City Centre Airport: Leaning Toward Closure
I’ve worked to keep an open mind about this question since it was reopened after the election. I’ve said until last week that I was still waiting for both sides to make their best arguments, as I didn’t think we had heard them yet. Having heard again from the public and city staff, I’m prepared to say that I’m leaning strongly toward closure.
I’ll admit that the city report from last year painted a pretty rosy forecast for what repurposing the land could mean for the city, and in retrospect folks were right to call it exaggerated. I think this year’s analysis conducted by city administration and consultants is much more realistic (thanks to Mastermaq for compiling all the reports in one place). There are no certainties with land development, but the assumptions and the reasoning appear appropriately conservative after my thorough review. So the argument for the redevelopment scenario has improved from last year. (Edmonton Regional Airport Authority has added some background papers as well here.)
Some of the advocates for saving the airport, including the Alberta Enterprise Group (AEG), raised some fair questions about the analysis, but nothing damning. AEG also retained ASCEND Aviation Consultants to build an ‘Economic Potential’ case for the Muni. They have also argued based on a 2005 study that the airport enables province-wide economic activity of:
- 2,300 jobs (nearly 2,200 person years of employment);
- $164 million in GDP; $388 million in economic output; and
- $99 million in wages.
AEG implies that this economic activity is only possible because of the airport. There is a logical error here since the airport is not a necessary condition for all of this activity, only a portion of it (like aircraft refueling). The airport is merely an enabler for the rest. I questioned AEG representatives about this and they admitted that they didn’t know what the impact of closure would be on the local economy, only that it would affect some of this business, and that the rest would just move around to other airports in the region as people shifted their activity. I would argue that most of this business would still happen, it would just happen differently.
Where Airport Advocates are divided is the question of whether the status quo is working. Most air industry speakers argued that the status quo is untenable. Leisure flyers can live with it as is, but still felt that the airport is slowly dying under the restrictions placed upon it.
Many want the 10 passenger cap for scheduled service raised to 19, restoration of cargo service, easing hanger development restrictions, and resuming customs services for international charters. Lifting these restrictions would be needed for the airport to begin to meet its theoretical potential. They argue philosophically for competition between the airports, forgetting that this is not a true market — it’s a regulated one where the field is among other cities’ international airports, not individual airports within our region.
The Airport Authority takes the position that they’re operating the airport according to the lease with the city, which takes direction from the 1995 referendum on consolidation of scheduled service at the International (or the Leduc Airport, as many Muni advocates refer to it). Some Muni advocates think it’s time to revisit the question of consolidation of scheduled service. Short of a petition with 75,000 signatures on it forcing a plebiscite I don’t see how this is ever going to happen (and I’m fairly certain the consolidation regimen would prevail).
So follow my logic: if the status quo is untenable for all but the jet set, and if expanding scheduled service is not going to happen, that really only leaves one option: closure. This of course should be subject to a number of further conditions about improving access to other airports (Instrument Landing System at Villeneuve for flight training and as an all-weather Medevac alternate for one, express transit connection from South LRT to the International for another).
Will using Villeneuve or the International be less convenient for charter flyers, private pilots and scheduled air users, who use the Muni now? For some, undoubtedly yes. Will all of them take their business elsewhere? It is a risk that some may, however we may reasonably assume that the many reasons why people do business with Edmonton or from Edmonton are strong enough for most to continue to do so.
Incidentally, Villeneuve is only 6 mins further from our Downtown than Springbank general aviation airport is from Calgary’s Downtown.
So what of Medevac? Surely this has been the most sensational issue in the debate. However, I believe from what we’ve heard that Medevac can eventually be accommodated at other airports in the region with no time delay for those who are time critical. First, though, I believe we need written assurance from the Minister of Health that they will make the necessary investments in helicopters, landing pad upgrades, traffic signal priority systems, etc. The issues here are financial, logistical and jurisdictional — and all are Provincial.
In sum, I believe the risks to Medevac patient outcomes and business relationships from eventual closure are low. Intensification of the airport land into a transit-oriented green community for tens of thousands, the end of the height-limiting Airport Protection Overlay over Downtown, plus the unique opportunity to facilitate NAIT expansion combine into a strong case for seizing a once-in-a-generation opportunity for city building.
