HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 2:12 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Edmonchuk
Posts: 7,573
I expected no less from someone waiting for the City Centre to somehow be "unleashed" (from what exactly?). YXD is significantly closer (walking distance) to the Downtown, I doubt it would be turned into track housing + strip malls, especially with light rail going right through it (which Stapleton doesn't, yet). YXD has these things that I think will keep developers from suburbanizing it.

You're predicting things like Walmarts popping up when there is nothing even pointing in that direction for the site's redevelopment right now. Have the conservatives thrown their support for keeping YXD open? I know the other 3 have, but I dont know about the conservatives. Even if they did, that should mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING as this is a MUNICIPAL issue and has NOTHING to do with things at the PROVINCIAL level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 2:43 AM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,457
from what?

How about the paranoid body-rockers in Leduc who thought 19 seat turboprops flying between YXD and YYC would bring about some sort of apocalypse and did everything they could to sabotage the Edmonton airport short of laying down some Durandals. Left to its own devices YXD would have retained much of its regional service and remained intensely viable as a commercial airport.

I wouldn't worry so much about YXD being suburbanized so much as just completely ignored.

When it comes to Stapleton, the thirty year master plan has a lot of density, 30,000 residents, mixed use, mixed income, transit, walking, an SSP wetdream - it did not however include this:



Google Earth

But, you go to a city, any city and promise to rapidly build the tax base - they can't resist. Cities just don't have the patience to see such things through.
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 2:45 AM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 9,824
Quite frankly, a walmart and a couple bungalows would be a better use of the land than an airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 2:51 AM
CONative's Avatar
CONative CONative is offline
Mile High Guy
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 785
Have you been to Stapleton? This is just wrong.

Stapleton's 2 REGIONAL shopping centers are on the very edges of the massive development (much larger than Mueller). 7.5 square miles of redevelopment takes time. We have 3 walkable retail/shop/live-work/office areas intermixed INSIDE current Stapleton residential neighborhoods (and more planned). All types of single family/loft/live-work/condo/apt housing is integrated within, and more to come. The development is only 30% complete and the plans for more even better mixed-use and walkability are still coming. This is why certain land plats are skipped over...reserving it for high density, walkable sustainability, and TOD developments. I just hate when people don't know the situation and what is truly going on. You can't judge the book until its at least close to complete. Would you want someone to judge/criticize your project before you have it completed and you just started working on it?

The picture of Northfield above is ONLY THE START. The area was designed with a street grid so that more retail shops/live-work units/and other business can be added and parking lots will be minimized in the future. You can clearly see this in the picture with the lots and street grid. There is nothing wrong with bringing in the tax base to support the expensive infrastructure, and have a future plan of more urban design with more mixed use after this area matures. The center/middle of the shopping area is very walkable with offices, retail, restaurants. Also, it is on the edge of the development and is planned as a REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER. This means it is designed to bring folks from several miles away.

How about taking a picture within the real Stapleton -- where the 9000 people actually live? No one lives near Northfield yet. That area is slated for residential/hotel/mixed used development immediately surrounding Northfield 5 years from now.
__________________
-D-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 2:54 AM
bulliver's Avatar
bulliver bulliver is offline
So very tired...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Old Strathcona, Edmonton
Posts: 3,255
^^^ Not familiar with Stapleton, but from a look on google it appears to be surrounded by industrial wasteland. No wonder no one wants to live there. YXD is surrounded on three sides by residential, a mall, and a technical college, and has an LRT line slated to come through it.
__________________
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...
Ipernity | Recent SSP Photo threads:
Two Days in Winnipeg | Stuff I've seen so far this year in Edmonton | Rural Alberta Advantage | Edmonton AB - Third Quarter 2011
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 3:09 AM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Edmonchuk
Posts: 7,573
^And the size of ECCA/YXD looks smaller (could be wrong on that one), and those residential neighbourhoods are all mature, not suburban (although most are SFH dominated). And it being >10 blocks from Downtowns northern edge. I'm sure if Stapleton was located where Cherry Creek or Five Points was, it'd be more, way more actually, urban.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 3:16 AM
CONative's Avatar
CONative CONative is offline
Mile High Guy
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulliver View Post
^^^ Not familiar with Stapleton, but from a look on google it appears to be surrounded by industrial wasteland. No wonder no one wants to live there. YXD is surrounded on three sides by residential, a mall, and a technical college, and has an LRT line slated to come through it.
Funny...industrial wasteland.

