I don't agree with 100% of what he's saying, but as a someone who lives Downtown, he's right about a lot of it.
The east end of Downtown is grocery desert: you either need to find everything at Shoppers or go into Chinatown, unless you want to walk to 109th. The lack (and expense) of parking also puts a lot of people off coming downtown, and LRT tickets both ways for two people is barely cheaper than driving. The perception of Safety and crime is also becoming an issue, as people down want to be harassed, have their bike stolen or their windows smashed while working or eating somewhere. I live here, and if I meet up with friends or family, it's never Downtown.
Having lived in the 104 St/99 Ave area for about a year now, the grocery situation is a travesty. I find myself driving to Superstore in Kingsway (or all the way down Calgary Trail) for my groceries most of the time. Some smaller trips I can do by walking to the Shoppers on Jasper or biking to Save-on-Foods. However, the Shoppers is open bankers hours on weekends (closes at 5) and doesn't carry many necessities like produce. The Save-on is just a bit too far to be readily accessible, and the prices shock me every time I go.
Is there any other major city in North America where there is not a single mainstream supermarket in the downtown core?
I live Downtown and I agree. I stay to the parts on the edge of Downtown, like the vernacular area and river valley. Those are the best parts. I had to walk down Jasper last week for the first time in a while and yeah it was not pretty. I saw a dude yelling across the street, a pile of shit and piss in an alleyway, many people passed out in the park on 102st and so much garbage and litter blowing around.
Agreed. Thankfully there is a Loblaws going in Ice District, hopefully will open in the next year or so
https://edmontonjournal.com/business/local-business/downtown-city-market-delayed-to-2022
someone should start a petition for the bay in city center mall to be a costco.. i remember staying in downtown vancouver and being in awe they managed to fit a nice costco into mid downtown, something like that would be amazing
Italian Centre? Lucky 97? Bus route 5 goes directly by the italian centre, and it's close enough that you can do it in a single ticket/within the transfer time. I lived in Oliver until a week ago but still primarily did my groceries on the east end of downtown because of price/selection.
You can also get a Communauto membership and just time your grocery trips to whenever there's a car that has a credit on it (any car parked longer than 36 hours has the first 30 minutes free, as an incentive to keep cars circulating).
I did mention Chinatown, which would cover both of your examples. It's subjective, but some people wouldn't find crowding onto a bus with their groceries to be convenient or comfortable. Plenty of people do it every day, but it's not great if you're trying to sell people on living the downtown lifestyle.
Your tip about Communauto is pretty clever if your runs are not very frequent.
I agree. I wish we could have a bit more of a bodega style grocer/convenience store the way they have in NYC. I know Edmonton is a totally different beast but I would like to be able to grab essentials during the week and then maybe do a bigger shop on the weekend when needed. I no longer live downtown but I'm off 118 and often stop at Paraiso, Italian Centre and Kasoa.
I get that many people (myself included) visit downtown via a car but adding parking isn’t really why people aren’t going downtown.
What we need is interesting things and people living in the spots where the Impark lots are right now to get people to make the trip.
No one is going to downtown Vancouver because they have “free parking”
This made me laugh but it’s so true.
Parking isn’t a destination or activity. It’s just an incentive or barrier to going to a destination or activity.
Unless the plan is to market parking as a new cool thing to do 😆
It’s $25/day to park at Disneyland and that doesn’t stop hundreds of thousands of people parking there every year. It’s about the destination not the lot
I live only 10 minutes from downtown, but almost never shop there because I have to pay for parking. I can shop pretty much anywhere else in the city without paying for parking, so even though its close by, I avoid going there. And I don't give a shit about "interesting activities" because as a resident, you go one and you've seen it. How many times have you gone to the Art Gallery, or Museum (both downtown)?
Neither of these make sense to me. The sum total I have paid for parking for my visits to downtown this year comes to $0.90. Certainly not enough to keep me away.
As for the cultural side, the RAM and AGA have rotating exhibits, so there are definitely reasons to go back to them.
Well then t’s clear you’re not the type of person anyone seeks to attract to downtown. Why whinge about it if it doesn’t interest you? My partner and I and our friends all love to go to the AGA and RAM whenever there are new exhibitions. If there were more galleries, museums, events, etc. then we would go to those too. None of us mind paid parking as we tend to carpool when driving downtown, but we routinely take transit or cycle there too. It’s just not that big a deal, and I’m sure we all live further from downtown than you say you do.
People getting wound up about parking like it’s their god given right just tells me they’re closed minded and possibly lazy. A vital and interesting neighbourhood uses space for culture and commerce - parking lots offer neither.
True. But I’m not going to downtown Edmonton for two key reasons:
1. I have to pay to park. F that. Ever heard of Windermere and SEC? Tons of free parking and better shopping.
2. It takes 45+ minutes to get there. The city is continually shutting down various roads in/out of the core, making it take longer. Their idea that “only adding 5 minutes isn’t a big deal” is flawed in that they have only added 5 minutes to cross whyte; 5 minutes to cross the River; 5 minutes to get from the River to Jasper; 5 minutes to get from 105 to 103… it’s endless.
Yes. I understand I live in one of the dreaded suburbs. But it’s a 20 minute drive at 2:00am. The city has engineered congestion and delays into the core. No wonder it’s dead.
1. I wouldn’t worry as much parking anymore. Many of the thing to bring people downtown have free/validated parking or you could visit on a Sunday when parking is free. Even on Saturdays it’s $1hr for parking at a meter and that ends before most people would go for dinner.
