[edmontonenthusiast]

Council votes for phased closure of Edmonton City Centre Airport

By Alexandra Zabjek, edmontonjournal.comJuly 8, 2009 5:49 PMComments (13)

EDMONTON — City council has voted to implement a phased closure of the City Centre Airport.

The decision ends weeks of consultation, days of public hearings, and hours of final debate at city hall about the future of the municipal airport. The final vote was 10 to three.

The final hour “compromise” proposal calls for the immediate closure of one of the airport’s two runways and the phased closure of the entire operation.

The motion also calls for immediate discussions to begin with NAIT (Northern Alberta Institute of Technology) about future expansion on the site, and for the city to position itself as developer of the airport lands. No firm timelines have been set on when the airport might be closed, yet several councillors indicated it could take at least a decade before discussions on that might even begin.

“The date for full and final closure of the airport will be determined by city council ... with input from the Edmonton Regional Airport Authority, at a point at which the lands are required to support the long-term land development plan and the needs of the city,” the motion reads.

The idea of a “compromise” proposal has been floating around city hall since last week, but several councillors appeared blindsided by the seven-point motion and questioned the fairness of bringing it forward at the last minute.

“I got this motion less than three hours before this hearing. In my mind that’s not good decision making. That’s called governance on the fly,” said Coun. Linda Sloan, who peppered city administrators with questions on procedures regarding the motion.

Coun. Ron Hayter, who joined the council meeting by phone, called the process “blatantly unfair.” He asked how those affected by the proposal would have the opportunity to respond.

Sloan, Hayter, and Coun. Tony Caterina were the most vocal supporters for keeping the Muni open. They were the only councillors who voted against the motion.

Mayor Stephen Mandel said the motion presented a “fairly good balance.” He said the city would eventually have to set an end date to close the airport since the motion “clearly calls for closure.”

“I don’t think it’s an immediate closure. It’s not going to happen in the morning.”

Other highlights of the motion include:

- Determine the parcels of lands adjacent to runway 16-34, which is suggested to be closed, which can be surrendered to the city once air services on this runway end.

- Conduct an environmental analysis on the lands.

- Work with ongoing users to mitigate impacts, ease immediate transitions and develop a suitable business plan to operate the airport until a final closure date is determined.

- Administration should develop new plans for the NAIT LRT based on lands currently impacted by the runway that is suggested to be closed.

- Work to facilitate Medevac operations at the international airport or other regional airports before a final closure date is set.

azabjek@thejournal.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/City+Centre+Airport+close+pieces/1771283/story.html

(Should Be) more to follow.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Umm this is more city discussions. Yes it's an 'airport', but the redevelopment and results from them are more urban planning. The only part of it that would have to do with transportation is new roads and expansion of LRT.

[Policy Wonk]

As colossally stupid as closing the Muni is and unlikely to lead to the creation of anything of remotely equal value, at least be decisive about screwing up.

Another fifteenth years of flailing ambiguity doesn't help anyone.

[edmontonenthusiast]

^Wow. Seriously do you ever go pro urban?

For those who want to know, most Edmonton forumers are ecstatic about this (Policy isnt Edmontonian though).

I for one am glad it's finally over. We've been fighting this for decades and this is big news.

Policy what is your problem with
-Removal of height restrictions in downtown and Oliver, along with Quarters and pretty much everywhere spurring development
-Getting rid of an airport that is underutilized and provides little benefit to the city
-Prime urban land being developed into an awesome neighbourhood
-filling in density between downtown and the Muni expanding our skyline
-A snowballing effect that 1 thing after another will happen for the better of our urbanity

Common issues were
-people who use private jets
-medevac
-Edmonton indy

Well...
-dozens of small airfields just outside the city
-99% of cities deal with stuff such as medevac without the LUXURY of a airport a couple blocks from a hospital...and the arguement about traffic is dull as traffic could be a problem on princess elizabeth avenue
-Edmonton indy can relocate easily!

[Policy Wonk]

I for one am glad it's finally over. We've been fighting this for decades and this is big news.

This is over? a vague statement that something might be done at a future date yet to be determined - possibly a decade or more away?


-Removal of height restrictions in downtown and Oliver, along with Quarters and pretty much everywhere spurring development

Any such development, that has never so much as been proposed would obstruct the airport, and who the hell is going to build anything in Oliver?

