HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2014, 2:45 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is online now
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,664
QC funicular was a fun little experience, but after seeing how many tourists QC has to justify this, I am still not convinced it would be worthwhile here.


(http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x...ps24d9325b.jpg)
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2014, 5:47 PM
itom 987's Avatar
itom 987 itom 987 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,046
Kids would love to have a funicular beside a toboggan hill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2014, 6:52 PM
Airboy Airboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Edmonton/St Albert
Posts: 9,155
__________________
Why complain about the weather? Its always going to be here. You on the other hand will not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 3:05 AM
Hallsy's Toupee's Avatar
Hallsy's Toupee Hallsy's Toupee is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,774
Canal key to Rossdale redevelopment, proponent says
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...930/story.html

Quote:
EDMONTON - The city should appoint a non-profit board of business leaders to come up with a plan for the long-stalled Rossdale redevelopment, lawyer Sol Rolingher says.

Although city councillors approved a 2011 plan to add almost 2,000 housing units, stores, tree-lined boulevards, wider sidewalks and public space to the river valley community, nothing has happened.

Rolingher, former chairman of the River Valley Alliance, told council’s executive committee Tuesday his volunteer team would find a way to make the project work.

They include former Melcor chief executive Ralph Young, Qualico’s Shane Erickson and Stantec vice-president Keith Shillington.

The key to success is building a two-stage, 2.2-kilometre canal on city-owned property near Telus Field, which will easily double land values and help pay for development, Rohlingher said.

Rolingher, who has been working on the canal scheme for years, hopes to see 1,800 housing units constructed around a metre-deep canal lined with shops and restaurants.

“To me it’s about doing the right thing and making this a better place to live.”

But Coun. Ben Henderson questioned how the canal, expected to cost $36 million, would assist a development already delayed by the need for money to build roads and other amenities.

He’s concerned this could require more density, which might not be supported by residents and other groups.

“I don’t understand how adding another $60 million to that bill helps with the problem.”
Staples: Council needs to take serious look at canal
Canal projects have worked in other cities. Why not here?

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...950/story.html

Quote:
Many scoffed when Rolingher first put forward the idea of a canal, but man-made lakes often drive up prices in suburban developments, while man-made canals have worked in spectacular fashion in cities like San Antonio, Tex., and Oklahoma City.

In OKC, the price of land went up fourfold in a decade around its man-made canal, Rolingher told council.

One thing in Rolingher’s favour is the business, design and real estate expertise of his group. Another is Rolingher’s success with the River Valley Alliance, a not-for-profit group that pulled together $110 million in public money to build bridges, trails and other amenities in the river valley.

“We did it then,” Rolingher says of his work with the alliance. “We’ll do it now.”

“I don’t see a downside with turning this group loose, saying, ‘Go out. Prove this can be done,’” Erickson told council. “I see very little risk with proceeding with it.”

As a property developer, Erickson has always had his eye on Rossdale, but never saw a business plan that made sense. He was intrigued by Rolingher’s suggestion of a canal, though, enough that he went down to OKC to study their canal project 14 months ago.

“Up until I went and saw it in action, to me it was just a flighty idea. It wasn’t based in reality. And then I saw what somebody else has done. It is quite simple. It does add a great amenity. And if you add all of the potential in Rossdale, it’s spectacular. We can really change that area into quite a gem.”

Stantec engineering has confirmed that the canal can be done on a palatable budget, Erickson says.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 4:18 AM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is online now
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,664
No canal, amazing redevelopment potential, once again we show our immaturity.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 4:28 AM
Xelebes's Avatar
Xelebes Xelebes is offline
Sawmill Billowtoker
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Rockin' in Edmonton
Posts: 13,829
A canal would work between North Saskatchewan and Athabasca Rivers if we had it. But since we don't and therefore we have no canals in the region, it makes zero sense to add a token canal in Rossdale. So yeah, agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 5:57 AM
itom 987's Avatar
itom 987 itom 987 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,046
I would prefer a waterfall going down into the river valley over a canal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 6:30 AM
Hallsy's Toupee's Avatar
Hallsy's Toupee Hallsy's Toupee is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,774
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 6:34 AM
Hallsy's Toupee's Avatar
Hallsy's Toupee Hallsy's Toupee is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,774
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 2:49 PM
SHOFEAR's Avatar
SHOFEAR SHOFEAR is offline
DRINK
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: City Of Champions
Posts: 8,219
I still love the canal idea.
__________________
Lana. Lana. Lana? LANA! Danger Zone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 3:49 PM
edmontonoilers89's Avatar
edmontonoilers89 edmontonoilers89 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Calgary/Edmonton
Posts: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
No canal, amazing redevelopment potential, once again we show our immaturity.
I still don't see why you think it's such a bad idea. Other cities have made a canal a draw (OKC, San Antonio, etc.).