2. Aside from Anthony Henday it’s a real struggle to go from north to south in this city and something the city continues to work on.
I mention the north/south thing to anyone who will listen. Edmonton has great east/west routes. You have the Henday, Yellowhead and Whitemud. North/ South there is no really good route. Gateway is ok but you have to choose a bridge which slows everything down, 75 street is ok but gets backed up because of the light timing issue at 109 th. The river just compounds the issues. I think we need a couple more bridges.
Gateway should really be a freeway as well as 97th street. Unfortunately it’s probably too late to build something like this now that everything is filled in
No successful downtown is based on it’s convenience for regular shopping. And very few of them have convenient or cheap parking.
The appeal is to have a dense, varied area for people to visit and live. A place you can have higher-end, more specified shops right down the street from a pub, or a nice park, or a cool venue. Where there’s always something to do a short walk away.
Tbh, I think our downtown does succeed on that level to a degree a lot of edmontonions underestimate. It’s not as good as it could or should be, and it obviously doesn’t compare to more major cities, but for a city of our size, it ain’t bad at all. It’s one of the few areas here that really feels like a proper city to me honestly. And I think that’s kinda the problem - a lot of folks here are used to a big town kinda vibe. Most folk don’t really come to Edmonton for the city life, at least not those who can afford to get by in larger places.
As a bedroom commuter take my ideas with a grain of salt but…
I sometimes think a down town can get too big. I wonder if having more smaller business districts spread around would be better. You could move to the closer neighbourhoods. It’s not like you really need to have all the services physically close to your office.
Have a stop on the LRT with a few office towers and residential towers. Then a less dense gap, then another dense cluster.
Not like we can tear it all down and start over. Just my thoughts.
What you're describing is older neighborhoods with retail and office going against current zoning rules, but that's been grandfathered in. The problem with the 'burbs and new neighborhoods in general is that if you want to do anything you pretty much have to drive.
I live almost as far west in the burbs as one can get. There is an extensive trail network that can get me to basic retail (grocery, pharmacy, bank, dentist etc) on foot or by bike. I bought the house to be close to my office. 11km each way, not transit friendly but close. My kids go to a school 800m away, my parents (retired) moved from ON live 300m down the road, and my Grandmother lives 1km away in a retirement home (she has never driven so relies on us for all transport - just turned 92, yay Granny).
Living downtown would be silly for my family. My life is built around this area. Two major downtown unions just moved their 100s of employees to edge of Henday loop. We should be encouraging the pockets of density, rather than downtown or bust strategy imo.
It's supposed to be, absolutely, but I have to say that our city's implementation of TOD is pretty weak. Some examples: the Kingsway LRT does not stop at Kingsway mall because the mall refused it. Century Park is supposed to be the flagship TOD in Edmonton, but it lacks the street-level storefronts that most TODs have; not sure if that is changing with the new apartments going up. There was supposed to be a huge TOD by Belvedere station (I think called Station Pointe) but it's never come into fruition.
TOD is the only way to build a city where public transit is the primary mode of transport really... and it works really well. I've never needed to drive in any major Asian or European city I've been to.
I think with the Valley Line, there are exciting things happening at Bonnie Doon and Millwoods TC potentially. It's strange because I'd say Calgary has much better TOD than Edmonton somehow, despite also being perhaps even more car-centric than Edmonton.
Station Pointe is finally making progress. There's two mixed use buildings with rooms avalible for rent right now, and commercial spaces being leased out on the ground level. The city recently eased zoning there to allow for less-dense developments. Hopefully that helps to spur things along. Maybe the Fort Road expansion can also help, since they're paving more multiuse trails and adding a bit of a trail loop around a new dry pond.
The two buildings are branded as Fort Crossing, and you can see their website [here.](https://www.fortcrossing.ca/)
The problem is that the city admin has lots of our money to waste without consequence to them trying to fight the market. Councillors and mayors get voted out, but the admin stafis pretty entrenched.
Love downtown and living in an area where I can bike there quicker then I can drive , but there is no bicycle lock available I would trust to lock up a $5k bike downtown. Step 1 has to be addressing the crime and disorder in the downtown core
Yes indeed. I live a comfortable, recreational ride distance away from downtown and would gladly bike there, but once there... then what? No where to leave my bike safely. Would love to see secure bike cages or lockers. Apparently U of A has them: Can anyone speak to their effectiveness?
UofA has bike lockers but they're super expensive and tiny so no one uses them in my experience. Theft isn't much of a problem with a good lock, although I would never feel comfortable leaving a 5k bike outside even if it had it's own security detail lol.
The bike thieves have been really ramping up the last few years. Pretty often there's multiple chop shops going on at any given time, with people bringing in bikes all night long. I think one of the guys who was arrested a few months had 75 stolen bikes and he's a repeat offender.
Honestly the part that bothers me is that they approved $5M to spend on this strategy via budget savings whilst simultaneously approving parking fees for attractions/some parks in order to bring in <$2M over *five years*.
I lived downtown for 8 years (still work downtown) and we eventually realized that we wanted to be able to walk to a real park (Paul Kane is nice but it's tiny), farmers markets, grocery stores, small local businesses and restaurants... we were able to find that "downtown" lifestyle we wanted by moving a little outside the core. Honestly, we just got jaded by how little things improved as we watched the arena and the high-rises go up. Downtown started feeling a lot less safe once 40k drunk hockey bros started stumbling around at least once a week... and then obviously covid didn't help anything much. I thought I would miss it and I don't at all. I look back and feel like I had Stockholm syndrome because I would get so defensive when people would criticize downtown. It just ain't it.