If there’s one thing everyone agrees on, the historical city-building significance of the site and its heroes ought to be recognized and celebrated.
Council will debate the matter, and may make some decisions on the 8th of July.
Thank you Don, for that insightful post. I hope the rest of your fellow council members (or at least the majority of them) will also lean towards closing ECCA and putting to rest this debate once and for all.
Excellent look at all the aspects of the arguments for/against the Edmonton City Center Airport.
When you look at the actual facts without bias, and add it all up, closing the airport is the most logical choice.
Looking forward to a majority vote for closure on July 8th.
I will admit that there are circumstances upon which I would be in favour of closing CCA. Having said that, I see none of those circumstances existing at present.
Our downtown is presently flooded with countless empty lots, most of which being used as parking lots. Why on Earth would you want to dump another 600 acres of land onto a downtown that is still decades away from being fully developed? If we had a downtown with a ‘London’ or even ‘Calgary’ density, I could understand your arguement. I’ll remind you also that the Stationlands tower was not shortened because of CCA flight restrictions. Let’s face it, Stationlands had top wait 10 years to find tenants. When they found them, they didn’t need the space….ultimate height. That’s why the tower was lowered.
Let’s look at other significant housing developments in the city. Century park has still not even started developing their central, tall condo towers. How long has this project been in the making? Canada Lands is expecting it to take 25 years to develop the Griesbach lands. The Quarters still has not attracted a developer.
I find it odd, even bizarre, that you and your friends want to shut this airport with no guarantees of anything. Has any developer offered a concrete proposal backed up with cash? Has the GOA offered up any money, much less the $1-$2 billion it will take to double the size of NAIT? Has any developer offered to build a super-tall tower downtown if the airport is closed? Has the GOA offered cash to take the LRT through CCA and out to St. Albert?
I fully understand what you want to happen with this land, but who exactly are you expecting to pay for it? I can’t help but think you are expecting magical fairies to pop and build all this stuff.
Finally, and most disturbingly, the pro-closure forces gravitate towards the epithets: ‘rich elites’, ‘arrogant business people’, ‘those that do not care for Edmonton’. The last time we had councillors and mayors that gave voice to these people, we drove countless businesses to Calgary. You are about to help them do it again.
I’d really appreciate it if you would make the slightest effort to respond to my questions…or am I just a rich elite spreading misinformation?
I don’t know you dave jolly an I don’t know if you are “a rich elite” or not but, in some respects yes, you are spreading misinformation…
Councillor Iveson certainly doesn’t need me to respond for him but you raised a number of points using some examples that I have some direct involvement in and your conclusions and statements surrounding them are wrong.
You are correct in stating that the EPCOR Tower was not shortened because of the CCA restrictions but it is more correct to note that it was not taller because of those same restrictions. Without them it could well have been at least a third taller with smaller floor plates (say 15,000 sf and not 25,000) and the same area but that’s not the real issue because at the end of the day both we and our tenants are happy with what is being built. What is the real issue is that it is our short, dumpy buildings that would be certainly be taller without those restrictions, not necessarily our tall buildings getting taller. On the StationLands site you referred to alone, there are two of those short dumpy buildings at the east end of the site that would be at least twice as tall without those restrictions as they can be with them. As I’m sure you know – or should based on your post – those two buildings are restricted to about half the height of EPCCOR Tower by those same regulations.
When you talk about “countless empty lots downtown”, the economics behind their development is not contingent upon the city centre airport but has certainly been negatively affected by it. The same thing could be said about the Quarters and perhaps even more – if Jasper East had not had to live directly under an airport flight path for the past 45 years, perhaps it would have been an attractive enough place to attract some of the development that occured in our suburbs instead. Perhaps Canada Place would have been two slender towers instead of a huge box that closed 101 Avenue and that whole piece of our arts and entertainment district would have stayed much more walkable as a result. Perhaps 7th Street Plaza and Petroleum Plaza would have been single tall buildings and not split into two and the west end of our core would have kept better view corridors than it has now…
You ask if any developer has offered cash for the city centre airport. Perhaps I could ask you if you have received any offers for your house lately? Because the answer – and the reason – may well be the same. Perhaps the reason is because it is not yet “for sale”, not because it has no value.
