"This is a city where people make things happen."

Smarter Planning

Read some of Don's previous blog posts on this topic:


Mayor’s 2013 State of the City Address posted April 4th, 2013 in 2010-2013 Term, Capital Region, Education & Innovation, Smarter Planning

Mayor Mandel never fails to get the City’s attention with his annual State of the City address. This one was noteworthy as much for what wasn’t said as what was.

The most complex issue the Mayor raised was regional planning and equity. Elise Stolte from the Journal wrote a blog post which includes the text of the regional section.

I’ve been working with the region on one of the few files that’s made some genuine progress, which is regional transit. I brokered a consensus to jointly purchase a smart card system for handling fares, including sharing the cost with St. Albert and Strathcona County – just working on the paperwork now. And we’re midway through a project looking at whether delivering transit in the region would be more effective and efficient if united together in a regional services commission. It took two years to get to this point, but as Chair of the Regional Transit Committee I’ve been proud to show that diplomacy and cooperation can work in the region. It’s the kind of thing that we couldn’t have imagined when Mayor Mandel first made the call for a formal Capital Region in his 2007 State-of-the-City speech.

That said, I support the Mayor’s call for the province to take renewed interest in strengthening the region’s framework for cooperation, planning for growth, clearer prioritization of regional infrastructure and a way to achieve fair sharing of the costs and benefits of growth. He made the case that Edmonton is disadvantaged, and I think he’s right – for example, in the counties the major roads and interchanges are built and maintained by the province – in Edmonton developers and the City pay for this infrastructure. Examples like this go on, from inequitable policing grants to shouldering disproportionate burdens like homelessness. The City Charter work with the province is supposed to address some of these special circumstances, and Tuesday’s speech should create new urgency for the province to show results on the City Charter. Diplomacy will be required to deliver results in the long run.

Unexpectedly, the Mayor blasted the province for cuts to Post-Secondary Education, a key sector of Edmonton’s economy. I’ve long argued that the quality of learning and research happening here is an under-emphasized key competitive advantage for our city. It was wonderful to hear him speak so eloquently about our schools’ importance to creativity and human advancement, as well as the economic importance of research and technology commercialization. I too am very concerned about what these deep cuts could mean for Edmonton – and for our whole province. The ideas and solutions developed at our Post Secondaries are key to sustaining our progress as a city. They support improved resource development, spur investment and guide us in addressing social issues, just to name a few. His advocacy was consistent with the work I’ve spearheaded with our Post Secondaries, School Boards, EPL and others toward positioning Edmonton as a “City of Learners”. It was great to see learning and discovery emphasized with the full force of the Mayor’s influence.

As for the deferral of the mayor’s announcement of his intentions for this fall, it’s a shrewd move. It will put a lid on succession jockeying for a while, which is probably a good thing as Council works through arena details, budget revisions and government relations strategy over the coming weeks. Plus, standing for public office is a big decision for anyone, and so I respect that the mayor may need some more time to decide.

As for my own decision making, since I got asked a lot about it this week: yes, I continue to give strong consideration to running for mayor. I have already decided I won’t run for my Ward 10 Council seat again, and that stands. I have also said I won’t run against the mayor if he runs again. There are many factors in play, so this delay provides some more time to weigh them all carefully.

Horse Hills North East ASP Decision posted February 28th, 2013 in 2010-2013 Term, Capital Region, Smarter Planning

On Wednesday Council decided to approve 40 years of new supply of predominantly low-density residential development in the Horse Hills area in North East Edmonton. The reports and bylaw can be accessed here.

Horse Hills ASP Map. Click to enlarge.

It was inevitable. It was more than 30 years in the making. And yes, it’s fair to help landowners on all sides of the issue know what’s planned.

It’s true that land supply is becoming scarce in that quadrant of the city and though estimates vary, there are fewer than 5-10 years of existing supply. It is prudent to bring on more supply, especially given the job growth expected nearby in the Edmonton Energy and Technology Park, which will create new demand.

Meanwhile, demand is still strong for suburban low-density housing. And why not? The land is cheaper and the infrastructure and structures are new. With my 59-year-old fixer-upper house and crumbling uneven sidewalks, even I can see the appeal. And yes, many of the new and existing jobs are closer to these proposed neighbourhoods. So, no doubt, there is a market for the proposed housing.

I can’t deny that those are today’s economic realities for urban development. Given today’s realities, much of this plan makes sense. In fact, it has some really promising possibilities for integrating small-scale community food production, innovative ‘low-impact’ servicing and the potential for a proper town centre, hopefully linked with LRT.