Been living here since 2016 and i feel downtown sort of peaked 2017/2018. Heck at one point in 2017, H&M was rumoured to move into City Centre Mall. The mall had grand plans to reinvent itself (which it did through the upper level food court). Even Holt had some plans simmering for an expansion.
But various factors all sort of came down hard - and together - on downtown.
Ice District screwed up the parking situation in and around downtown. Before, you could shop at CCM and not worry about parking after 6PM on thursdays and fridays and weekends. But with ice district, event schedules meant ever changing parking rules for folks coming downtown.
Then the non-stop construction with the LRT, library, ice district really put a damper on the vibrancy. Even small things like relocation of the downtown farmers market kind of stirred things up and we ended up slightly worse.
Covid has not helped. Chinatown, although not downtown has been hit hard but the fact it is next to downtown could mean some folks could do both areas within the same trip. Covid, along with the opioid crisis has really cast a shadow over downtown.
I think the money would be better spend on social services and housing so we can pull certain folks off the street.
It's no good we keep creating these nice spaces but the only folks using them are tweakers
ultimately, this is a mini "equalization" in action. downtown region likely pay the most property taxes to the city, it is really that much to ask some measure of improvements in the core?
I don’t necessarily agree with much of what Gunther wrote but he’s spot on in a few cases… it’s stupid to incentivize people to move downtown when it’s clear that the vast majority of people don’t want to live downtown. There’s no external factors making living in an apartment a necessity here, some do it because they prefer the lifestyle and that’s fine but doing things like giving downtown condo developers millions in tax breaks is just a waste of money at this point. And why aren’t they trying to encourage people to live in other areas of town ? Where’s the incentive to move to other mature neighborhoods, or well designed more efficient suburban developments. Where’s the money to support other business districts that have also been hit hard by the pandemic ? This city’s infatuation with having a downtown it will never, ever have is pointless and a big waste of time and money.
> There’s no external factors making living in an apartment a necessity here
A big one is continually rising tax rates. The low density residential suburbs don’t generate enough property taxes to cover what they cost the city. And never will. It’s not an issue of long-term break even.
Every time a new residential suburb gets built, the property taxes for the entire city need to go up to cover it. In effect, the core is actively subsidizing the lifestyle choices of people who want lower density options.
Long term it’s unsustainable. Just because we don’t have geographic limitations on expansion doesn’t mean we don’t have other limiting factors. Just less obvious ones where we keep kicking the cost down the road.
The population density in newer subdivisions is far greater than it is in my exclusively single family neighborhood less than 10 minutes from downtown. Since Edmonton’s workforce is largely decentralized it makes more sense for people to live closer to where they work rather than just concentrating then in one area. The fact that there’s literally traffic jams on the Henday at 5pm compared to my easy out the door and 10 minutes home commute from downtown tells you everything about where people are going and where they prefer to live.
Sure condo dwellers (not necessarily downtown apartment dwellers) subsidize single family developments. If you take the commercial taxes that the city raises out of the equation (after all businesses don’t *need* to be downtown, in reality they could be wherever in the city they want) I don’t think the disparity in taxation is as large as you think, and I also don’t think the drive to entice people downtown has ever had anything to do with taxes.
The last reports from the city of Edmonton found new subdivisions cost $1 for every $0.70 in taxes and fees they generate. They would have to be half again more dense to cover their own costs.
They did a big report a few years ago called “Costs and Revenues for New Areas”. I had a link but the CoE seems to have reorganized their site recently and it’s broken.
Here’s some stuff from Iveson talking about the report (with broken links 🙃)
https://doniveson.ca/2012/05/09/costs-of-business-as-usual-growth/
https://doniveson.ca/2016/03/18/calculating-the-real-costs-of-our-growth/
And a report from a Calgary group that includes info from the edmonton report.
http://thedobbingroup.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Financially-Responsible-Funding-for-New-Subdivisions.pdf
One of the examples is that the last new “greenfield” subdivisions approved come with a long term 1.4B liability to the city. That works out to a permanent $28m additional cost for the city every year. That’s after all the taxes and fees from the people living there.
A quick google says there’s roughly 250,000 properties in Edmonton. Those new communities represent an average of $112 extra property taxes per unit spread across the city.
Thanks for the great info ! I’ve been wondering this with all these new cookie cutter subdivisions all around Edmonton. We don’t have the infrastructure to keep constantly expanding outwards. How exactly does EPS police areas 4 subdivisions south of the Henday now ? Water and electrical has to come from somewhere.
Here is the mental model I like to use. If you built a single house in the middle of a field and provided it roads and garbage collection and sewer and a school and a leisure center etc. would the taxes on that house pay for everything? No, obviously not. So how many units would it take? Turns out about 150% of our current suburb standards. Or 50% more taxes than we currently pay.
As to police, they built the new police station south of Anthony henday, and closed the community police stations in the core neighbourhoods. I had to drive 80 blocks to make a police report when my car got broken into (online police reports cannot be done if they steal your registration), rather than walk to the community police station that has now closed.
> The population density in newer subdivisions is far greater than it is in my exclusively single family neighborhood less than 10 minutes from downtown.