As for driving people to Calgary, there certainly was – and still is – some of that, the latest being North American Energy Partners. What isn’t noted when you say that is that the city centre airport didn’t keep a single one of them here. If you wanted, you could probably make a case that it fueled their leaving instead, an exodus many of us would like to see stopped.
Thanks Don, I think you’ve nailed it. The case for maintaining the status quo at ECCA simply has not factually been made. Remove the appeals to emotion and there isn’t much left.
In regards other posts, not to re-start the debate, but empty lots downtown where a building or two buildings might go is a far cry from 500+ hectares which can be planned as entire communities.
You carefully evade some important questions Ken. How long did it take you to find tenants for your FIRST Stationlands tower???…minimum 8 years…probably 10. I’ll also point out it is the first commercial tower to be built in Edmonton in 20 years.
The airport didn’t kill downtown, Ken. Do you remember the 80’s. Do you remember Jan Reimer and company refusing tax concessions and incentives to countless companies? Do you remember Calgary offering them hand over fist? Do you remember city council approving anything Triple 5 wanted with respect to West Edmonton Mall? That’s what killed downtown. It was poor corporate management on the city’s part.
I would suggest to you that if companies are leaving Edmonton, it’s because of a socialist movement to have us all living in high density communes. It’s because of a socialist movement to make public transit usefull only to those who submit to living in central, high-density TOD’s. If you have the audacity to live in the low-density burbs, be damned as far as transit goes.
I can guarantee you that if council closes the Muni, which would also be at the behest of the EAA, I will make a point of renting a Hummer, and drive to Calgary to make my flights.
Just one more quick analogy for you. No building in Ottawa can be built higher than the Peace Tower. So, obviously, the Peace Tower is holding Ottawa back…right? Let’s face it, the East, West and Centre block are old and have had their day in the sun. Let’s tear them down, build a small museum in remembrance, and develop salmon-colored stucco palaces on the Rideau. It’s the way of the future, don’t ya know.
Well Dave, if you insist upon being juvenille and petty, by all means, rent a Hummer, drive to Calgary (what does renting a Hummer have to do with anything?). How is that worse than you catching a flight at the Muni and transfering in Calgary?
The Hummer comment is my payback to the poorly versed eco-martyrs who are behind this movement. I, unlike them, have been part of a team that has really has done good things for our environment. (See the numbers: http://tiny.cc/weTgo).
I’ll have you know I voted for, and fully supported consolidation at the Intl. Most people might have thought that was the end of it. However, the Muni has become the scapegoat for everything. You would have us believe it’s closure is a panacea of civic redemption.
The closure movement might seem sane if someone had the first clue what was going to happen next, and who was going to pay for it.
Although your one more quick analogy isn’t completely accurate either Dave. Place de Ville III, Minto Metropole, and Le Parc along with a number of other buildings are all taller (if not higher) than the Peace Tower.
Whether tall buildings are good or bad may be a matter of opinion but that doesn’t change the fact that the City Centre airport deprives the City of Edmonton of the right to make that choice and the right to determine where that should or shoudn’t happen.
As for tearing anything down, I certainly haven’t called for the demolition of our parliament buildings and I haven’t neccessarily called for the demolition of the City Centre Airport either. I just don’t want it to see it continue to operate as an airport with calls to reinstate fully scheduled service (as if that could be done without replacing current historical infrastructure either from ground works to structures to navigation systems).
And for what it’s worth, my politics probably aren’t that close to Jan’s – which shouldn’t surprise many including Jan I would think – and Jan doesn’t need me to defend hers but that shouldn’t matter one iota in a discussion about airports. Besides, Jan didn’t become mayor until 1989 and her councils were no less fractious than those on which she was a councillor (alderman in those days). And the mall in actual fact probably had less negative impact on downtown than the province moving 1,500 employees out to Neil Crawford Centre and hundreds elsewhere, too many of whom have still not come back downtown.
