Edmonton downtown airport redevelopment -- lotsa green, parks and lakes

[Darren Dirt]

So it's official, the city has picked a "winner" for the Municipal Airport redevelopment


http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/planning_development/edmonton-city-centre-airport-land-redevelopment.aspx

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Beautiful+beginning+Muni+land/4991894/story.html

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2011/06/22/city-selects-vancouver-based-architect



Their vision calls for the development of only 50 per cent of the land for multi-family dwellings. The remainder will be devoted to green space, including a meandering 72-hectare urban lake and park that could be characterized as a clone of the North Saskatchewan River valley. The park features a natural amphitheatre that would require the formation of a massive hill on the northwest corner of the airport land.

[Mr. Analog]

I knew it, right from the start I knew that it would be all high-density housing.

Check out Board 8:
http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/planning_development/perkins-and-will.aspx

30 years from now this will be Edmonton's version of Roosevelt Island

[Darren Dirt]

but ... lotsa parkland!

"Bird Habitat" and "Shakespeare In The Park" ftw!



also, pretty drawrings! http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PerkinsandWillECCAPresentationPanel6.pdf



sertiously though, this map kinda is inspiring: http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PerkinsandWillECCAPresentationPanel2.pdf

forget Roosevelt Island, this might be more like Central Park Edmonton!

[Mr. Analog]

I'm struggling to see the park areas on these maps (maybe its colour coded or something and I can't see it), but to me it seems more like mall shrubbery than actual parkland. When I hear "park area" I think of Hermitage Park or Rundle Park

Oh now I see it, that triangle slice...

Still not impressed. I think what bothers me is the fact that they're taking all that great land and putting nothing but high-density housing there. As time wears down less centrally planned neighbourhoods can evolve parts without much cost, big projects like this are going to rot (take a look at the older residential apartment blocks we already have and how well they've "aged")

Just my .02

[Thorin]

I knew it, right from the start I knew that it would be all high-density housing.

Check out Board 8:
http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/planning_development/perkins-and-will.aspx

30 years from now this will be Edmonton's version of Roosevelt Island

I looked at Board 1, and found an interesting quote:

Imagine a landmark park, a new jewel in the city?s green network, woven into the neighbourhoods that embrace it

So I looked at the little maps along the top of Board 1...  Well, the park certainly isn't woven into the neighbourhoods, it sits distinctly beside them.  There'll be hardly any grass or trees where people actually live - instead it'll be all concrete with some glass.  Sure, the park's only a few blocks away, but I betcha that park's gonna get run down with as many people living next to it as they're trying to cram in there.

Okay, well, there'll be that lovely "meandering" lake.  With one completely arrow-straight side.  Not what I would call meandering.  Now have a look at the street network map - there's roads crossing over that lake!  Seriously, roads over the lake?  So much for peaceful nature.  The best parts of the river valley are where there are no roads nearby.

Next up I found Board 2, which shows some interesting things:
- 121 street's intersection with Princess Elizabeth Ave has to change for this plan;
- all the existing commercial tenants in the northeast (for instance, Telus and the City of Edmonton) have to be kicked out for this plan;
- fake "ravines" are going to be created on the east side of the plan, with water coming from the lake (this is flat land, so the ravines will have to be dug by hand);
- they want to put a wastewater treatment plant right next to housing (don't they know @%&# stinks?);
- their plan even includes changes to adjoining properties not part of the airport land, because, you know, you should get to change someone else's property because you want to

Colour me unimpressed.  I'm willing to bet that when construction starts and people start seeing the cost of buying there, they'll vote with their wallets and uptake will be a lot slower than expected.  Pie-in-the-sky planning is fine and dandy, but you have to make it affordable and mix it up, not set it up to become The Projects.

[Darren Dirt]

I'm struggling to see the park areas on these maps (maybe its colour coded or something and I can't see it), but to me it seems more like mall shrubbery than actual parkland. When I hear "park area" I think of Hermitage Park or Rundle Park

Oh now I see it, that triangle slice...

That triangle slice seems to be more water area than Lake Beaumaris, or Lake Summerside. Which are both pretty huge.

Not to mention the grass/marshland around it.

But if the homes end up being under-utilized and the nature lands are not maintained then yeah it's gonna be a whole new Inner City. Hope it won't be though, obv.

[Mr. Analog]

Was writing a similar response and you beat me to it Thorin!

Again, my reference to Roosevelt Island stands, in the 70s it was supposed to be an urban utopia but very quickly went downhill and has gone through several revitalization projects (at City and State expense I might add), I will be surprised if more than 2/3 of this actually ever gets built. The rest of the property will likely get auctioned off and turn into more sprawl like the West End.

How about they turn the whole area into parkland and revitalize the depressed real estate all around it? Oh wait, that'd cost lots more money for the developer.