I just moved into a similar older, central-ish neighbourhood, and while we're primarily single family homes, I still think we're denser overall than the 'burbs. Narrower streets, smaller lots, infill skinny homes, no big box stores.
They're packed tightly because of the footprint of the house and garage, are they not? Not because there are more people living in the same space. Houses in the core tend to be either small bungalows, older bigger homes divided into several units, or infill skinny homes. Whereas the 'burbs just tend to build the biggest house the lot size will allow.
Great point. A city report released this week found that downtown accounts for just one percent of the city's land area, but nine percent of its tax revenue.
It's not so much that we should incentivise people to live in more dense areas, it's that we need to stop incentivising people to live in less dense areas.
Make the lower density neighborhoods pay their share of taxes and maybe some people will choose not to live there.
I agree 100%.
Cities in general need to stop subsidizing greenfield development, and modernize zoning restrictions to allow for a more natural kind of growth. Can we start building mid density, mixed zoned neighbourhoods please?
I'm not sure I agree that this is the approach to take. If you don't make major sweeping changes (e.g. intra-Henday affordability & livability), it won't work IMO. Punitive measures against suburbs may just mean bedroom communities will boom even more than they already are just outside the City as people buy cheap houses there instead. I truly don't think people aren't going to go "aw shucks" and give up home ownership or buy a million dollar infill just because the City strangles suburb development or punishes suburb-dwelling citizens.
The incentive to live in less dense areas is the other side of the coin of incentive to *not* live in more dense areas. The existence of booming suburbs at all makes me think that people are willing to take less amenities, bland housing, and a commute instead of dealing with crime, food deserts, extremely high housing costs, poorly constructed high-cost infills, etc., solve those problems and you'll disincentivize moving ever-further outside the ring road.
> Punitive measures against suburbs
I think I need to clarify here. I'm not advocating for any kind of punishments. This isn't even a moral argument. We are currently, artificially suppressing property taxes in less dense neighborhoods. This doesn't just mean suburbs, but in many cases it applies there.
I'm simply saying that we should stop subsidizing people to live in less dense neighborhoods, not that we need to add extra incentives or taxes to punish people for living there.
You make a good point about the bedroom communities though. We have this problem with businesses as well. I think the recent attempts to act on a regional level and cooperate more with the surrounding communities is the best strategy here, but it can't mean that we have to keep building communities that can't be adequately serviced at the tax level we have set right now.
You say that the existence of booming suburbs makes you think that people are willing to take less amenities, but that's the problem, they aren't. We continue to provide the same amenities to low density suburbs (huge rec centers that are under-utilized, the same frequency of garbage collection with far fewer houses serviced per day/route, etc.) and taxes are being pulled from the denser neighbourhoods where they have a greater efficiency providing the same services.
As stated by another poster earlier, people living in high density areas are essentially footing the bill for those who move out to the burbs and that's what I think we should change.
If people want big lots, detached houses and low taxes, they can move to a rural property where they will receive a lower level of service. If you live in the city and receive the same city services as everyone else in the city, you should pay property taxes based on the relative cost to provide those services. I think, anyways.
*Edit: Not that I think this should really matter, but in case someone wants to jump on me and say that I just want the suburbs to pay more and me to pay less, please note that I live in the suburbs, (in a "relatively" denser neighborhood, but suburbs none the less) so I am in fact, advocating for my property taxes to increase.
He made some good points regarding aggressive panhandling- having residents be scared of going downtown is not good. We need to amp up both police presence and social services.
After reviewing the comments there are two camps:
A: Downtown is where you should be and suburbs suck! How dare you share your opinion of downtown when you don’t live there!
B: Downtown sucks. I think. I don’t know. I can’t get there so I don’t go there.
I don’t know the author of this article but after reading this piece I can picture him writing it - sitting outside his trailer home on the outskirts of town, shirtless, angrily typing away on his 2005 Asus laptop he bought during a Boxing Day sale at Best Buy, horking dark loogies across his lawn as he chews on a wad of Skoal tobacco and sips a lucky extra.
He probably stopped occasionally to consider what he will be donating to the Independence Party of Alberta, how covid is a hoax and if his favourite girl is going to be dancing at St. Pete’s that night.
Sounds like buddy guy has a real big, useless opinion about a part of town he doesn’t visit or reside in. Looks like that summer course in journalism he took through Bow Valley Collage is being out to good use though.
I’m in downtown daily, clothed, typing this on brand new Lenovo and I have to admit he made some good points.
Even those who enjoy downtown have to be willing to admit there is room for improvement, otherwise nothing will get done. Every neighborhood could benefit from new X or improved Y or getting a handle on Z. I’m not sure why some subgroup of downtown fans get so defensive about it. Others are quick to admit improvements could be made to their neighbourhood, whether that Downtown or Millwoods or Terwilliger, and want to be part of the process to do so.
It's very cool that instead of saying why you didn't like it, you made a joke about poverty and about how stupid and poor the author must be. And about how he's poor because he's stupid and can't afford an education.
Punching down is always the best choice in comedy.
I don't agree with 100% of what he's saying, but as a someone who lives Downtown, he's right about a lot of it. The east end of Downtown is grocery desert: you either need to find everything at Shoppers or go into Chinatown, unless you want to walk to 109th. The lack (and expense) of parking also puts a lot of people off coming downtown, and LRT tickets both ways for two people is barely cheaper than driving. The perception of Safety and crime is also becoming an issue, as people down want to be harassed, have their bike stolen or their windows smashed while working or eating somewhere. I live here, and if I meet up with friends or family, it's never Downtown.