SOUTH STAPLETON (south of I-70)
2 sides of South Stapleton are surrounded by mature older traditional residential neighborhoods. 1 other side has a nature preserve and a few commercial office buildings (not industrial). The north side of South Stapleton is bordered by a highway and a few commercial buildings. Nothing really industrial there.

NORTH STAPLETON
The north is bordered by another massive Nature preserve with elk, buffalo, and other animals. The only bordering side that has anything considered close to industrial (which is only warehouse and commercial office) is the NE side; which Stapleton has already buffered with a light commercial office park (floor tile showrooms, window showrooms, Office Max warehouse, etc).

...and the close to completed developed parts of Stapleton are somewhat urban already. The density is pretty high considering it is new and the areas left for park land. 9000+ people (probably closer to 10000 now) in a developed 2.2 square mile area isn't bad...especially considering many plots of the developed area are still left open to accomodate mixed use, retail, and even higher density. You may not see it from satellite, but what may look like massive SF homes are often an 8-12 condo building made to look like a large home.

Also, electric commuter rail is coming right through the middle of Stapleton too. They just started construction on the line (not just "slated" for it). I actually live 3 blocks from the future rail station that will take me downtown or the airport. After it is built, a comprehensive TOD is planned immediately surrounding the station -- with ground retail/office/live-work.

Again, it would be nice if folks were fully educated on what is there now and the plan that we (affected residents and developer) have stuck to before developing false opinions.

You can view more at StapletonDenver.com
__________________
-D-

Last edited by CONative; Jul 31, 2010 at 3:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 4:00 AM
Bassic Lab Bassic Lab is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
from what?

How about the paranoid body-rockers in Leduc who thought 19 seat turboprops flying between YXD and YYC would bring about some sort of apocalypse and did everything they could to sabotage the Edmonton airport short of laying down some Durandals. Left to its own devices YXD would have retained much of its regional service and remained intensely viable as a commercial airport.

I wouldn't worry so much about YXD being suburbanized so much as just completely ignored.

When it comes to Stapleton, the thirty year master plan has a lot of density, 30,000 residents, mixed use, mixed income, transit, walking, an SSP wetdream - it did not however include this:



Google Earth

But, you go to a city, any city and promise to rapidly build the tax base - they can't resist. Cities just don't have the patience to see such things through.
Ignoring the entire issue of the value of inner city airports, I am curious as to why you think redevelopment is doomed to failure? The land YXD is on seems more comparable, in both scale and location, to the redevelopment of CFB Calgary than to Stapleton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 5:25 AM
bulliver's Avatar
bulliver bulliver is offline
So very tired...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Old Strathcona, Edmonton
Posts: 3,255
^^ Guy, I said I wasn't familiar with the area, I looked at the map and saw this: http://maps.google.ca/maps?client=fi...55404&t=h&z=15

Not exactly a nice walkable community. And compared to the area surrounding Edmonton City Centre Airport, yes it is industrial wasteland. Sorry...
__________________
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...
Ipernity | Recent SSP Photo threads:
Two Days in Winnipeg | Stuff I've seen so far this year in Edmonton | Rural Alberta Advantage | Edmonton AB - Third Quarter 2011
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 5:29 AM
MrOilers's Avatar
MrOilers MrOilers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,129
Whether the land remains developed, undeveloped, or a field for Edmonton's largest Wal-Mart, closing it provides far more positives than keeping it open. Never mind the fact that runways need to be repaved (to the tune of $38 million) and the airport owes the Edmonton International Airport $5 million.