-Getting rid of an airport that is underutilized and provides little benefit to the city

The only reason the airport is under utilized and of little benefit to the city is because it was deliberately sabotaged in the contrived defense of an airport in Leduc that never should have been built. Lift the restrictions and watch it flourish.

-Prime urban land being developed into an awesome neighbourhood

This isn't even a proposal and urban airport redevelopments are often not terribly successful or and not terribly urban despite the rhetoric. Two recent examples are Stapleton in Denver and Robert Mueller in Austin. The corner stone of the redevelopment of Stapleton is a 1.2 million square foot outdoor "lifestyle centre"

You will be forgiven for mistaking it for Manhattan...

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4914/stapleton.jpg

As for Austin, they have a really kick-ass website, a home depot and a crappy mall that is mostly christian businesses and cell phone kiosks.

Common issues were
-people who use private jets
-medevac
-Edmonton indy

Well...
-dozens of small airfields just outside the city
-99% of cities deal with stuff such as medevac without the LUXURY of a airport a couple blocks from a hospital...and the arguement about traffic is dull as traffic could be a problem on princess elizabeth avenue
-Edmonton indy can relocate easily!

Many of which doesn't have the facilities to support any of the above,

Boo Sick People! You Suck! - the truly urgent cases will just be flown by helicopter from YEG. Which is wasteful all things considered.

Yeah... back to Vancouver

[vid]

Medevac type services work just fine here with helicopter. Our hospital, like Edmonton's hospitals I assume, has a helipad.

I don't see much benefit to it though. It's a gigantic space and you probably are going to see mostly malls and parking lots, maybe some suburban style neighbourhoods. There could very well be denser stuff closer to downtown but realistically, I don't see it. The most likely scenario? Most of it will remain undeveloped over the next decade or two.

Not that you're wrong to have vision, though. I would love to see downtown Toronto spring up in it's place!

[Xelebes]

Well, a reasonable development plan would have a max of six stories on the main strip (the bridging addition of 118th Ave) and everything else would beless than that. We have a decade or two before anything happens as the site closes down, done remediation and serviced for development.

[edmontonenthusiast]

vid, yeah we have helipads on all of them i believe.

Policy Wonk, oh my. Vancouver? Oh no but they support urbanity! They developed places like Yaletown, have LRT expansions, and are holding the Olympics. Its funny how you can't support urbanity in Edmonton but will jump on the horse for Vancouver. Sigh. There isn't any way your going to change your mind. But I'm going to reply to your comment to bring up info for those who aren't necessarily in the know on every little detail.

Actually, the city seems keen on developing a huge TOD there, nothing at all resembling suburban. We're past that phase in our city. It is prime land surrounded by many old neighbourhoods, and is expected to have lots of density, and surrounded by LRT. I seriously doubt we'll see a strip mall. The large amount of land is amazing.

And why should we get rid of YEG? Besides it's location, in current state - it is 10x better than Muni. We needed a larger airport that doesnt put a burden on our downtown, and the Muni aint expanding. We aren't destroying Alberta Ave.

And why would there be a redev plan? Why would someone put in all that work prior to today, when there is a chance it is for nothing. Not to mention the city has released conceptual plans sort of ... land use studies for the area.

Many projects have previously been proposed throughout our history but were never built because of our height restrictions. Opportunities lost. Did you know Husky tower was originally supposed to be here? the current Urbia towers would probably go over the current height restrictions also.

Who would want to develop in Oliver? Seriously when were you last in Edmonton? The construction there is probably double downtowns. They developed Railtown (arguably part of downtown), along with dozens of condos. Illuminada I, Illuminada II, Serenity, Lessard House, and Uptown have all gone up in a few blocks of an area in the past 5 yrs. Oliver is the densest area of Alberta. Who would not want to develop there? There is a big proposal - the Pearl - which would obstruct current height limits - proposed rght in that area. There is such a large market in Oliver. It's more or the same as the Beltline in Calgary.

[Policy Wonk]

vid, yeah we have helipads on all of them i believe.

Policy Wonk, oh my. Vancouver? Oh no but they support urbanity! They developed places like Yaletown, have LRT expansions, and are holding the Olympics. Its funny how you can't support urbanity in Edmonton but will jump on the horse for Vancouver. Sigh. There isn't any way your going to change your mind. But I'm going to reply to your comment to bring up info for those who aren't necessarily in the know on every little detail.