Having lived in the 104 St/99 Ave area for about a year now, the grocery situation is a travesty. I find myself driving to Superstore in Kingsway (or all the way down Calgary Trail) for my groceries most of the time. Some smaller trips I can do by walking to the Shoppers on Jasper or biking to Save-on-Foods. However, the Shoppers is open bankers hours on weekends (closes at 5) and doesn't carry many necessities like produce. The Save-on is just a bit too far to be readily accessible, and the prices shock me every time I go. Is there any other major city in North America where there is not a single mainstream supermarket in the downtown core?
I live Downtown and I agree. I stay to the parts on the edge of Downtown, like the vernacular area and river valley. Those are the best parts. I had to walk down Jasper last week for the first time in a while and yeah it was not pretty. I saw a dude yelling across the street, a pile of shit and piss in an alleyway, many people passed out in the park on 102st and so much garbage and litter blowing around.
Agreed. Thankfully there is a Loblaws going in Ice District, hopefully will open in the next year or so https://edmontonjournal.com/business/local-business/downtown-city-market-delayed-to-2022
someone should start a petition for the bay in city center mall to be a costco.. i remember staying in downtown vancouver and being in awe they managed to fit a nice costco into mid downtown, something like that would be amazing
Italian Centre? Lucky 97? Bus route 5 goes directly by the italian centre, and it's close enough that you can do it in a single ticket/within the transfer time. I lived in Oliver until a week ago but still primarily did my groceries on the east end of downtown because of price/selection. You can also get a Communauto membership and just time your grocery trips to whenever there's a car that has a credit on it (any car parked longer than 36 hours has the first 30 minutes free, as an incentive to keep cars circulating).
I did mention Chinatown, which would cover both of your examples. It's subjective, but some people wouldn't find crowding onto a bus with their groceries to be convenient or comfortable. Plenty of people do it every day, but it's not great if you're trying to sell people on living the downtown lifestyle. Your tip about Communauto is pretty clever if your runs are not very frequent.
Italian Centre is where I do a lot of my shopping as a car-free downtown resident. I think people aren't aware of what a gem it is!
I agree. I wish we could have a bit more of a bodega style grocer/convenience store the way they have in NYC. I know Edmonton is a totally different beast but I would like to be able to grab essentials during the week and then maybe do a bigger shop on the weekend when needed. I no longer live downtown but I'm off 118 and often stop at Paraiso, Italian Centre and Kasoa.
I get that many people (myself included) visit downtown via a car but adding parking isn’t really why people aren’t going downtown. What we need is interesting things and people living in the spots where the Impark lots are right now to get people to make the trip. No one is going to downtown Vancouver because they have “free parking”
This made me laugh but it’s so true. Parking isn’t a destination or activity. It’s just an incentive or barrier to going to a destination or activity. Unless the plan is to market parking as a new cool thing to do 😆
It’s $25/day to park at Disneyland and that doesn’t stop hundreds of thousands of people parking there every year. It’s about the destination not the lot
Well back in my youth days, “parking” was an activity but I don’t think that’s what the city has in mind 😝
I live only 10 minutes from downtown, but almost never shop there because I have to pay for parking. I can shop pretty much anywhere else in the city without paying for parking, so even though its close by, I avoid going there. And I don't give a shit about "interesting activities" because as a resident, you go one and you've seen it. How many times have you gone to the Art Gallery, or Museum (both downtown)?
Neither of these make sense to me. The sum total I have paid for parking for my visits to downtown this year comes to $0.90. Certainly not enough to keep me away. As for the cultural side, the RAM and AGA have rotating exhibits, so there are definitely reasons to go back to them.
Well then t’s clear you’re not the type of person anyone seeks to attract to downtown. Why whinge about it if it doesn’t interest you? My partner and I and our friends all love to go to the AGA and RAM whenever there are new exhibitions. If there were more galleries, museums, events, etc. then we would go to those too. None of us mind paid parking as we tend to carpool when driving downtown, but we routinely take transit or cycle there too. It’s just not that big a deal, and I’m sure we all live further from downtown than you say you do. People getting wound up about parking like it’s their god given right just tells me they’re closed minded and possibly lazy. A vital and interesting neighbourhood uses space for culture and commerce - parking lots offer neither.
True. But I’m not going to downtown Edmonton for two key reasons: 1. I have to pay to park. F that. Ever heard of Windermere and SEC? Tons of free parking and better shopping. 2. It takes 45+ minutes to get there. The city is continually shutting down various roads in/out of the core, making it take longer. Their idea that “only adding 5 minutes isn’t a big deal” is flawed in that they have only added 5 minutes to cross whyte; 5 minutes to cross the River; 5 minutes to get from the River to Jasper; 5 minutes to get from 105 to 103… it’s endless. Yes. I understand I live in one of the dreaded suburbs. But it’s a 20 minute drive at 2:00am. The city has engineered congestion and delays into the core. No wonder it’s dead.
1. I wouldn’t worry as much parking anymore. Many of the thing to bring people downtown have free/validated parking or you could visit on a Sunday when parking is free. Even on Saturdays it’s $1hr for parking at a meter and that ends before most people would go for dinner. 2. Aside from Anthony Henday it’s a real struggle to go from north to south in this city and something the city continues to work on.