For the first time, we did get some high level information about the costs to the City of supporting this growth (Mack Male’s offered some highlights of the report here). I think it was probably low on costs and high on the revenue forecast. Nevertheless, it showed what is the case for each of our low-density neighbourhoods, including mine, which is that we collect less in revenues than we face in costs. This isn’t particular to Edmonton – it is like this in most Alberta communities. We offset this either by subsidy from the non-residential tax base, other general revenues like the EPCOR dividend, or by delaying investments in infrastructure construction or repair.

It follows that denser communities make more efficient use of infrastructure, and therefore are more cost efficient. And we’ve made gains – these neighbourhoods are much denser than older Edmonton neighbourhoods, again, including mine. But the City is talking about adding density in my neighbourhood, which I agree with, and on the airport lands and other sites, and one of the strongest arguments is that it makes for a more efficient and affordable city.

On the food and agriculture question, while I am sympathetic in principle to the calls for preserving agricultural lands, the economics don’t support it unless you have a willing landowner, ready to forego the potential gains of development. Some advocates were calling for a large swath of land to be permanently protected; however, for the City to impose this or negotiate this would have meant compensation in the tens or hundreds of millions to landowners intent on development – so that was a non-starter. I still do think there is opportunity to look at long-term agricultural land preservation, and building a local food economy – but this should be in a regional context, where the lands are still affordable and the economics stands a chance. I encourage food security advocates to not lose heart, and to consider rallying around this as a regional issue.

But the remaining agricultural and market garden land owners who wanted to continue to operate their businesses have been significantly impeded by this plan. I had initially hoped this ASP would cerate some exciting opportunities to work with the cluster along 197 Avenue near the river to plan a neighbourhood and that integrated them. And even though there was significant public support for their protection and sustainability, the plan doesn’t protect them. At best it tolerates them. And because of the conceptual provincial road alignment, their long-term future is in doubt.

I could have supported the southern half of this (neighbourhoods 1-3), because that’s today’s housing market reality. We are only at the beginning of offering more city-wide choice in our housing market. There is work ahead to encourage a supply of more jobs in the core to support infill housing demand. And while the LRT network to support better mobility is growing, it is moving slowly.

But this is not only today’s decision; this is at least a 40-year decision (and beyond as we service and repair approved areas). Thinking ahead, I think we could have done better.

I think we could have found a way to better accommodate the cluster of remaining farmers, even perhaps around the provincial road. I don’t have the answer, but I’m not sure we tried hard enough to find one.

And I think that in less than forty years (if cost continue to rise, as distances grow, as demographics change, as traffic gets worse, and if tastes change as a result) that the communities we’re building then will be different from the ones approved yesterday – moderately denser, more efficient, more walkable, better connected to great transit, and with more mixed employment.

There is room for the plan to change and evolve over time so I have hope that as it is implemented its ambitions can rise.

Bike Lanes And The Big Picture posted February 22nd, 2013 in 2010-2013 Term, Community Consultation, Road Maintenance, Smarter Planning

[Update - March 7, 2013: The report scheduled for discussion on March 13th has been posted here including some very interesting fall 2012 survey data here in Attachment 2 pf the report showing that more than half of Edmontonians already cycle, and that many would ride more with better facilities, including bike lanes.]

Last week the effort to increase cycling opportunities in Edmonton hit some bumps.

First, a consultation session designed to share information and get feedback about routes planned for implementation this season degenerated into a shouting match, which hindered the City from getting precisely the input they were there to hear. (The details of the proposed routes are here.)

The next morning the Mayor added fuel to the fire with a sharply worded inquiry that garnered a lot of media attention at the Transportation committee (you can watch the comments here by clicking on item 2.1 and waiting about 30 seconds).

The route network from the Bicycle Transportation Plan - major routes shown in blue, connector routes shown in green. Click to zoom in.

The inquiry will result in a report for discussion at the March 13th Transportation Committee. I won’t be at all surprised at that point if the whole program is put on hiatus for ‘study’, rather than having a real debate about whether Council actually supports making some tough decisions to enhance transportation choice. (Some of the city-building benefits making these tough choices are well articulated in this blog post from Executive Director of the Edmonton Bicycle Commuters’ Society.)

One of the more constructive suggestions I heard last week was from Paula Simons, which was to focus our efforts on high quality cycling facilities in the core (such as Downtown and Oliver, Strathcona and University areas).

