On The Edge: Tough Decision On Quarters Tower
Today, City Council voted 7-5 to approve an 80-storey tower on the edge of the river valley, a project otherwise known as ‘the Aldritt tower.’ I voted against this project and wanted to give a summary of my Council remarks to provide context for my vote.
This is far and away the most complicated application I’ve seen come through in my time on Council. Questions of public and private realm, planning and process, catalyst and displacement all came together to make for a very difficult decision. It was a journey that exposed many limitations in our planning and decision-making processes.
The land deal for this tower created a friction between the confidential negotiation process and our desire for openness in what we do. In this case, the core issue was around securing public access to this site which we have protected through a combination of legal mechanisms in the land sale agreement. However, a community member today suggested that this entire process would have been better handled as a public RFP – which is a very fair observation for Council to bear in mind in future for public lands.
As with many of these tall tower applications that challenge our Area Redevelopment Plans (ARPs), much of our discussion was around the value of community contributions. In this case, where the affordable housing contribution is below our policy, we are left to ponder whether the other contributions to the public realm and private park space are sufficient. While there are strong signals in the land transaction for public space improvements, the fact remains: Council still has inadequate tools to assess community benefits consistently, which strongly underscores the policy gap we need to fill around community benefits.
The height for this tower is not a concern for me whatsoever, but I am concerned that we have no framework to evaluate appropriate height at all. We used to, as was pointed out, because of the limits imposed by our downtown airport. Now the only limit is engineering and money and audacity, subject to Council approval. That sounds enticing, but the boundaries are now almost entirely political and arbitrary, rather than policy-driven or evidence-based. We do need a more coherent height policy, but that is a larger issue not confined to this application, and not the main issue in my mind.
Related to this, I am also worried about undervaluing the tremendous work that goes into developing our ARPs, the value of adhering to their planning principles and the importance of predictability that they should provide to the community and local developers. While I don’t think ARPs should grow stale, I do think that significant amendments to our ARPs should require more public engagement than they do today. If we continue to make arbitrary zoning decisions like this, Council risks sending consistent signals that ARPs have little to no weight. This is a growing concern for me, and a risk to Council’s social license as stewards of planning authority.
Having said all of this, my main concern is simply that this project will change the use of these lands from a public park to a private space. The caveats on the land transaction mitigate this access issue somewhat, but it doesn’t change the underlying fact. Holding in our minds the suggestion that this decision is a ‘big city’ litmus test, I thought about New York City’s skyline, an image that would tug anyone towards a yes vote – but then I asked myself whether New York City would sell part of Central Park across the street from Harlem, and make the nearby area a private/public park, in order to jumpstart development in Harlem. I think not.
And by the way, Harlem is up and coming now. It simply took some time and patience.
A valid & valiant explanation of your ‘nay’ position. To me, your comparisons of New York & Harlem are a stretch to the reality of where this development sits. On another note, my concern is the lack of vision for the once vibrant Chinatown. How do you think four injection sites will affect that distressed area? This should be given as much attention if you really care about people & communities. And I’m not referring to the agency community.
I agree with you 100 percent. Now you have a presidence of selling land that belongs to the public. It is not City Council to sell. Sad day in council, today my Councillor lost my vote in the upcoming election. Thanks for trying.
I see what you’re trying to say with your Harlem and Central Park analogy, however I think the details of this proposal and your New York scenario are not analogous. From my understanding it’s the triangle portion of land that is the park in question. That piece of land is separated by roads on two sides and private property on the other and is not directly linked to the rest of the river valley. Central Park’s rectangle is uninterrupted and does not have small portions that extend into private lands and roads in the same way. I agree we shouldn’t be giving up parks without serious consideration but it seems to me Alldritt is trying to make concessions to address the city’s concerns.
ARP’s should be followed but should also have mechanisms to allow for extrodinary circumstances – which I feel a proposal like this meets that classification.
Thank you Mr Mayor, I’m glad you took the time to elaborate. Although I am excited for the project, I still value your opinion. We don’t have to agree, but we can “respectfully” disagree.
“that significant amendments to our ARPs should require more public engagement than they do today. If we continue to make arbitrary zoning decisions like this, Council risks sending consistent signals that ARPs have little to no weight. This is a growing concern for me, and a risk to Council’s social license as stewards of planning authority.”
Any amendment, and/or creation to, our municipal polices ought to be unrestricted to Edmontonians.
However, becuase council decsions do not proportionately effect the lives of Edmontonians equally, public engagement should be considered on an impact basis.
Zones which are under development ought to consider the opinions and concerns of those within the proposed developed area. And the adjacent zones as well, but to a subordinate degree.
