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

What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    55
I do not know much about Councilor Janz, but he seems a bit out of place with this council.

Does not seem to do much work behind the scenes building consensus with his colleagues before bringing a motion forward, accusing administration of being biased, scolding his other councilors during budget that they better support his infrastructure requests during the next budget if they are going to support the new rec center (because apparently on his priorities align with City Plan).

Did we get rid of right-wing Mike Nickel and replace him with left-wing Mike Nickel?
 
edmonton.ctvnews.ca

Edmonton council upholds deal to build underground pedway to new highrises

Downtown Edmonton's new city councillor lost her attempt Monday to kill a new $26.5 million underground pedway that is planned to connect a new housing development to the Churchill LRT Station.
edmonton.ctvnews.ca edmonton.ctvnews.ca

station-lands-1-5752770-1643064675285.png

station-lands-1-5752777-1643064954114.png
 
strata said:
I do not know much about Councilor Janz, but he seems a bit out of place with this council.

Does not seem to do much work behind the scenes building consensus with his colleagues before bringing a motion forward, accusing administration of being biased, scolding his other councilors during budget that they better support his infrastructure requests during the next budget if they are going to support the new rec center (because apparently on his priorities align with City Plan).

Did we get rid of right-wing Mike Nickel and replace him with left-wing Mike Nickel?
Click to expand...

Thus far he has has tried to be a vehement supporter of quashing the CRL for Qualico, tried to claim the Mayfair is preventing people from cross country skiing despite using their parking lot as lay down space for its new construction and opened up the enterprise land debate in a span of 60ish days.
 
strata said:
I do not know much about Councilor Janz, but he seems a bit out of place with this council.

Does not seem to do much work behind the scenes building consensus with his colleagues before bringing a motion forward, accusing administration of being biased, scolding his other councilors during budget that they better support his infrastructure requests during the next budget if they are going to support the new rec center (because apparently on his priorities align with City Plan).

Did we get rid of right-wing Mike Nickel and replace him with left-wing Mike Nickel?
Click to expand...
He has been a bit of a 'maverick' in terms of this new Council, but I am glad he opened up the Enterprise Land Development discussion again, as the previous Council's decision to scrap the residential portion never made sense to me (we get cash now, but less cash then if we were to continue developing residential land). His financial argument made some sense.
 
TAS said:
Rutherford and Salvador, although voting against the motion, were sympathetic to it. Salvador noted the idea of this pedway goes against what she would typically support in terms of creating vibrancy and street safety but weighed with other factors such as boosting downtown density and council's previous commitment, she supported the project and therefore voted against the motion.

I think Janz was probably most 'passionate' against the city funding this pedway, even more than Stevenson.
Click to expand...
I agree with Salvador on all counts here.
 
Avenuer said:
He has been a bit of a 'maverick' in terms of this new Council, but I am glad he opened up the Enterprise Land Development discussion again, as the previous Council's decision to scrap the residential portion never made sense to me (we get cash now, but less cash then if we were to continue developing residential land). His financial argument made some sense.
Click to expand...

Well considering the city significantly overpaid for their parcel in Aster. I am not sure if there is a financial argument there.
 
Janz had a line about missing the steak for the sizzle...the analogy fell flat, I didn't get it. He seemed to want a guarantee that the developer will build as is and wasn't happy with the fact that they had already applied for permits and had put the project out to tender. His position just wasn't making a lot of sense to me.
 
IanO said:
View attachment 376597

https://twitter.com/x/status/1485748648797343744
Click to expand...
I am all 100% for this to happen but I had to laugh at Sohi's spin job here. I feel like claiming that this project will attract investment, create hundreds of jobs, reduce the carbon footprint, etc. was his way of reaching into his political bag of buzzwords and seeing what stuck on twitter today lol. Saying this will help revitalize Chinatown is quite the stretch too. First, this phase that was being debated today is the furthest section from where Chinatown starts in my mind at 97th street and 105th ave and I would consider on the fringe of Chinatown at best. Second, this phase is ~487 rental units and claiming that there will be 5,000 people in the area made me laugh cause it assumes an actual full buildout which could be who knows how many years away at this rate. And Chinatown needs a looooooooooot more than a tower a few streets down from the district to revitalize it. Maybe start with the basics like having the beat patrol back on the neighborhood streets?

Again, I am all for this but got a kick out of him playing DJ Spin Sohi today haha
 
I don't particularly like pedways, but this is a tricky one. We know EPCOR has suffered on leasing because of being isolated from the pedway, and I do know a lot of folks who like to use the system winter or summer. Bigger issue for me is continuing to do good design at street level, making sure we' re not just internalizing our building. This will absolutely happen here in this location imo, however the addition of more residential is so desperately needed I can personally look over a few issues.

I don't get the politics here though. Stevenson would not have had to go on a limb about this one cause essentially previous council gave it close to a green light. Just move on and worry about other things. To me it's a rookie mistake to focus on this rather than much more pressing financial issues or issues in general downtown like safety, cleanliness, like business retention and attraction, etc.
 
CaptainBL said:
I am all 100% for this to happen but I had to laugh at Sohi's spin job here. I feel like claiming that this project will attract investment, create hundreds of jobs, reduce the carbon footprint, etc. was his way of reaching into his political bag of buzzwords and seeing what stuck on twitter today lol. Saying this will help revitalize Chinatown is quite the stretch too. First, this phase that was being debated today is the furthest section from where Chinatown starts in my mind at 97th street and 105th ave and I would consider on the fringe of Chinatown at best. Second, this phase is ~487 rental units and claiming that there will be 5,000 people in the area made me laugh cause it assumes an actual full buildout which could be who knows how many years away at this rate. And Chinatown needs a looooooooooot more than a tower a few streets down from the district to revitalize it. Maybe start with the basics like having the beat patrol back on the neighborhood streets?

Again, I am all for this but got a kick out of him playing DJ Spin Sohi today haha
Click to expand...
I agree that it was a huge spin, but you know what? I LIKE IT!

We need our public officials to do this more! Celebrate any victory in our path towards a better city like the World Cup!
 
In fact, work already started on the site ... nobody (unless you work there) can see it. Half the parkage on Level 3 (probably Level 4 too) was boarded. It seems that they need to re-enforce it to put the Towers over it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top