Anyway, you know how to reach me and there are other sites probably more appropriate to continue this discussion than Councillor Iveson’s if you do want to have a discussion on airports…
Dear Don
Please consider the future of this City for my children This Airport issue has put Edmonton so far behind Calgary in attracting Travel Routes and Commerce. The issue was voted on and consolidation was the answer . I don’t know why we are looking at this again! The shameless use of the OILER analogy by one of the Ex owners was embarrassing !
I and my Children need the International for the next 40 years!The proponents are serving their own interests for a very short future.( The Medivac issue is bogus as well) PLEASE VOTE TO CLOSE and I WILL VOTE FOR YOU. PASS THIS ON TO BRIAN AS WELL.Let’s go forward.The business and travelling public is living and expanding to the south. Let’s get closer to the Airport!
New Issue – Great Cities are immediately recognized by there skyline (even Calgary) Why does this City insist on projects that keep us looking like Winnepeg , Saskatoon and Regina? Develop the Muni with some Sensational Defining Landmark !
The only pro-airport case that has merit is opening it up again to compete for scheduled traffic, but even Mr. Jolly voted for consolidation, which is the prevailing decision.
Nevertheless, these almost McCarthyist statements are good for entertainment, even if the worst ‘epithet’ I used was ‘jet set.’
One point worth responding to is the ‘there are parking lots’ i.e. there is already ample land supply for intensification in the core. The apples and oranges issue is that ownership of such lands are fragmented, and a lot of it is frozen in speculation (related to ultimate height) until there is a firm decision on the airport.
Thanks for a well-written post, Don, that gives voice to both sides of an issue and clearly explains WHY you favour the side that you do.
To Dave, I’m not sure what makes a community “socialist” by your definition. If it’s environmentally friendly, high-density, and transit accessible it’s socialist? Even when it will be built by big businesses, be filled by people who pay to be there, have room for stores that charge for their goods and services, etc? I think you might be unclear on your definition of socialism.
dave:
why should the city spend countless funds to feed transit service to small low density suburban areas with no ridership
you like to talk about business…. well explain to me how that is a profitable business model….
to put simply, if you don’t have enough people living on your block to fill a train, you shouldn’t get a train. (at least not until after all the higher density regions get the transit improved to adequate levels)
high density and transit service doesn’t scare away business. It attracts business. why do you think there are no corporate headquarters in two hills? the centre of business and commerce is the modern urban, high density, city
My vote is for closing and designing and building a proper urban community (will take time). This will show Edmonton that density can be nice and will work. Then maybe you can convince mature neighborhoods that increased density can work and make us a better city with better transit and less money spent on freeways.
Mature communities are facing a depopulation crisis. Adding more housing units seems like a logical response.
Except, in terms of units, we’ve never had more density in established parts of the city. Past attempts to “intensify” Edmonton have, unexpectedly, made the sprawl problem worse.
City Council needs to address the issue of families with young children heading for the suburbs. Zoning to build as many high-density units as possible — almost exclusively adult-living — does not respond to the problem.
Cities such as Portland, an early experimenter with Smart Choices — are changing their rules for transit-oriented development, mandating that some units must be suitable for families with children. At the same time, a new generation of young people are seeking green housing options, but Edmonton has almost no high-density housing for middle-class families.
As long as redevelopment chases families away and portends to create “adult-living” ghettos, communities that fight high-density projects occupy to moral high ground.
In every big city around the world, families live comfortably in big buildings, which include three-bedroom units, courtyard green space with playground equipment and indoor play areas. The climate in Edmonton should make that option appealing, but as long as the MDP measures the success of TOD in terms of housing units, not the number of people living on the site, it is unsurprising that redevelopment consists mainly of small suites, and that projects, such as Railtown, have rules that specifically prohibit children from living there.
I suspect that if the city worked with developers to imagine high-density projects that address the crisis in mature communities — not enough kids — there would be a lot less NIMBY opposition.
Plus, for taxpayers, we’d save hundreds of millions of dollars by using existing infrastructure at capacity instead of having to build new schools, soccer fields, community halls and the other expenses that come along with sprawl.
The Edmonton Public School Board has studied the impact of potential redevelopment of the City Centre Airport site and determined, based on the city’s planning vision, so few of the residents would be kids — less that three per cent — there would not be enough demand for even one elementary school.