This airport is an albatross for so many reasons.

Even if that land never gets used after closure, closing that airport (which is a completely redundant facility) will allow the following things:

- Realignment of the Trans-Canada Yellowhead so that proper interchanges can be constructed in place of the intersections where it passes near the airport lands
- Lift the height restrictions on Edmonton's downtown
- provide a convenient ROW for the Northwest LRT route to St. Albert
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 5:33 AM
ZiZiPop ZiZiPop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 240
^ you forgot the most important (IMO)

- Put to rest a tired debate that has gone on for 40 years!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 8:53 AM
Policy Wonk's Avatar
Policy Wonk Policy Wonk is offline
Inflatable Hippo
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by CONative View Post
Have you been to Stapleton? This is just wrong..
Yes, and I love what they have done with the place - but most people here would call it suburban hell. And even better, if you visit their sales website, atleast recently there are loving profiles of families who just achieved their first single family home with a two car garage. Lots of emphasis on the garage. There was even an article in the Denver Post about how people were buying their first single family homes in Stapleton.

I am completely cool with all of that, just don't sell it as a successful new urbanism project. And given the tenor of the initial development are you really going to hold your breath on Forest City coming through with the rest?
__________________
Public Administration 101: Keep your mouth shut until obligated otherwise and don't get in public debates with housewives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 2:37 PM
Bigtime's Avatar
Bigtime Bigtime is offline
Very tall. Such Scrape.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Sunnyside, Calgary
Posts: 15,570
Post

The "we don't like Calgarians telling us what to do" line caught the attention of Calgary Herald writer Don Braid, here is his column in todays paper:

Quote:
Braid: Edmonton airport dispute an excuse for Calgary-bashing
By Don Braid, Calgary Herald July 31, 2010 8:19 AM


First, I love Edmonton, OK? Edmonton readers who stumble across this column should remember that later on.

My wife's family as well as my son and grandkids all live in Edmonton. I've been working in and out of the legislature since 1978.

Fine city, Edmonton.

But, oh my, northern leaders sure are touchy about Calgary these days.

On Friday, Mayor Stephen Mandel blasted Wildrose Alliance Leader Danielle Smith for jumping into the debate over the planned closure of Edmonton's City Centre Airport.

He wasn't angry because he disagrees with her push to keep the airport open. No, he was infuriated by the mere fact that she's from

Calgary. "Many Edmontonians, and myself included, take offence when

Calgarians tell us how we should run our city," Mandel fumed after Smith held a news conference.

Smith rejoined that she owns a condo in Edmonton and pays taxes there. Can't she say what she thinks about a local problem?

Mandel's second and equally absurd line of attack is that provincial politicians shouldn't comment on civic affairs.

"This is a municipal issue and she shouldn't be interfering in it," he fumes.

But the closure debate crosses many provincial lines. The downtown airport exists under Alberta legislation. Shutting it down could bring environmental and legal impacts.

Also, Edmontonians have twice voted by plebiscite to keep the airport open.

Now the city wants to close it without another vote.

That's wrong, argues Smith, whose party supports regular plebiscites on issues exactly like this.

She happily signed a petition to put the matter on the fall civic ballot. Now, Smith asks why local Tory MLAs don't do the same thing -- a very good question.

Mandel, one suspects, is trying to divert anger toward Calgary and away from his own policy. There's nothing like whipping a distant scapegoat when a risky election looms.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/columni...#ixzz0vGqrs2aO
__________________
Proud supporter of Naheed Nenshi as Mayor!
Bigtime Goes to Antarctica
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 3:10 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Edmonchuk
Posts: 7,573
^ I think Mandel would have said the exact same thing if Danielle was living in, or her party was centred in Lethbridge or Lloydminster. I think Don Braid is taking it too personally against Calgary. Meanwhile, turn the tables, how about it if Kevin Taft or even Stephen Mandel was telling you guys to not build the Bow (and sign petition against it)? I'm sure Bronco would be pissed too.