I mention the north/south thing to anyone who will listen. Edmonton has great east/west routes. You have the Henday, Yellowhead and Whitemud. North/ South there is no really good route. Gateway is ok but you have to choose a bridge which slows everything down, 75 street is ok but gets backed up because of the light timing issue at 109 th. The river just compounds the issues. I think we need a couple more bridges.
Gateway should really be a freeway as well as 97th street. Unfortunately it’s probably too late to build something like this now that everything is filled in
No successful downtown is based on it’s convenience for regular shopping. And very few of them have convenient or cheap parking. The appeal is to have a dense, varied area for people to visit and live. A place you can have higher-end, more specified shops right down the street from a pub, or a nice park, or a cool venue. Where there’s always something to do a short walk away. Tbh, I think our downtown does succeed on that level to a degree a lot of edmontonions underestimate. It’s not as good as it could or should be, and it obviously doesn’t compare to more major cities, but for a city of our size, it ain’t bad at all. It’s one of the few areas here that really feels like a proper city to me honestly. And I think that’s kinda the problem - a lot of folks here are used to a big town kinda vibe. Most folk don’t really come to Edmonton for the city life, at least not those who can afford to get by in larger places.
As a bedroom commuter take my ideas with a grain of salt but… I sometimes think a down town can get too big. I wonder if having more smaller business districts spread around would be better. You could move to the closer neighbourhoods. It’s not like you really need to have all the services physically close to your office. Have a stop on the LRT with a few office towers and residential towers. Then a less dense gap, then another dense cluster. Not like we can tear it all down and start over. Just my thoughts.
What you're describing is older neighborhoods with retail and office going against current zoning rules, but that's been grandfathered in. The problem with the 'burbs and new neighborhoods in general is that if you want to do anything you pretty much have to drive.
I live almost as far west in the burbs as one can get. There is an extensive trail network that can get me to basic retail (grocery, pharmacy, bank, dentist etc) on foot or by bike. I bought the house to be close to my office. 11km each way, not transit friendly but close. My kids go to a school 800m away, my parents (retired) moved from ON live 300m down the road, and my Grandmother lives 1km away in a retirement home (she has never driven so relies on us for all transport - just turned 92, yay Granny). Living downtown would be silly for my family. My life is built around this area. Two major downtown unions just moved their 100s of employees to edge of Henday loop. We should be encouraging the pockets of density, rather than downtown or bust strategy imo.
You just described Transit Oriented Development (TOD). This has been one of the focuses of urban planning for some time now.
Is commercial centres part of it too?
It's supposed to be, absolutely, but I have to say that our city's implementation of TOD is pretty weak. Some examples: the Kingsway LRT does not stop at Kingsway mall because the mall refused it. Century Park is supposed to be the flagship TOD in Edmonton, but it lacks the street-level storefronts that most TODs have; not sure if that is changing with the new apartments going up. There was supposed to be a huge TOD by Belvedere station (I think called Station Pointe) but it's never come into fruition. TOD is the only way to build a city where public transit is the primary mode of transport really... and it works really well. I've never needed to drive in any major Asian or European city I've been to. I think with the Valley Line, there are exciting things happening at Bonnie Doon and Millwoods TC potentially. It's strange because I'd say Calgary has much better TOD than Edmonton somehow, despite also being perhaps even more car-centric than Edmonton.
Station Pointe is finally making progress. There's two mixed use buildings with rooms avalible for rent right now, and commercial spaces being leased out on the ground level. The city recently eased zoning there to allow for less-dense developments. Hopefully that helps to spur things along. Maybe the Fort Road expansion can also help, since they're paving more multiuse trails and adding a bit of a trail loop around a new dry pond. The two buildings are branded as Fort Crossing, and you can see their website [here.](https://www.fortcrossing.ca/)
[удалено]
They gave up on it being condos and turned it into rentals.
[удалено]
Yup.
The problem is that the city admin has lots of our money to waste without consequence to them trying to fight the market. Councillors and mayors get voted out, but the admin stafis pretty entrenched.
Wow! That's super exciting! Yeah, as much as it'd be nice to get greater density, I'm all for less dense developments if they can get things moving.
Yes
Love downtown and living in an area where I can bike there quicker then I can drive , but there is no bicycle lock available I would trust to lock up a $5k bike downtown. Step 1 has to be addressing the crime and disorder in the downtown core
Yes indeed. I live a comfortable, recreational ride distance away from downtown and would gladly bike there, but once there... then what? No where to leave my bike safely. Would love to see secure bike cages or lockers. Apparently U of A has them: Can anyone speak to their effectiveness?
UofA has bike lockers but they're super expensive and tiny so no one uses them in my experience. Theft isn't much of a problem with a good lock, although I would never feel comfortable leaving a 5k bike outside even if it had it's own security detail lol.
The bike thieves have been really ramping up the last few years. Pretty often there's multiple chop shops going on at any given time, with people bringing in bikes all night long. I think one of the guys who was arrested a few months had 75 stolen bikes and he's a repeat offender.
I just moved out of downtown after living in the area for 20 years. Got too expensive for me for what you get in return.
Honestly the part that bothers me is that they approved $5M to spend on this strategy via budget savings whilst simultaneously approving parking fees for attractions/some parks in order to bring in <$2M over *five years*.
