yeggator
Active Member
Google Earth Pro updated its imagery for the Southwest. The amount of greenfield that's been filled in since 2021 is absolutely mind-boggling.
|
|
|
Suburban Development and Sprawl
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Airboy
Senior Member
Even north of the bridge is filling in quite a bit. Starting to be hemmed in by Enoch and the acreages.
Oilers99
Active Member
What I fully don't understand is all the people that are anti-greenfield but seeing how much development has occurred how can you reasonably believe we should stop it?
ChazYEG
Senior Member
The answer is in your question. Exactly because there's been so much greenfield development we should stop it, or at least reduce it as much as possible. Greenfield development stretches out the public services, cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year only to benefit very few, since central and denser areas pay more property taxes, both per unit and as an aggregate while making more efficient use of city infrastructure. Traffic gets worse and worse, transit coverage ends up being lacking (or it would be extremely expensive to provide high levels of service), road maintenance costs fortunes, fire, police and health services need to either cover larger areas (making service slower and spreading them thin) or we need to spend lots of money to provide these areas with newer facilities and more professionals...
So I flip it back to you: why should we continue to allow this much greenfield development?
whattheheck
Active Member
If the city stops greenfield development, it will just shift to outside city limits. Face it: SFH's are the preferred option for people because it's still attainable. If they can't buy it in Edmonton, they will move to St. Albert, Beaumont, Leduc, Spruce/ Stony. And the city will then lose tax dollars and still have to deal with the impacts of urban sprawl.
archited
Senior Member
Here's a City-building argument point -- not specifically in favor of Greenfield Development but neither not ag'in' -- single family housing largely attracts buyers which arguably are more permanent residents because they are financially invested. Studies have consistently shown that renters are more transient and so when or if there is an Edmonton economic downturn they will be the first to flee (this also applies to condo owners (small segment) and townhouse owners -- also small segment)
thommyjo
Senior Member
Edmcowboy11
Senior Member
Despite me living in Millwoods I really would like to see a slowdown of greenfield development. It always astounds me when I look at the square kilometer size of Edmonton in comparison to the square kilometer size of Metro Manila. For land size, Edmonton is physically bigger, but when you look at the population comparison Manila is approximately 12 times larger than Edmonton but of course situated in an area slightly smaller than Edmonton. Our city could and should densify by at least 1 million before adding much more going outwards. We should instead be building more and more LRT and bicycle infrastructure.
JuliallThat
Active Member
I really think we just need to do a better job of greenfield, rather than stop it. Residential lot sizes are reasonably modest, and there's always apartments, but then we're still building crappy power centres with middling transit access, laid out so that you still feel the need to drive everywhere anyways.
Even without LRT, we should be building walkable town centres around basic levels of transit access that doesn't make you feel like a second class citizen for taking the bus, and we should have pushed to get the LRT out here before all the development too so we're starting with LRT access from the beginning.
And we wouldn't even need to increase density, or eliminate all the SFHs that people want so bad in these neighbourhoods. Just lay them out a little differently and develop the shopping centre areas in a more balanced way.
Even without LRT, we should be building walkable town centres around basic levels of transit access that doesn't make you feel like a second class citizen for taking the bus, and we should have pushed to get the LRT out here before all the development too so we're starting with LRT access from the beginning.
And we wouldn't even need to increase density, or eliminate all the SFHs that people want so bad in these neighbourhoods. Just lay them out a little differently and develop the shopping centre areas in a more balanced way.
whattheheck
Active Member
^Exactly!! The city is responsible for this, approving each development, while then admonishing people who need to drive. Well, of course they do, because the city approved a neighbourhood that's car-centric. What we're seeing/ living with is suburban density. It's terrible. But the city keeps on approving it. What's needed is light urban density in the suburbs akin the return to main street style. But don't see that happening any time soon.
And the fact that urban planners and the armchair urban planners don't advocate or push for that is mind-boggling. Greenfield is still gonna happen.
And the fact that urban planners and the armchair urban planners don't advocate or push for that is mind-boggling. Greenfield is still gonna happen.
VaultBoy
Active Member
And not sure that's changing anytime soon looking at the city's most recent neighborhood plans
https://webdocs.edmonton.ca/infraplan/plans_in_effect/Kendal_NSP.pdf
https://webdocs.edmonton.ca/infraplan/plans_in_effect/Kendal_NSP.pdf
Oilers99
Active Member
The City has already basically said lands south of 41 Ave SW are not going to be developed. Between that and substantial completion the City is controlling greenfield development despite many thinking they are not. Further to the point above, if City of Edmonton proper halts all greenfield development that development will go to the surrounding towns with people using services but not paying municipal taxes and secondly, we love talking about our affordability, restrict supply that affordability will be significantly eroded.
fromyeg
Active Member
Interesting to see what happens when “Substantial Completion” gets voted on later this council term.
The question is not zero greenfield or unbridled greenfield, it is whether or not the pace of greenfield development should be managed so that neighbourhoods/areas are substantially completed before construction begins on the next new area.
The question is not zero greenfield or unbridled greenfield, it is whether or not the pace of greenfield development should be managed so that neighbourhoods/areas are substantially completed before construction begins on the next new area.
YegMark
New Member
While there are a number of services like roads that would be used by people from the surrounding communities if the development moved out there, there are also lots of services that Edmonton wouldn't be required to provide to these areas. Transit service, emergency services, utilities, etc. that are very costly to deliver - especially to these sprawling neighbourhoods. I have seen a lot of the information on the tax costs/benefits of these neighbourhoods if they are contained within the city limits (where they are a significant drain on financial resources relative to their tax base), but it would be really interesting to see an analysis of the cost of having these people sprawl into surrounding communities to Edmonton and whether that would be better or worse than allowing the development within the city limits.
thommyjo
Senior Member
THIS.
Unless Edmonton says it’s no longer doing transit and libraries and rec centres in new suburbs, why are people so afraid of people living in Beaumont?
Good. Enjoy the crap commute and poor city amenities if you’re still trying to work in Edmonton. Or appreciate the smaller town feel and local amenities that do exist there….but don’t put the burden on the city to service you so far away when we have lots of underdeveloped land that’s cheaper to service centrally.
Letting there be a bit of a greenbelt is actually good. It reminds people that they are visitors and removes the entitlement that continuous development creates. We can’t afford to service all the new suburbs until our existing areas are redeveloped more.