I am not entirely sure what your talking about, but I only bring up Vancouver because they want their Indy event back and I am sure they would be happy to pick up the slack should Edmonton bulldoze the requisite facilities.

Actually, the city seems keen on developing a huge TOD there, nothing at all resembling suburban. We're past that phase in our city. It is prime land surrounded by many old neighbourhoods, and is expected to have lots of density, and surrounded by LRT. I seriously doubt we'll see a strip mall. The large amount of land is amazing.

As did Denver and Austin, the rhetoric about both the Stapleton and Mueller projects is virtually identical. Urban, transit oriented, mixed income, blah blah blah - but at the end of the day low-risk rapid development usually wins. The only developer in the country with the type of discipline and resources to build what you guys are fantasizing about is Canada Lands and they aren't involved here.

Should this actually happen Edmonton will probably dump the bulk of the land on NAIT and all but a sliver will remain undeveloped for decades to come.

And why should we get rid of YEG? Besides it's location, in current state - it is 10x better than Muni. We needed a larger airport that doesnt put a burden on our downtown, and the Muni aint expanding. We aren't destroying Alberta Ave.

I didn't say that, I said it never should have been built in its present location. It is an impractical location today and was an insane location when it was chosen in 1958. Given the location of YEG it will never be practical for regional travel, this was recognized for many years. Indeed given the location I can't imagine it was even conceived of as a replacement for the Muni.

Unfortunately the attitude of Edmonton Airports towards the Muni is only exceeded in paranoia and weirdness by DFW and their animosity for Love Field.

All of this is oblivious to the fact that the tremendous growth experienced at YEG in recent years was exclusively the result of Air Canada and WestJet going to war at YEG and had nothing to do with the restrictions imposed on the Muni. The only tangible result of that has been the death of small airlines serving rural Alberta and offering shuttle service between the Muni and Calgary. WestJet began to offer direct service from YEG that had previously only been offered by Air Canada and Canadian through Calgary. To compete Air Canada also had to bypass Calgary and the rest is history.

And why would there be a redev plan? Why would someone put in all that work prior to today, when there is a chance it is for nothing. Not to mention the city has released conceptual plans sort of ... land use studies for the area.

I would compare this to the planning for post-war Iraq... but that would just be cruel. Redevelopment plans for Stapleton began in 1990, redevelopment planes for Mueller began in ernest in 1994 and became serious in 1997 when the total closure of the facility was approved.

Many projects have previously been proposed throughout our history but were never built because of our height restrictions. Opportunities lost. Did you know Husky tower was originally supposed to be here? the current Urbia towers would probably go over the current height restrictions also.

And did a single one of them apply for a waiver from Transport Canada?

The construction there is probably double downtowns. They developed Railtown (arguably part of downtown),

Oliver is the densest area of Alberta. Who would not want to develop there? There is a big proposal - the Pearl - which would obstruct current height limits - proposed rght in that area. There is such a large market in Oliver. It's more or the same as the Beltline in Calgary.

What do you consider the boundaries of Oliver to be?

[CONative]

This is over? a vague statement that something might be done at a future date yet to be determined - possibly a decade or more away?



Any such development, that has never so much as been proposed would obstruct the airport, and who the hell is going to build anything in Oliver?



The only reason the airport is under utilized and of little benefit to the city is because it was deliberately sabotaged in the contrived defense of an airport in Leduc that never should have been built. Lift the restrictions and watch it flourish.



This isn't even a proposal and urban airport redevelopments are often not terribly successful or and not terribly urban despite the rhetoric. Two recent examples are Stapleton in Denver and Robert Mueller in Austin. The corner stone of the redevelopment of Stapleton is a 1.2 million square foot outdoor "lifestyle centre"

You will be forgiven for mistaking it for Manhattan...

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4914/stapleton.jpg

As for Austin, they have a really kick-ass website, a home depot and a crappy mall that is mostly christian businesses and cell phone kiosks.



Many of which doesn't have the facilities to support any of the above,

Boo Sick People! You Suck! - the truly urgent cases will just be flown by helicopter from YEG. Which is wasteful all things considered.

