The Quarters

[IanO]

^hearing some positive movement on that one from some folks who work directly with the Quarters projects.

Apparently there could be 2-3 projects starting in the area within ~a year.

 

[northlands]

Lets this be a lesson CoE: fancy roadscapes and paving stones do not entice development. Direct subsidization does. Let's keep putting money where we get results.

 

[IanO]

I recall sitting with the former head of the Quarters about 10-12+ years ago who asked me outright if they should build more infrastructure/the park or a per door subsidy.

You can guess what my answer was.

That said, I do believe that incentivizing development by upgrading infrastructure, including the public realm, is important, but it very much depends where.

Look at the Quarters and Fort Road.

 

[northlands]

And to be fair, O'daymin Park is a good example of an infrastructure upgrade that attracted development as well.

But in general: If you want something built, hand the bag of money to the developers first and improve the streetscapes later.

 

[bodsbods9090]

^hearing some positive movement on that one from some folks who work directly with the Quarters projects.

Apparently there could be 2-3 projects starting in the area within ~a year.

The e4c project and Dub's by EPS.

What is the potentially the 3rd one?

 

[Avenuer]

The e4c project and Dub's by EPS.

What is the potentially the 3rd one?

JK

 

[SarcasticMarmot]

Last time I chatted with some staff from e4c they said the building project had full funding. That was a little while ago so things may have changed, it's a super volatile funding environment for non-profits atm. But I suspect we should hear something soon.

 

[kcantor]

And to be fair, O'daymin Park is a good example of an infrastructure upgrade that attracted development as well.

But in general: If you want something built, hand the bag of money to the developers first and improve the streetscapes later.

It would be interesting to see how many of the "attracted development" projects were on sites that were already owned by developers who purchased them with the intent to develop them before O'daymin Park was "part of the equation"...

 

[thommyjo]

I recall sitting with the former head of the Quarters about 10-12+ years ago who asked me outright if they should build more infrastructure/the park or a per door subsidy.

You can guess what my answer was.

That said, I do believe that incentivizing development by upgrading infrastructure, including the public realm, is important, but it very much depends where.

Look at the Quarters and Fort Road.

Or stony plain road….

All the money wasted there should have gone to Whyte, Jasper, or 104st

 

[Avenuer]

Last time I chatted with some staff from e4c they said the building project had full funding. That was a little while ago so things may have changed, it's a super volatile funding environment for non-profits atm. But I suspect we should hear something soon.

That is correct - they are fully-funded.

 

[Abba]

Dusted off a classic

View attachment 724415

JK

 

[Edmcowboy11]

Well hopefully we'll start seeing at least one of these projects begin sooner than later. It will be nice to see buildings as opposed to big empty parking lots.

 

[David A]

Overall, I think it would be better to see some not so tall buildings fill in some of the empty spaces in the area, rather than one big high rise hugging the river valley.

 

[TAS]

We really need to attract more jobs DT to help fill residential units.

We are lucky to have our unis so central.

Can we just make the quarters an urban townhome sort of district and get rid of the high density ambitions? Somebody buy up the whole place and masterplan it like west district or uni district in Calgary please.

No investment will make sense in the current patchwork of lot owners. It all needs to be rebuilt at once to make the area desirable.

Moving the quote above from Lilac thread.

I'm wondering if we just need to reimagine our downtown and the Quarters to better fit new realities.

We noted our downtown is not going to be a place where families live. And are we going to attract traditional 9-5 office jobs to our downtown? Or are we holding onto old models of planning and doing things (like having dt office workers at their desk 5 days a week)?

I'm going to use the biotech company Future Fields on 105Ave and 112st where they expanded into a new warehouse for their operations as an example.

Does the Quarters need to be developed as a residential area or do we let that go and get new, non traditional downtown jobs into our core such as Biotech and Advanced Research or other types of industry supporting employment?
Lets get new types of non head office or non-corporate jobs downtown to support our desire for more residential and services that reflect Edmonton's strengths, potential, and current challenges.

Precision Labs (dynalife) is another example of maybe what we need to focus more on in our core - or downtown jobs related to employment sectors that students are taking at Norquest, NAIT and MU which could create new opportunities for those programs and our downtown.

 

[Jspr]

Lets this be a lesson CoE: fancy roadscapes and paving stones do not entice development. Direct subsidization does. Let's keep putting money where we get results.

Imagine if they had established a MDC like Calgary did to maximize the potential of the CRL. Look at East Village vs Quarters.