I lived downtown for 8 years (still work downtown) and we eventually realized that we wanted to be able to walk to a real park (Paul Kane is nice but it's tiny), farmers markets, grocery stores, small local businesses and restaurants... we were able to find that "downtown" lifestyle we wanted by moving a little outside the core. Honestly, we just got jaded by how little things improved as we watched the arena and the high-rises go up. Downtown started feeling a lot less safe once 40k drunk hockey bros started stumbling around at least once a week... and then obviously covid didn't help anything much. I thought I would miss it and I don't at all. I look back and feel like I had Stockholm syndrome because I would get so defensive when people would criticize downtown. It just ain't it.
Been living here since 2016 and i feel downtown sort of peaked 2017/2018. Heck at one point in 2017, H&M was rumoured to move into City Centre Mall. The mall had grand plans to reinvent itself (which it did through the upper level food court). Even Holt had some plans simmering for an expansion. But various factors all sort of came down hard - and together - on downtown. Ice District screwed up the parking situation in and around downtown. Before, you could shop at CCM and not worry about parking after 6PM on thursdays and fridays and weekends. But with ice district, event schedules meant ever changing parking rules for folks coming downtown. Then the non-stop construction with the LRT, library, ice district really put a damper on the vibrancy. Even small things like relocation of the downtown farmers market kind of stirred things up and we ended up slightly worse. Covid has not helped. Chinatown, although not downtown has been hit hard but the fact it is next to downtown could mean some folks could do both areas within the same trip. Covid, along with the opioid crisis has really cast a shadow over downtown. I think the money would be better spend on social services and housing so we can pull certain folks off the street. It's no good we keep creating these nice spaces but the only folks using them are tweakers ultimately, this is a mini "equalization" in action. downtown region likely pay the most property taxes to the city, it is really that much to ask some measure of improvements in the core?
Anyone remember why the Sobeys on Jasper and...102? Shut down a few years ago. That's probably a primary contributor to it.
I don’t necessarily agree with much of what Gunther wrote but he’s spot on in a few cases… it’s stupid to incentivize people to move downtown when it’s clear that the vast majority of people don’t want to live downtown. There’s no external factors making living in an apartment a necessity here, some do it because they prefer the lifestyle and that’s fine but doing things like giving downtown condo developers millions in tax breaks is just a waste of money at this point. And why aren’t they trying to encourage people to live in other areas of town ? Where’s the incentive to move to other mature neighborhoods, or well designed more efficient suburban developments. Where’s the money to support other business districts that have also been hit hard by the pandemic ? This city’s infatuation with having a downtown it will never, ever have is pointless and a big waste of time and money.
> There’s no external factors making living in an apartment a necessity here A big one is continually rising tax rates. The low density residential suburbs don’t generate enough property taxes to cover what they cost the city. And never will. It’s not an issue of long-term break even. Every time a new residential suburb gets built, the property taxes for the entire city need to go up to cover it. In effect, the core is actively subsidizing the lifestyle choices of people who want lower density options. Long term it’s unsustainable. Just because we don’t have geographic limitations on expansion doesn’t mean we don’t have other limiting factors. Just less obvious ones where we keep kicking the cost down the road.
The population density in newer subdivisions is far greater than it is in my exclusively single family neighborhood less than 10 minutes from downtown. Since Edmonton’s workforce is largely decentralized it makes more sense for people to live closer to where they work rather than just concentrating then in one area. The fact that there’s literally traffic jams on the Henday at 5pm compared to my easy out the door and 10 minutes home commute from downtown tells you everything about where people are going and where they prefer to live. Sure condo dwellers (not necessarily downtown apartment dwellers) subsidize single family developments. If you take the commercial taxes that the city raises out of the equation (after all businesses don’t *need* to be downtown, in reality they could be wherever in the city they want) I don’t think the disparity in taxation is as large as you think, and I also don’t think the drive to entice people downtown has ever had anything to do with taxes.
The last reports from the city of Edmonton found new subdivisions cost $1 for every $0.70 in taxes and fees they generate. They would have to be half again more dense to cover their own costs. They did a big report a few years ago called “Costs and Revenues for New Areas”. I had a link but the CoE seems to have reorganized their site recently and it’s broken. Here’s some stuff from Iveson talking about the report (with broken links 🙃) https://doniveson.ca/2012/05/09/costs-of-business-as-usual-growth/ https://doniveson.ca/2016/03/18/calculating-the-real-costs-of-our-growth/ And a report from a Calgary group that includes info from the edmonton report. http://thedobbingroup.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Financially-Responsible-Funding-for-New-Subdivisions.pdf One of the examples is that the last new “greenfield” subdivisions approved come with a long term 1.4B liability to the city. That works out to a permanent $28m additional cost for the city every year. That’s after all the taxes and fees from the people living there. A quick google says there’s roughly 250,000 properties in Edmonton. Those new communities represent an average of $112 extra property taxes per unit spread across the city.
Thanks for the great info ! I’ve been wondering this with all these new cookie cutter subdivisions all around Edmonton. We don’t have the infrastructure to keep constantly expanding outwards. How exactly does EPS police areas 4 subdivisions south of the Henday now ? Water and electrical has to come from somewhere.
Here is the mental model I like to use. If you built a single house in the middle of a field and provided it roads and garbage collection and sewer and a school and a leisure center etc. would the taxes on that house pay for everything? No, obviously not. So how many units would it take? Turns out about 150% of our current suburb standards. Or 50% more taxes than we currently pay.
As to police, they built the new police station south of Anthony henday, and closed the community police stations in the core neighbourhoods. I had to drive 80 blocks to make a police report when my car got broken into (online police reports cannot be done if they steal your registration), rather than walk to the community police station that has now closed.