Yeah... back to Vancouver

Being a resident of Stapleton in Denver, I have to take exception to your post. The Northfield Shopping Center Stapleton is at the edge of Stapleton's 7.5 square miles next to 2 major highways. It is designed as a regional shopping district for the entire NE side of the Denver metro area. The redevelopment of a 7.5 square mile area takes a lot of time. Density will take more time and the master plan certainly has a lot of density. Northfield is not the "cornerstone" of Stapleton. If anything, it would be the 29th Ave Town Center. This is very walkable from hundreds of homes and has a lot of mixed use. With only 6 years into a 30 year plan, I think a lot of folks need to understand that density and a master plan can't come together overnight. Stapleton will have over 30,000 residents and 30,000 workers when it is complete and all the infill and density comes in. There will also be a commuter rail stop with a mixed used area around that. That is quite a bit of density when you also consider that Stapleton also has thousands of acres in trails, creeks, open space, and parks. There are current vacant commercial and residential lots that are zoned high density and mixed-use throughout Stapleton. These are deliberately vacant right now to ensure that high density will come and there will be local shops, retail, etc. within a short walk for everyone. There are already live/work units in Stapleton and there are already neighborhood shops integrated in different locations within Stapleton, but not enough for the residents yet. The market does not allow for everything right now, but the residents of Stapleton and the city of Denver are very pro-density. This was very obvious in a recent community meeting. The power centers were built in the beginning stages of Stapleton ON THE EDGE to serve the entire regional area. Housing prices have remained stable or slowly increasing in Stapleton; while the rest of the country has been in a decline. This is partially due to the urban nature of the community and the plan. There will be 3 more Town Centers built in Stapleton (on top of the current 29th Ave Town Center). One of them is about to start construction. These are within walking distance of pretty much everyone in Stapleton. This is on top of the neighborhood shops and live/work units integrated within the community as well. Even Northfield is not complete. There are several more retail lots that need to be filled and the walkable portions are going to be extended. As I have mentioned to others before, to judge Stapleton in its early stages is like judging the finished product of a skyscraper before you saw the plans and before it is complete. GIVE IT TIME -- jeesh! :)

Sorry for the rant, but Stapleton has been successful so far...and it will only get better over time. It takes a lot of time, energy, money, and community effort to rebuild a large airport area in the middle of a city. I think we are doing well so far (especially in these current market conditions).

Good luck Edmonton!

[Jasonhouse]

Lets get back to the topic please.

[edmontonenthusiast]

I am not entirely sure what your talking about, but I only bring up Vancouver because they want their Indy event back and I am sure they would be happy to pick up the slack should Edmonton bulldoze the requisite facilities.



As did Denver and Austin, the rhetoric about both the Stapleton and Mueller projects is virtually identical. Urban, transit oriented, mixed income, blah blah blah - but at the end of the day low-risk rapid development usually wins. The only developer in the country with the type of discipline and resources to build what you guys are fantasizing about is Canada Lands and they aren't involved here.

Should this actually happen Edmonton will probably dump the bulk of the land on NAIT and all but a sliver will remain undeveloped for decades to come.



I didn't say that, I said it never should have been built in its present location. It is an impractical location today and was an insane location when it was chosen in 1958. Given the location of YEG it will never be practical for regional travel, this was recognized for many years. Indeed given the location I can't imagine it was even conceived of as a replacement for the Muni.

Unfortunately the attitude of Edmonton Airports towards the Muni is only exceeded in paranoia and weirdness by DFW and their animosity for Love Field.

All of this is oblivious to the fact that the tremendous growth experienced at YEG in recent years was exclusively the result of Air Canada and WestJet going to war at YEG and had nothing to do with the restrictions imposed on the Muni. The only tangible result of that has been the death of small airlines serving rural Alberta and offering shuttle service between the Muni and Calgary. WestJet began to offer direct service from YEG that had previously only been offered by Air Canada and Canadian through Calgary. To compete Air Canada also had to bypass Calgary and the rest is history.



I would compare this to the planning for post-war Iraq... but that would just be cruel. Redevelopment plans for Stapleton began in 1990, redevelopment planes for Mueller began in ernest in 1994 and became serious in 1997 when the total closure of the facility was approved.



And did a single one of them apply for a waiver from Transport Canada?



What do you consider the boundaries of Oliver to be?

You are just SOOO optimistic aren't you?

Like said earlier, developing out the Muni will take decades. I have faith we'll be smart and not just go for the "quick-fix". We're doing it similarly (not exactly the same as what would happen with Muni) with Greisbach...massive swath of land, just a tad north of the "mighty" Muni and has already been started redevelopment (it wasn't an airport for those who don't know Edmonton) into a traditional small scaled residential neighbourhood.