Although I lean toward closure, the failure to create significant new housing for families in the vast majority of current redevelopment projects, and the fact the proposed MDP doesn’t seem to respond to the cause of sprawl, the flight of families to the suburbs, leave me feeling dispassionate about the whole Muni debate.
Couldn’t agree with you more, Christopher. I just succeeded in amending our MDP yesterday to add specific mention of including family supportive units in established neighjbourhood infill.
I’ve also been driving a modification to the Mature Neighbourhood Infill Guidelines to allow for more of a Townhouse form of intensification on corner lots (with conditions that they have private outdoor amenity space for each unit, address both the front and flanking streets, access parking from the rear, observe the height restrictions of the mature neighbourhood overlay, etc).
My motive in pushing for this townhouse format is that these units would be intended to bridge the affordability gap for families who want to live separately but can’t afford the 6000 square foot piece of land to go with it. Also, townhousing has been one of the most successful housing types in Vancouver when it comes to bringing families into the core. The number of kids on the downtown peninsula in Vancouver has doubled from 2500 to over 5000 since the mid-nineties and unlike us they’re re-opening schools.
Don,
Thanks for the positive and well reflected stand on the CCA issue. Please look to the future and vote to redevelop the land instead of being among those who wish to turn the clock back. Develop this downtown land instead of the remote suburbs that have a high overall cost. I am neither a developer nor have any interest in anyhting but a brighter future for Edmonton. And yes, I am a frequent flyer and the International Airport has served me admirably over the years but more so in the last five or so years.
Sincerely,
Gerry
I still feel that past councils made a mistake abandoning our City Center Airport to the ERAA which only had one real (and cleverly hidden) mandate: manipulate things and put up roadblocks to produce a slow death and eventual closing of the Muni, to serve the interests of the International Airport. And it looks like Councillor Iveson and others are just going give up on the CCA,kill it off like the ERAA wants, and re-develop it— for what? Tax dollars of course. More money. So more downtown-employed couples and singles can live closer to work. Or, will the new neighborhood with it’s cute historical names like Wop May Crescent be aimed at families, too? Hello spin merchants! And with no planes around, no restrictions on how high the high rises will go up. Hey, more tax dollars!
I challenge Councillor Iveson, with all his green messages on the website, to walk his talk and introduce Option Three: Use the land to build an interesting treed and landscaped park with many water features, for ALL citizens of Edmonton to enjoy. Walking and running paths, air museum, monument to air pioneers, Aeronautical Science Center for school age kids,
The city of New York did this, because it gives their concrete jungle some GREEN—-for all to enjoy. Its famous! It was the right decision. Lets do the same!
If city council really is interested in what’s best for ALL Edmontonians, and decides to close our City Center Airport, I would hope Councillor Iveson and other green-thinking Councillors would jump in lead council to develop a City Central Park, instead. Please think about it Don….
Or is this whole thing about real estate for the tax dollars—not what’s best for the environment AND all Edmontonians. I guess we’ll know the answer soon.
Mr. Iveson clearly indicates that the advantages closure far outweigh the trivial benefits.
Edmonton is a large city but not a mega city and must compete with cities of similar size.
This means that Edmonton can only support one airport, if we truly value where our taxation dollars are spent.
As with all the moribund industries that have shown themselves since the economic meltdown the muni is seen to be a financial sinkhole.
Of course, certain vested interests will be fically hurt.
That is the nature of economies, both socialist and free market capitalist, sometimes things have to be left to die.
Such is the nature of of human existence.
A very intelligent and thoughtful website by Councillor Iveson, and overall some very thoughful and insightful poitn spresented by contributors…with the exception i suppose of Mr. Jolly and his threats of driving to calgary in a rented Hummer if the CCA closes..a comment on the level of many of the arguements against closing the City centre Airport.
The issue is what is in the best long-term interetsts of the City of edmonton and its residents as a whole..not the best short-term interests and convemnience of some. It is not a question of having the CCA compete against the EIA..we need the EIA as the CCa cannot handle all of Edmonton’s air traffic. We don;t need the CCA as EIA and other airports in the vicinity can take care of all the CCA flights.
