paradise. The Warehouse Park Project will bring a new, signature community park to the heart of Edmonton. Construction began July 2024 and is anticipated to be complete before the end of 2025.
www.edmonton.ca www.edmonton.ca
 
Daveography said:
A large residential project is only being built "because of" the pedway? How much weight did that factor have on the decision to build? By how much does it affect projected rental income? Is the market that much softer for projects without pedways, or is the CRL now just going to be used to build pedways for new residential projects from here on?

Sorry, I don't buy that Qualico would simply not go ahead with this project without it, and Council should have called their bluff. I'm sure the city could attract much more than 430 units by spending that $26M in ways that actually benefit downtown revitalization goals.



Adding residents and then keeping them off the streets won't do anything to relieve that anxiety. We need more people out and about and visible with eyes on the street, not fewer. And that's not even considering that the pedways often feel less safe, given reduced visibility and fewer escape routes from potential threats.

The bigger picture is those challenges won't go away because of an expensive pedway. If we're serious about solving those challenges, we need to address them head-on and stop trying to literally and figuratively reroute people around them.



For how many people do you really think the existence of a pedway is the go/no-go factor in their decision to visit the Downtown Farmer's Market? At least people going outside would have an opportunity to find out what other businesses and restaurants and amenities exist around them. Seems to me that would be a bigger benefit to the downtown economy.

Is the lack of pedways causing people in existing downtown residential buildings without pedways to just drive out everywhere and never explore their neighbourhood on foot? If that's what people want, why would they move into a place downtown to begin with, when there's far better (and cheaper) options elsewhere in the city that don't have the same safety perceptions?

Again, not buying it that people would only live in this development because of a pedway.

And even if it were the case, $26M to attract 430 market-rate units? That's $60,500 per unit. For comparison, the City of Edmonton in September announced that it would build 258 affordable units for $17.6M, or $68,220 per unit. In other words, the city could spend that $26M to add 300 or so affordable housing units to downtown instead of a pedway that is by and large to keep future residents of a private development from having to see the reality of the neighbourhood they live in, let alone participate in any aspect of it.

That is NOT what the CRL is for, and it is NOT what downtown residents were promised it would be used for.
Click to expand...
More eyes on the street is a very noble and idealistic point endeavour but how many people want to be the first one “over the top”. Not many women I would hazard a guess. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/why-are-women-still-so-unsafe
 
^^ True, but could the Warehouse Park use an increase of that CRL money due to inflation and other factors? I fear that the dreaded value engineering monster will rear its ugly head.
 
it’s been some time since i was directly involved but the pedway - at least when i was involved - was not just for 430 rental units. they might be the current catalyst - as the galleria was at the time - but the connection will also benefit epcor tower, cn tower, the ram, future station lands development, city hall, the law courts, churchill lrt and the aga… it will also provide a connection that the district energy system can piggyback and will hopefully facilitate the completion of the ram forecourt and integrating the cenotaph parklet that sits in no-man’s land.
 
I didn't relize stationlands was a 1.2 billion dollar project (per: https://curiocity.com/station-lands-edmonton-develpopment/)

For 1.2 billion, I am okay with a 26million dollar public contribution.

It is disingenuous to say this buys only 400 ish units, when it is a much, much larger development than that. If we are into the billions, this is a very significant development. I can totally understand why the City was interested in getting this off the ground.
 
6B1D735B-841F-4D2B-BEAC-65C8F4DF24BE.jpeg
 
Daveography said:
A large residential project is only being built "because of" the pedway? How much weight did that factor have on the decision to build? By how much does it affect projected rental income? Is the market that much softer for projects without pedways, or is the CRL now just going to be used to build pedways for new residential projects from here on?

Sorry, I don't buy that Qualico would simply not go ahead with this project without it, and Council should have called their bluff. I'm sure the city could attract much more than 430 units by spending that $26M in ways that actually benefit downtown revitalization goals.



Adding residents and then keeping them off the streets won't do anything to relieve that anxiety. We need more people out and about and visible with eyes on the street, not fewer. And that's not even considering that the pedways often feel less safe, given reduced visibility and fewer escape routes from potential threats.

The bigger picture is those challenges won't go away because of an expensive pedway. If we're serious about solving those challenges, we need to address them head-on and stop trying to literally and figuratively reroute people around them.



