Edmonton's Sprawl

[Kosy123]

https://urbanaffairs.ca/edmonton-ish/the-great-southern-debate/

Life, the Universe, and Subdivisions | Urban Affairs

City Council’s debate over southern expansion felt a lot a like a very famous passage from a very famous book (and radio series, TV series and movie)

urbanaffairs.ca

Drive to the Ellerslie Road area and you will see that it’s a pretty multicultural place, more diverse than the established central neighbourhoods.

Harman Kandola, the vice president of Victory Homes and who also works with the City’s Anti-Racism Advisory Committee, said the fact many newcomers choose to live in the south needs to be recognized. Yes, he spoke publicly about what is a generally unspoken truth — that the drive to urbanize is based a lot on white perspectives. We are basing a lot of urbanism on white, Eurocentric ideals.

Kandola said that the City should recognize that the south side is a perfect example of how South Asian newcomers are drawn to an area where they feel at home. He said that Tagalog and Punjabi are commonly heard in the south.

“People decide where they want to live based on their cultural ties, access to amenities and proximity to important community hubs,” he said. “Restricting development in these areas not only infringes upon community autonomy, but it also limits residents’ ability to access essential services tailored to their cultural backgrounds — such as places of religious assembly, community supports and even grocery stores.”

*Not sure if this is the right section for this discussion, so if this fits somewhere better, please do so!

I've got to say, I'm actually really annoyed by this statement. While access to amenities and proximity to community hubs plays a factor, the main factor is cost. It always has been. They're not drawn to "community amenities", they're drawn to homes being cheap and then realizing they're in the middle of nowhere with little core services . SFH are seen as a status symbol for middle/richer immigrants, and zoning restrictions (until more recently) made it difficult to build housing for multi-generational households in core/central areas.

I'm really not a fan of this whole "well it's Eurocentric" ideal. As someone who's not white, I genuinely find bringing that up distasteful. I'm inspired by my own experiences growing up in Asia rather than European urbanism. It really grinds my gears because it seems like there's a new line of thinking stating that stopping southward sprawl/development is Eurocentric and a white urbanist fantasy from the anti substantial completion side. Are there not other immigrant communities located in the core/centre? There's a large East African presence in 107 Ave and 111 Ave.

South Asians and Filipinos aren't just there these communities also exist all over the city. Not just in Ellerslie, and I can confirm that on my experiences being part of some of those communities.

 

[Glenco]

One of the appeals of living in Edmonton is the affordable price of housing because of the ample supply. Artificially restricting that supply will only drive up costs. So Michael Janz’s comments are way to one dimensional. The tax payers will probably like it as not only will their taxes go up to pay for it but their property will increase in value.

 

[TAS]

Keith Gerein: Amid housing crisis, can Edmonton resist pressure to expand its footprint?

Edmonton is wrestling with substantial completion, which calls for suburban areas under development to be finished before the city expands further.

edmontonjournal.com

So this will be a decision of the next council. At least they should have all the info required to make a good decision - status quo, increase costs on new developments and/or implement substantial completion guidelines.

 

[David A]

One of the appeals of living in Edmonton is the affordable price of housing because of the ample supply. Artificially restricting that supply will only drive up costs. So Michael Janz’s comments are way to one dimensional. The tax payers will probably like it as not only will their taxes go up to pay for it but their property will increase in value.

... and existing home owners tend to vote, unlike those who may not have moved here yet but will face higher prices when they do.

Oh well, it will be great for suburban development in other nearby communities at least until we start to wonder why we are losing residential development as well as an already declining share of industrial.

 

[Nobing]

People move to the outskirts mainly because it’s cheaper, and then they deal with the reality of fewer services.

 

[Vanniell]

The whole "Eurocentric" argument feels off, especially if it doesn’t align with your own cultural experience.

 

[David A]

People move to the outskirts mainly because it’s cheaper, and then they deal with the reality of fewer services.

Lets not forget that in this city a lot of the jobs are in the industrial areas closer to the outskirts, not as many in a concentration of office towers downtown, so living there may also mean a shorter commute.