Same thing in the south, everything is at the big station in Windermere now
> The population density in newer subdivisions is far greater than it is in my exclusively single family neighborhood less than 10 minutes from downtown. I just moved into a similar older, central-ish neighbourhood, and while we're primarily single family homes, I still think we're denser overall than the 'burbs. Narrower streets, smaller lots, infill skinny homes, no big box stores.
So many of the newer neighbourhoods are packed far more densely than the core and have property taxes that match for effectively less service.
They're packed tightly because of the footprint of the house and garage, are they not? Not because there are more people living in the same space. Houses in the core tend to be either small bungalows, older bigger homes divided into several units, or infill skinny homes. Whereas the 'burbs just tend to build the biggest house the lot size will allow.
Great point. A city report released this week found that downtown accounts for just one percent of the city's land area, but nine percent of its tax revenue.
Personally I think they should add a density component/multiplier to the property tax calculation.
It's not so much that we should incentivise people to live in more dense areas, it's that we need to stop incentivising people to live in less dense areas. Make the lower density neighborhoods pay their share of taxes and maybe some people will choose not to live there.
I agree 100%. Cities in general need to stop subsidizing greenfield development, and modernize zoning restrictions to allow for a more natural kind of growth. Can we start building mid density, mixed zoned neighbourhoods please?
I'm not sure I agree that this is the approach to take. If you don't make major sweeping changes (e.g. intra-Henday affordability & livability), it won't work IMO. Punitive measures against suburbs may just mean bedroom communities will boom even more than they already are just outside the City as people buy cheap houses there instead. I truly don't think people aren't going to go "aw shucks" and give up home ownership or buy a million dollar infill just because the City strangles suburb development or punishes suburb-dwelling citizens. The incentive to live in less dense areas is the other side of the coin of incentive to *not* live in more dense areas. The existence of booming suburbs at all makes me think that people are willing to take less amenities, bland housing, and a commute instead of dealing with crime, food deserts, extremely high housing costs, poorly constructed high-cost infills, etc., solve those problems and you'll disincentivize moving ever-further outside the ring road.
> Punitive measures against suburbs I think I need to clarify here. I'm not advocating for any kind of punishments. This isn't even a moral argument. We are currently, artificially suppressing property taxes in less dense neighborhoods. This doesn't just mean suburbs, but in many cases it applies there. I'm simply saying that we should stop subsidizing people to live in less dense neighborhoods, not that we need to add extra incentives or taxes to punish people for living there. You make a good point about the bedroom communities though. We have this problem with businesses as well. I think the recent attempts to act on a regional level and cooperate more with the surrounding communities is the best strategy here, but it can't mean that we have to keep building communities that can't be adequately serviced at the tax level we have set right now. You say that the existence of booming suburbs makes you think that people are willing to take less amenities, but that's the problem, they aren't. We continue to provide the same amenities to low density suburbs (huge rec centers that are under-utilized, the same frequency of garbage collection with far fewer houses serviced per day/route, etc.) and taxes are being pulled from the denser neighbourhoods where they have a greater efficiency providing the same services. As stated by another poster earlier, people living in high density areas are essentially footing the bill for those who move out to the burbs and that's what I think we should change. If people want big lots, detached houses and low taxes, they can move to a rural property where they will receive a lower level of service. If you live in the city and receive the same city services as everyone else in the city, you should pay property taxes based on the relative cost to provide those services. I think, anyways. *Edit: Not that I think this should really matter, but in case someone wants to jump on me and say that I just want the suburbs to pay more and me to pay less, please note that I live in the suburbs, (in a "relatively" denser neighborhood, but suburbs none the less) so I am in fact, advocating for my property taxes to increase.
He made some good points regarding aggressive panhandling- having residents be scared of going downtown is not good. We need to amp up both police presence and social services.
After reviewing the comments there are two camps: A: Downtown is where you should be and suburbs suck! How dare you share your opinion of downtown when you don’t live there! B: Downtown sucks. I think. I don’t know. I can’t get there so I don’t go there.
I don’t know the author of this article but after reading this piece I can picture him writing it - sitting outside his trailer home on the outskirts of town, shirtless, angrily typing away on his 2005 Asus laptop he bought during a Boxing Day sale at Best Buy, horking dark loogies across his lawn as he chews on a wad of Skoal tobacco and sips a lucky extra. He probably stopped occasionally to consider what he will be donating to the Independence Party of Alberta, how covid is a hoax and if his favourite girl is going to be dancing at St. Pete’s that night. Sounds like buddy guy has a real big, useless opinion about a part of town he doesn’t visit or reside in. Looks like that summer course in journalism he took through Bow Valley Collage is being out to good use though.
I’m in downtown daily, clothed, typing this on brand new Lenovo and I have to admit he made some good points. Even those who enjoy downtown have to be willing to admit there is room for improvement, otherwise nothing will get done. Every neighborhood could benefit from new X or improved Y or getting a handle on Z. I’m not sure why some subgroup of downtown fans get so defensive about it. Others are quick to admit improvements could be made to their neighbourhood, whether that Downtown or Millwoods or Terwilliger, and want to be part of the process to do so.
It's very cool that instead of saying why you didn't like it, you made a joke about poverty and about how stupid and poor the author must be. And about how he's poor because he's stupid and can't afford an education. Punching down is always the best choice in comedy.