For how many people do you really think the existence of a pedway is the go/no-go factor in their decision to visit the Downtown Farmer's Market? At least people going outside would have an opportunity to find out what other businesses and restaurants and amenities exist around them. Seems to me that would be a bigger benefit to the downtown economy.

Is the lack of pedways causing people in existing downtown residential buildings without pedways to just drive out everywhere and never explore their neighbourhood on foot? If that's what people want, why would they move into a place downtown to begin with, when there's far better (and cheaper) options elsewhere in the city that don't have the same safety perceptions?

Again, not buying it that people would only live in this development because of a pedway.

And even if it were the case, $26M to attract 430 market-rate units? That's $60,500 per unit. For comparison, the City of Edmonton in September announced that it would build 258 affordable units for $17.6M, or $68,220 per unit. In other words, the city could spend that $26M to add 300 or so affordable housing units to downtown instead of a pedway that is by and large to keep future residents of a private development from having to see the reality of the neighbourhood they live in, let alone participate in any aspect of it.

That is NOT what the CRL is for, and it is NOT what downtown residents were promised it would be used for.
Click to expand...
Weather is also a contributing factor in Edmonton to use pedways; safety isn't the only consideration. Many people with accessibility challenges would choose to live somewhere with pedway access, particularly downtown where they can reach multiple amenities. Not everyone has the ability to go outside all the time - making things accessible generally costs more money per person than not. It is unfortunate that those with accessibility challenges aren't often considered when discussing downtown revitalization and pushing people to the streets. Also, Stationlands planned build out is far more than 430 units as someone else has pointed out.
 
In this particular area safety considerations are probably considerably higher than in many other areas, so I do believe Qualico may not have went ahead without it.

In the big picture it is very good that this development proceeds. It is close the the CBD, may help improve the area and will likely lead to further development in this area. I believe the city looked at the big picture in this case, regardless of the criticism I suspect they knew they would get.
 
www.google.com

Janz calls for Edmonton lobbyist registry in light of pitched no-bid $26.5 million pedway deal

Edmonton's Michael Janz wants a lobbyist registry for council & high-ranking bureaucrats as staff pitch a $26.5 million contract with Ledcor
www.google.com www.google.com

An Edmonton city councillor wants a lobbyist registry for members of council and high-ranking bureaucrats after a major $26.5 million non-competitive construction contract with Ledcor was drafted behind closed doors.

Edmonton’s ethics adviser also recommended council create a lobbyist registry for itself last February after the previous council rejected the reform. No action has been taken to this point.

Former mayor Don Iveson voluntarily launched his own lobbyist registry in 2018.
 
Seems like a no brainer to have it and should have been universally implemented after Iveson made his public voluntarily.

That said, I don’t think lobbying was much of the reason this was sole sourced but the cost saving realities of using the same GC who is building/has built all the existing structures and infrastructure on-site. But I do think a question could be raised about public transparency for exactly the reasons why admin chose to recommend this be sole sourced.
 
This does smell a bit, but I can also rationalize the familiarization pitch. That said, drawings are drawings and folks can get up to speed fairly quickly when taking projects over.
 
True, but cooperation between contractors is often a hitch, especially where their respective work envelopes meet.
 
Sure, but it's been some time now and so those familiar with everything may have moved on or are not going to be involved...
 
from a mechanics and reporting perspective, if a councilor approached someone in the development industry for a perspective that might be broader than the councilor's own background or expertise, would that individual/corporation need to "register" as a lobbyist before talking to that councilor (or the mayor)?

would that mean any individual or corporation consenting to provide their expertise by participating in a task force need to first register as "a lobbyist"?

if i felt strongly enough regarding an issue - whether it be this one or blatchford or the fate of the coliseum or the remand centre or changes to the zoning bylaw - and wanted to share that with a councilor and that councilor wanted to meet with me as a result, does that make me a lobbyist?

for the record, i'm quite happy with my meetings being recorded and their having taken place being part of the public record whether they took place regarding a project i was involved in or not, it's the "branding" and being placed on a "register" that i have concerns with.

if a community league member met with a councilor in regard to infill policy changes etc., should that individual be registered a lobbyist?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top