I don't like Calgarians or Red Deerians or Lethbridgers trying to make decisions for our city. Nobody from outside the Edmonton CMA should be trying to change this decision. Sure, have an opinion (although not necessarily bright if you're a political party or someone in the spotlight), but don't change it for us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
Yes, and I love what they have done with the place - but most people here would call it suburban hell. And even better, if you visit their sales website, atleast recently there are loving profiles of families who just achieved their first single family home with a two car garage. Lots of emphasis on the garage. There was even an article in the Denver Post about how people were buying their first single family homes in Stapleton.

I am completely cool with all of that, just don't sell it as a successful new urbanism project. And given the tenor of the initial development are you really going to hold your breath on Forest City coming through with the rest?
And we're saying it likely won't be like Stapleton. Maybe if this was 1997 (IIRC when some "suburban" looking projects begun around Downtown here).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 3:24 PM
ZiZiPop ZiZiPop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 240
"Also, Edmontonians have twice voted by plebiscite to keep the airport open."

This is the lie that envision is repeating now that really gets to me. Edmonton has never voted on closing the Airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 3:46 PM
ue ue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Edmonchuk
Posts: 7,573
And one of the times the vote was FOR closing it (1995)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 3:53 PM
bulliver's Avatar
bulliver bulliver is offline
So very tired...
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Old Strathcona, Edmonton
Posts: 3,255
Jesus Christ! I felt compelled to send this to Mr Don Braid:
Quote:
"Also, Edmontonians have twice voted by plebiscite to keep the airport open. "

Seems you've been fed the same false information as Danielle Smith.
Did you actually fact-check that assertion? Actually, we've never had
a plebiscite to determine whether to keep ECCA open. We had a vote in
1992, and another in 1995. The question on the ballot was whether or
not Edmonton should consolidate passenger traffic to the
International. Both results were to consolidate, the '92 vote by 55%,
and the '95 vote by 77%. But yeah, that's the same as "clearly
endorsing keeping the airport open"....

Also, you should probably get over yourself, I'm sure Mandel's
comments would be similar if someone from Red Deer or Medicine Hat or
Vancouver or wherever came up here and had a grand-standing press
conference on an extremely contentious Edmonton issue, spewing
completely misleading information.

Nice try.

--Me
__________________
Support the mob or mysteriously disappear...
Ipernity | Recent SSP Photo threads:
Two Days in Winnipeg | Stuff I've seen so far this year in Edmonton | Rural Alberta Advantage | Edmonton AB - Third Quarter 2011
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2010, 5:21 PM
MrOilers's Avatar
MrOilers MrOilers is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 2,129
Grrr... I am sick of this revisionist history. That airport was going to stay open regardless of the 1995 plebiscite outcome. The plebiscite was a vote on use of the airport, NOT on closure.

This is the EXACT plebiscite question, that I cut and pasted from the City of Edmonton website:

Quote:
Do you direct City Council to repeal “The Edmonton Municipal Airport referendum bylaw” (No. 10,205)? That bylaw requires the City to operate the Municipal Airport and promote that airport’s air passenger service.

A “YES” vote means that the City will promote MOVING scheduled air passenger service to the Edmonton International Airport.

A “NO” vote means that the City will promote MAINTAINING scheduled air passenger service at the Edmonton Municipal Airport.

Under both options the City will continue to own and offer general air services (e.g. private planes, small charters, air ambulance) at the Municipal Airport.
77% of Edmonton voters (in Edmonton's largest election turnout EVER) voted YES.