Seriously though, Policy Wonk, when were you last in Edmonton? And actually soaked up and looked at our urbanity, instead of staying in suburbia?

Look at a map. With the exception of the east boundary, the official boundaries for Oliver are 124st on the west, 105ave/104ave(@124st) on the north, Victoria Park on the south, and depending on who you go by 111st or 109st on the east. That is Oliver. And all the developments I said, save Railtown cause it could be either or were in Oliver.

I have no idea on the stats on what Husky Oil did about building a tower near the RAM 50 yrs ago were. I doubt many do. They probably were looking into Edmonton, tried a proposal, and were turned down because they couldn't build a 191m tall skyscraper 15 blocks south of a airport.

The Pearl and Urbia are still in proposal stages.

And I doubt a large swath of the Muni will go to NAIT. Some will, it's inevitable. Probably the first runway that gets closed - most of it will go to NAIT. But that's just a portion. There is so much to the area. It's supposed to be a massive TOD. Light rail, parks, NAIT expansion, condos, office towers, etc. Quit being so pessimistic, already. Please.

[Policy Wonk]

You are just SOOO optimistic aren't you?

Like said earlier, developing out the Muni will take decades. I have faith we'll be smart and not just go for the "quick-fix". We're doing it similarly (not exactly the same as what would happen with Muni) with Greisbach...massive swath of land, just a tad north of the "mighty" Muni and has already been started redevelopment (it wasn't an airport for those who don't know Edmonton) into a traditional small scaled residential neighbourhood.


The problem with that is few cities have the discipline, option or motivation of waiting for some urban ideal to grow organically when other forms of development can contribute to the tax base much sooner and at much lower risk. For instance, if Toll Brothers rolled into Denver city hall and said they want to blanket Stapleton in five years, the whole side would be zoned R-1 in minutes.

Quit being so pessimistic, already. Please.

Give me one reason to be optimistic, I have encountered a grand total of one airport redevelopment proposal that made sense and dozens that were varying degrees of fantasy, delusion and anti-aviation environmental alarmism. Shouting people down and insisting things will work out if only they were optimistic isn't planning.

[edmontonenthusiast]

^While maybe one airport has been redeveloped nicely, and the others not, why can't you be hopeful that this one will as well? Just because others couldn't doesn't mean we can. Not to mention, there have been numerous places that while it wasn't an airport, there were large swaths of central land to be able to develop. Lots of these things turn out okay because a city demands good planning. For the new Art Gallery of Alberta we have under construction, there was a big design competition. We can easily do so with the Muni.

Even if they bulldozed the whole thing and made it a big park, it would be 100x better than what it is today.

And like mentioned, it would relieve height limits in our city so we can get that signature building people are talking about. That of itself is already a big benefit to the city's future.

If we're patient in growing this thing out, we will surely be developing a nice TOD than a suburban piece of yuck. And I'm confident we can be, as before the Great Depression, we grew organically moreso.

And looking at Stapleton, just by minor observations, of course it's developing into a more suburban sort, it is on the edges of the city. That is really not a fair comparison AT ALL. The Edmonton City Centre Airport would be like having a airport around where Cherry Creek in Denver is - actually probably a bit closer to the downtown.

Why should you be optimistic? Because we have a wonderful opportunity here. We could really change the attitude of this city, instead of being so negative - not unlike you. We can get rid of an airport that's underutlized. We will remove height limits so we can build at ease, and more developers will want to be here. We can have a marvel of a TOD that city's can look up to.

You're just so keen on 'unleashing' ECCA without realizing the burden, because why would you have to worry in suburban Calgary ... NIMBYism.

And I love how you avoid my question about when you were last in Edmonton. And when I ask that, I don't mean when did you go to a hotel on Calgary Trail south of 76 Ave and shopped at South Edmonton Common last, I mean our urban-ness.

[Edmonchuck]

<snip>

Sorry for the rant, but Stapleton has been successful so far...and it will only get better over time. It takes a lot of time, energy, money, and community effort to rebuild a large airport area in the middle of a city. I think we are doing well so far (especially in these current market conditions).

Good luck Edmonton!


Now now, stop bringing common sense and reality into this discussion.