This makes sense. I’d like to see those routes prioritized too. That’s where existing demand is highest, and where the greatest short-term potential is to attract new riders.

However, the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan still calls for a citywide network of bike lanes to provide enhanced choices for all Edmontonians, and better facilities for those who already choose to ride.

Council has an overall vision and numerous policies and plans that explicitly champion more transportation choices for citizens.

More travel options are crucial to dealing with worsening traffic congestion. Those options can also lead to a healthier city, cleaner air, and savings for individuals and the City.

Yes, most Edmontonians drive, but if we aren’t willing to endure some changes to make way for new choices, then traffic congestion will only get worse. That’s the real inconvenience to everyone, including present and future drivers. That’s the big picture.

Getting into the details, some people wonder why certain roads have been selected as cycling routes, but there is logic to it in the plan. The routes generally have two characteristics: 1) they are through roads, and 2) they are less busy. 106 Street instead of 109 Street, for example. People have suggested the city use local roads, and where they run through this makes great sense (like 83 Avenue between Mill Creek and 112 Street).

In any case, I don’t think the routes are the real issue.

The fact is there is simply no way to make space for bike lanes without making some changes to the roads they would share – and the same tensions that have come up (mainly around lost parking) will come up anywhere. This happens in every city that has tried to make this shift.

More engagement with residents and businesses is good; the City can always learn from the public when making changes to an area. I know the implementation of bike lanes in my ward benefitted from local knowledge – in many cases protecting parking for schools, businesses and churches based on feedback.

But I don’t think this is really about consultation either.

To me, this is about comfort zone: is Council willing to work through the discomforts of change to deliver on the vision for more transportation choice in our city?

All I know is that people are surprisingly resilient to change. They clear out their garages. They park around the corner. Sometimes they even chose to walk or bike more. If we move ahead it will work out; after all, the sky hasn’t fallen anywhere in my ward where the lanes have already gone in.

Round One of Arena Talks Over; Round Two Begins posted October 22nd, 2012 in 2010-2013 Term, Arena, Smarter Planning, Taxation

The idea of a new arena downtown is not dead, but round one of negotiations is now over. Round two can now begin in earnest and from my study of American arena deals in mid-size cities it takes at least two rounds to find a deal everyone can live with.

I think this is actually a good step in the process. We were too far apart on some key money issues. As a City we were not understanding the Katz Group’s position with respect to the economics of the building and team and the request for additional public subsidy. And I don’t think the Katz Group had an understanding of the difficulty we would have persuading our public to put additional funding into the deal.

So what does Round Two look like? It starts with the motion Council approved last week to look at other options.

The October 17 motion adopted unanimously (yup, unanimously) by Council.

One of those options could be to update the numbers for renovating Rexall Place to see if that’s improved, however there are some fundamental structural limitations and logistical challenges to that renovation, which is why I now believe a new building would be preferable. If the choice is to build a new building, I have always been open to the idea of doing so downtown.

My issue with the previous deal was the allocation of cost, risk and benefit, which you can trace here.

The real question is whether we can still partner with the Katz Group to build jointly or whether the building should instead be built by the City with the Oilers as a tenant. This carries some more risk in the long term as far as keeping the team in Edmonton, but it also allows some opportunity to shift some of the design objectives toward better value and better integration downtown: that is, a better arena for less.

On the matter of waiting for the Katz Group to build it privately, I do think there is probably a case to be made (though they have not made it to my satisfaction) that our market is not rich enough to make a private arena pay for itself.

Come what may, I believe Council genuinely wants to ensure we have an NHL franchise here for the long haul. Just not at any cost.

Patio Report Clears The Way posted September 27th, 2012 in 2010-2013 Term, Smarter Planning

An example from the report of an expanded sidewalk cafe from Calgary made possible by a removable boardwalk occupying the parking pace.

I think we’re almost ready to be a big city. However, one of the things we still need to get right is patios: increasing opportunities to operate them, streamlining the rules for them, and working with the province to open up still more opportunities.

Today a report (and supplemental attachments) was released in answer to an inquiry initiated some months ago by Cllrs. Henderson, Diotte and me. The inquiry asked a number of questions aimed at identifying barriers (a bad thing) to patio proliferation (presumably a good thing).

The report outlines best practices in large Canadian cities and make several recommendations that will help – the only question is how quickly we can implement the changes. I will be pushing for next season. Some of the work needs help from the province around some (in my view) overly conservative liquor control measures.

The report will be discussed at the October 10th Executive Committee meeting if folks are interested in watching or presenting to the committee.