I completely agree that the redevelopment potential is there even without a canal, but when you consider that this area has sat as a mish-mash of nothingness with no sign of improvement (even since the initial 2004 grand plan was announced), maybe it's time to re-think the strategy. Sounds like there are some well connected and senior executives willing to dedicate their own time to make this plan a reality.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 4:48 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is online now
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,664
^there are many other reasons for that... City owns much of the last in West Rossdale. The West Rossdale plan (http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...sign-plan.aspx) while complete is being amended somewhat for road realignment which just finished public input workshops.

No to the funicular
No to the canal
Keep the ball diamond
Get Rossdale powerplant going
Parcel off land and get the west rossdale plan underway

It is such a unique opportunity to develop as is... a canal is superfluous, expensive, disruptive and unnecessary. If anything, do a canal at Blatchford where there is little in terms of natural amenity or interest.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 5:12 PM
Daveography's Avatar
Daveography Daveography is offline
Klatuu Barada Nikto
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Island of Misfit Architecture
Posts: 4,486
^ I'm a bit torn on it myself. The idea of a canal is fun, but at times it seems we still get way too fixated on big, flashy, and often expensive projects while we still seem to struggle with the little things that make for desirable and livable communities and neighbourhoods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 5:22 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is online now
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,664
Blatchford had one early on, Deleted.

Having skated and loved the Rideau canal many times growing up, I love the idea, but very much an unneeded expense.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 5:38 PM
rapid_business's Avatar
rapid_business rapid_business is offline
Urban Advocate
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,888
Blatchford also had a recreational lake at one time too. Now it is nothing more than a glorified stormwater facility that won't have active uses allowed on it.
__________________
Cities are the most extraordinary human creation. They are this phenomenon which has unbelievable capacity to solve problems, to innovate, to invent, to create prosperity, to make change and continually reform. - Ken Greenburg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 5:48 PM
sdimedru sdimedru is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 743
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapid_business View Post
Blatchford also had a recreational lake at one time too. Now it is nothing more than a glorified stormwater facility that won't have active uses allowed on it.
so sad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 8:38 PM
Hallsy's Toupee's Avatar
Hallsy's Toupee Hallsy's Toupee is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,774
Eliminating the lake and canal at Blatchford is a good reason why this should be done at Rossdale. Personally I really don't see the point in simply building yet another boring pseudo-Yaletown condo farm that will compete with Quarters, Oliver and downtown proper when there's nothing unique that would attract investment.

Moreover, it's really no fun having a river that many people can't use. Can't swim in it, can't sail on it, can't skate on it, can't have a beach on it. A canal would overcome those issues. Indeed, that's another reason why I wanted that lake in Blatchford that could facilitate these.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 8:41 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is online now
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,664
Leave the money for Rossdale powerplant and area redevelopment along with a riverwalk, don't introduce another new complex addition.

The powerplant has no funding and is more important than any canal.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 8:48 PM
Hallsy's Toupee's Avatar
Hallsy's Toupee Hallsy's Toupee is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,774
If I read the news correctly, they want to privately fund the entire Rossdale development including the canal, am I right? If so, no reason why the power plant can't also be included in that private funding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2015, 9:02 PM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is online now
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,664
Opportunity cost (waits for it) of resources. Do Rossdale powerplant right, drop the canal idea and ensure that the river 'walk' is excellent.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
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 4:34 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.