How in the hell is a "yes" vote a vote to keep it open, when it would have stayed open anyway?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Aug 1, 2010, 1:14 AM
feepa's Avatar
feepa feepa is offline
Change is good
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,111
http://blog.mastermaq.ca

Photo Tour of the Edmonton City Centre Airport

By Mack D. Male | July 31, 2010 at 1:55 pm

This week I had the opportunity (with a few other local bloggers) to tour the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA). Traci Bednard, VP of Communications at Edmonton Airports, took the time to guide us around the facility, providing information relevant to the ongoing debate and answering as many of our questions as she could. Here’s what we saw.
ECCA, built in 1929, encompasses approximately 144 acres of land just north of the City Centre. It has two runways (12/30 and 16/34) placed in an intersecting “V” configuration. The airport supports general aviation activities. Approximately 41% of all flights originate and terminate at ECCA without landing at another airport.
Edmonton Airports has invested over $13 million in ECCA since scheduled service was consolidated at EIA in 1996. A further $35 million of capital investment will be required over the next 10 years. Though ECCA generates a small amount of operating income annually, it cannot fully cover its capital requirements.
Edmonton’s Zoning Bylaw 12800 describes the Airport Protection Overlay (APO), which restricts the height of structures within the overlay area to 815.34 m above sea level. The maximum height of a building varies depending on the base elevation. At 146 m tall, Manulife Place is very close to the maximum, as is the soon-to-be-completed EPCOR Tower at a height of 149 m.
Roughly 27% of all aircraft movements at ECCA are northern flights. In 2008, there were 133,000 landed seats from the north to ECCA, versus 778,000 from the north to EIA. The top 25 users at ECCA make up 75% of all aircraft movements, and of these users, 18 also commonly use EIA.
Roughly 4000 air ambulance flights occur at ECCA each year (about 5% of total movements). Less than 10% of those (approximately 350) are time sensitive. Air ambulance, while important, is just one leg of a patient’s overall journey. Patients must be stabilized on the scene and taken to an airport via ground ambulance, loaded on a fixed wing air ambulance, flown to Edmonton, and then loaded onto another ground ambulance to be taken to a hospital.
STARS Air Ambulance is one of the more well-known users of ECCA. Its helicopter fleet transports time sensitive/trauma patients directly to hospital, most often to the University of Alberta hospital. STARS, Alberta Health Services, Alberta Health & Wellness, and Edmonton Airports have discussed the concept of an integrated air ambulance facility at EIA, which could create efficiencies and ultimately improve patient care.
With the phased closure of ECCA set to begin next week, Edmonton Airports has been working with tenants (such as the Government of Alberta) to help prepare for the closure of runway 16/34. That includes ensuring that all tenants have access to runway 12/30, and exploring options for moving to either EIA or Villeneuve.
The City of Edmonton has launched an international competition seeking firms interested in redeveloping the ECCA lands. A total of 33 responses to the request for potential bidders were received. The City is working to short list the group to 5 by August 6. That group will have until the end of the year to develop their proposals.
Thanks to Traci and Edmonton Airports for the tour. You can see the rest of my photos here. You can read fellow blogger John Winslow’s post here. Stay tuned to #ecca on Twitter for updates on this ongoing issue. You get more information about ECCA from Edmonton Airports.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Aug 2, 2010, 1:34 PM
CONative's Avatar
CONative CONative is offline
Mile High Guy
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Policy Wonk View Post
Yes, and I love what they have done with the place - but most people here would call it suburban hell. And even better, if you visit their sales website, atleast recently there are loving profiles of families who just achieved their first single family home with a two car garage. Lots of emphasis on the garage. There was even an article in the Denver Post about how people were buying their first single family homes in Stapleton.

I am completely cool with all of that, just don't sell it as a successful new urbanism project. And given the tenor of the initial development are you really going to hold your breath on Forest City coming through with the rest?
It's not up to Forest City. The city and the community has to approve any changes to the plan. We (the community/city) spent years on the plan before we even hired Forest City, so Forest City hasn't been allowed to sway (except for very minor changes). Everyone has/is committed to the walkable/sustainable/dense plan, but we're not done...we still have a ways to go to fill in.

...and the single family subject is only one portion of the type of living. You make it sound like everyone at Stapleton wants to and lives in single family. The fastest selling homes in Stapleton right now are multi-family. The latest approved projects are all multi-family.

Sorry, but it is still a new-urban development. New-urban does not mean no single family.
__________________
-D-
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Edmonton
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:20 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.