 

[kcantor]

Lets not forget that in this city a lot of the jobs are in the industrial areas closer to the outskirts, not as many in a concentration of office towers downtown, so living there may also mean a shorter commute.

Added to that is that if properly implemented, a transit system in a multi-centric employment model would have two-way ridership most of the day on most routes and not simply feeding into the core in the morning and out in the evening.

 

[TAS]

Added to that is that if properly implemented, a transit system in a multi-centric employment model would have two-way ridership most of the day on most routes and not simply feeding into the core in the morning and out in the evening.

That was the rationale by some on council when MacEwan University was determining where they wanted their campus to go. A couple councillors argued that it should go out in Clareview so it would create two way ridership.

At that time a lot of people were coming dt for work though. Thankfully it ended up where it is.

 

[kcantor]

That was the rationale by some on council when MacEwan University was determining where they wanted their campus to go. A couple councillors argued that it should go out in Clareview so it would create two way ridership.

At that time a lot of people were coming dt for work though. Thankfully it ended up where it is.

For something like MacEwan, from a holistic perspective downtown is better. While most staff are permanent, students are temporary. As those students secure housing downtown (with the exception of those in dorms), as they graduate and take jobs out of the core, if proper transit is in place, they can maintain that housing/downtown lifestyle and support that two way ridership. Unfortunately, with the exception of WEM our transit system pretty much ignores all of our other core non downtown employment bases. This is a larger driver (no pun intended) of the attractiveness of new suburban housing that is closer to those centres. Unfortunately, those new subdivisions aren’t initially provided with transit service either so two car households are a necessity and once established don’t revert to transit.

 

[thommyjo]

For something like MacEwan, from a holistic perspective downtown is better. While most staff are permanent, students are temporary. As those students secure housing downtown (with the exception of those in dorms), as they graduate and take jobs out of the core, if proper transit is in place, they can maintain that housing/downtown lifestyle and support that two way ridership. Unfortunately, with the exception of WEM our transit system pretty much ignores all of our other core non downtown employment bases. This is a larger driver (no pun intended) of the attractiveness of new suburban housing that is closer to those centres. Unfortunately, those new subdivisions aren’t initially provided with transit service either so two car households are a necessity and once established don’t revert to transit.

What are our big employment bases?

Downtown - LRT
WEM - LRT
UofA - LRT

Then I’d imagine hospitals are decently big for employment? All served by LRT.

Post secondary? NAIT, Norquest, Macewan all have LRT. Not Concordia, kings, or a few smaller ones.

Then major retail? Kingsway (not ideal..but sort of), Southgate, MWTC, BD, meadowlark. South Edmonton common and Currents in windemere the big exclusions?

Then NW and SE industrial areas (VLSE gets close with Davies).

Gateway/Calgary trail areas? Pretty big mix of employer types.

Then after that are there many more clusters? Schools, small retail centres, medical buildings.

 

[Airboy]

Out for a ride on Sat, as we cut through a field we were shocked to see community roads installed in the area of east RR261 and north of 122 ave. I know the deep utilities were done a few years ago, but this was a farm field this spring.That new area will take the city right up to the acherages.

 

[northlands]

Out for a ride on Sat, as we cut through a field we were shocked to see community roads installed in the area of east RR261 and north of 122 ave. I know the deep utilities were done a few years ago, but this was a farm field this spring.That new area will take the city right up to the acherages.

Yep. There wasn't even a road built in there until late 2021 and now there's probably ~100 homes, a day care, dental clinic, and a playground.

My old man lives west of RR 261 just south of Big Lake, every time I visit him it's incredible watching the velocity of development going on on the east side of 261.

 

[YEG imagineer]

My kid and his wife just bought by Big Lake a month ago. It is going gangbusters. Perfect for him though since he works for CN

 

[Airboy]

But no fire hall or school. I saw where St Albert schools were advertising there. The MUP trails are amazing in that area. and some of the single track trails are starting to develop now.