It is not a question of whether there is enough demand for commercial and residential land today…but the issue of what we want our growing city to look like 50 years from now..a massive environmental footprint spread out across hundreds of miles..or a more compact, high density, environmentally friendly, public transit oriented city.
Edmonton residents had the foresight and vision more than 10 years ago to vote soundly in favour of eliminating scheduled air traffic at the CCA. We have avoided implementing their decision for years and we finally have a Council that has the courage tyo address the issue and look at what Edmonton can become in the future and not just what it has been in the past.
Yes, the CCA served us well, but so did paddlewheel steamboats and horse-drawn carts and we eventually had to move on from them. So too do we now need to move on from the “good old days” of having an airport in the middle of our city (though when it was first built it clearly wasn’t.
Let’s make a clear decision to rid ourselves of what will eventually become a white elephant…and if Dave Jolly wants to drive to Calgary in a hummer then so be it. Part of the lobby to keep the CCA is being led by a senior Telus Executive, Tim Sipton…and we all know that Telus chose to move their HQ to vancouver desopite our having a city centre airport..now they want the convenience for those few executives that have to fly to edmonton ocassionally. Maybe Dave can give them a ride in his humnmer.
john: edmonton is not new york
Edmonton — Population: 1,034,945
new york – Population: 8,363,710
new york city’s population density of 26,403 people per square mile (10,194/km²), makes it the densest of any American municipality with a population above 100,000.[5] Manhattan’s population density is 66,940 people per square mile (25,846/km²), highest of any county in the United States.[6][7]
The population density of the city of Edmonton proper averaged 1067.2 people per square kilometre (2764/sq mi)
edmonton has more parkland per capita than new york. our river bend parks are huge.
so new york needs more green space for there people
edmonton does not
simple
if this city is going to be “greener” it needs to be denser. it needs to stop taking over farmland and turning it into suburbs. it needs to stop building highways. it needs to be less vehicle dependant (which means it needs to be denser)
Please don’t sentence all of us here on the north side to driving to Calgary for the rest of our lives. As you must know flying out of the International is no option for us. To drive 45 mins. to wait for 90 mins. for a forty min. flt. and then taxi,wait for our bags and then rent a car kills the possibility of flying. I must have driven that road 60 times in the last 14 years. Give us back small commuter flights. Save lives, cut pollution.
There are many decrepit areas in Edmonton that need to be developed before we touch the CCA. Why is the Cromdale still standing instead of being sold off to the developers now drooling over the CCA lands. It’ll be decades before they can look at that. Even NAIT admits that fact.
From your blog entry I applaud your thorough review of this issue.
The only thing that gets me is that we have this large contaminated parcel of land. The city stands to make a one-time profit from the potential sale (if anyone buys this contaminated parcel). The “talk-of-the-town” is that it can be redeveloped into residential. Do the neighbouring communities want the extra traffic? I see this becoming the next great debate.
With so many other areas of the city needing attention why have so many resources been wasted on this? Is someone really waiting to shut down the muni before being the next skyscraper?
The healthcare issue does not get answered by helicopter service. They have limited range and speed. Fixed-wing aircraft are the only ones that can effectively serve the northern part of this province. Would you call the parent of a sick or injured child a jetsetter.
The Edmonton Airport Authority have always had a hate-on attitude of the muni for some reason. They have made the muni non-economical to operate from for both cargo and passenger operators. Will we ever be a bigger Int`l airport – NO! As a past airline employee, we are considered to be off the beaten path. Vancouver-Calgary-Winnipeg-Toronto are in a straight line.. We`re out of the way for them to make us a hub bigger than Calgary.
Anyway, I needed to vent and now I have.
Did you know that the link to Google maps (springbank airport) has a loop in downtown Calgary? The actual times are
Springbank to downtown Calgary – 24 minutes
YYC general aviation terminal to downtown Calgary – 10 minutes
YEG to downtown – 37 minutes
Villeneuve to downtown – 40 minutes
Sorry, someone using the closest general aviation facility in Calgary can get to the downtown core 27 minutes faster then using the closest facility in Edmonton.
We should start saying good bye to our jobs asap.