;)

[edmontonenthusiast]

Edmonton’s Indy race not affected by planned runway closure


By Dan Barnes, edmontonjournal.comJuly 9, 2009 2:01 PMBe the first to post a comment

EDMONTON — Edmonton’s Indy race will not have its wings clipped by the closure of a runway at City Centre Airport.

Officials with the airport and Northlands, the race operator, confirmed Thursday the event will go forward as planned July 26 and again in July 2010.

“We have an agreement with Northlands through 2010 and we will honour that agreement,” said Traci Bednard, the airport’s vice-president of communications. She said the closure of runway 16-34 will have no impact at all on the race this month or next year.

The three-year sanctioning deal between Northlands and the Indy Racing League expires after the 2010 race and there have been no discussions yet on an extension, say IRL and Northlands officials.

City council voted 10-3 Wednesday to shut down the airport in stages, beginning with the closure of runway 16-34, which runs parallel to NAIT. The Indy track does not incorporate or intersect that runway. The track uses a portion of runway 12-30 which will stay open for the time being.

dbarnes@thejournal.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/Indy+race+affected+Muni+plan/1775084/story.html

NAIT’s president excited about expansion into airport lands


By Keith Gerein, edmontonjournal.comJuly 9, 2009 1:01 PMComments (1)

EDMONTON — NAIT’s top administrator says he is excited by the prospect of expanding his institution onto the City Centre Airport lands, but the development process could take between 20 to 50 years.

“That’s the time frame you need to be thinking about,” NAIT president Sam Shaw said Thursday.

“When you start looking at institutions such as MIT or Cal Tech or Georgia Tech, their visions are 20 to 40 to 50 years and they have the land acquired to allow them to grow into the future. And now with the decision by city council, that allows us the opportunity to grow over the next 50 to whatever number of years.”

Councillors voted Wednesday to close the City Centre Airport in stages, starting with runway 16-34, which lies just west of NAIT’s main campus.

Shaw said NAIT’s first priority is to build a new Centre for Applied Technologies on land it already has on main campus.

Long term, however, he said the school needs to consolidate its facilities. The institute currently has 12 sites spread around the city.

“If we can shrink that down to one, then you are economizing and certainly you can start looking at prioritizing better services as opposed to dispersed services.”

A few years ago, NAIT unveiled plans for a massive new Ralph Klein campus on the city’s southern edge that was pitched to be the future home of many of the school’s heavy trades programs.

The project has since been pushed to the back burner, and Shaw said NAIT will now start talking to the province about transporting those plans to the airport lands.

The proposal includes a number of new academic buildings, labs, student services and residences.

The idea of consolidating the institute’s operations on one site makes sense for students in part because the entire campus would be on a future LRT line, Shaw said.

“We now need to take a look at whether that plan will fit in (on the airport lands) and how that might be accommodated,” he said.

“When you start coupling the potential of growing (on that site) with lots of major programs areas, and with the LRT line, now what you are looking at is a major city with some major post-secondary institutions that are linked together.”

NAIT is still in an early stage of the planning process so it’s unclear when any firm expansion decisions might be made, he said.

kgerein@thejournal.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/NAIT+president+excited+about+expansion+into+airport+lands/1774808/story.html

[CONative]

The problem with that is few cities have the discipline, option or motivation of waiting for some urban ideal to grow organically when other forms of development can contribute to the tax base much sooner and at much lower risk. For instance, if Toll Brothers rolled into Denver city hall and said they want to blanket Stapleton in five years, the whole side would be zoned R-1 in minutes.


Nope, Not true. Stapleton has had several builders wanting to build single family homes in mixed used or high density zoned areas and it continues to stay zoned the way it is. The developer, Forest City, has committed to holding the land for several years if need be and is financially stable to do this. We, as a community, keep on ensuring this. Trust me, there is no way Denver City Council will allow that to be re-zoned. The community has made it clear they want more density and walkability, and the city also won't let that happen. There are actually quite a few developers ready to build and some have already bought the land to build the high density housing and mixed used lots. Forest City is one of them. They are building on some of the mixed used/high density lots themselves, and are ready to build in other high density zoned areas.

[canucklehead2]

Holy excess threads Batman! Do we really need multiple CCA threads? Not really...

[Xelebes]

Holy excess threads Batman! Do we really need multiple CCA threads? Not really...

This is the Transportation Forum. Just like we have multiple threads for EPCOR Tower.

[edmontonenthusiast]

It's about letting a variety of people know. We only have two anyways. I remember there being many on Swine Flu anyways.