Progress and development in Edmonton needs to have a philosophical approach that encourages democratic and utilitarian principles
I would recommend looking towards Vancouver for some guidance on how to handle tower applications. “View protection” is one of the things they look at – protecting the view and value of existing properties. The other is “skyline” – ensuring that the downtown Vancouver skyline looks attractive and cohesive from the various points of view around it. While these aren’t necessarily quantitative measures, e.i. somewhat subjective, they do provide an end-goal that can deal with ad hoc proposals. Essentially: protect existing property values, develop a downtown viewscape that can be molded over time into something cohesive and attractive looking from other nearby areas. It would seem to me that the process of developing area redevelopment plans does not work to handle many or most of the high rise applications coming in right now.
The worst example of politics I’ve seen in quite some time. You vote to sell the land and then a few weeks later when it becomes apparent you’re on the wrong side of the issue, you flip flop and vote not to allow the building. Optics are important in an election year right…
Disappointing that you’ve now set the precedent that Edmonton’s River Valley is up for sale to the highest bidder. But I guess your council did illegally remove the Cloverdale Bridge so this is not that shocking of a decision.
Good commentary on a variety of subjects. Nice to see thought going into this issue.
Can one also look at this issue as a small fire that got away from us? In Feb 2016 at the expropriation meeting for this land, Executive Committee gave the developer a year to come up with a counter proposal for the land (that’s the fire), and then it became hard to stop.
Better political instincts (Henderson seemed to be the only one at the Feb 2016 meeting who could see trouble ahead) at that juncture might have headed off this mess.
On the topic of the Alldritt parks being run like city parks, after the meeting some were kidding Nola about the concrete terraces being ideal for skateboarding, and her response was, “Oh, no, WE won’t be allowing that!” As Mr Johnson intimated, private is not public when it comes to parks.
Totally agree. Our Quarters vision could and would have worked given time. Haste to build and the will of the $ sadly wins. Will be check the voting record TC.
This application certainly exposed the inadequaciess in this process. Decisions should not be made without all of the planning and project component available. This would include impact and risk analysis. As a project manager I would agree with the RFP process, It woulld ensure all of the components and planning requirements were fully defined . This decision was made at the concept level, not the final. How many times will they be back at council for more relief?
Scott
There is a lot of research and literature on Harlem. Changes in Harlem were the result of tough social policy that was controversial but worked. The introduction of four supervised injection sites is not policy that will encourage development in distressed neighbourhoods a smidge away from downtown. They made the opposite kind of decisions in Harlem. If Council is really interested in encouraging families to move to core neighbourhoods and not perpetuating sprawl, they would not support the development of multiple injection sites in what should be family neighbourhoods. Most families will not live next to those if they have choice. Illegal drug use cannot be disconnected from the crime that underpins it, wherever it may occur. We need policy that is helpful for people who are addicted, and not harmful to communities. We can do better.
Point form — 1. the City has a history of selling public lands so this should not be validated as an issue of concern (the Old Strathcona Post Office comes to mind — from Feds to Province to City to private; same is likely to happen with Rosedale Power Plant), 2. downtown there is all manner of encroachments into the river valley (Chateau Lacombe, Edmonton House et al all the way to the Legislature grounds) 3. this particular piece of land was trapped between a major river valley access road and Jasper Avenue; in my opinion this development is the best outcome for this improbable park site 4. the development is sure to be a catalyst for The Quarters 5. the design, as presented, is among the best in Edmonton for tall buildings 6. the site is a perfect location for a hotel and mixed use functions help to make a hotel more viable 7. there is an aesthetic component to the permitting of this kind of development — something that is an anathema to planning rules and regulations (projects like this should always defer to City Council for approval and architects with a reasonably free rein, otherwise we would be looking at a pretty boring city.
The height of building shows value of land. You can’t build where market doesn’t exist. That land was obviously seriously undervalued assuming it isn’t just a speculative land flip. Although I like the 10 year buy back option if that is what it was. A super inconsistent skyline gives the impression that no one is in charge of establishing policy that utilizes land efficiently. On the other hand if the market will bear 80 story buildings without a serious correction than we may see the missing teath fill in over time. Either way immense public value is being essentially given away through up zoning and we constantly say Cities don’t have any money. São Paulo sells FAR in their stock market like any other stock and raise an equal amount to their property tax per year. They have a base FAR 2 and the projected market demand is provided through a maximum FAR available for sale from the City. It allows flexibility for developers who can trade bought FAR and for the city to plan development in an orderly way so that infrastructure required to service the highest density and housing best matches with employment and amenities. One way of generally assessing land value lift is to take 20% (land component) of the highest and best use within the current zone and subtract that from the 20% (land component) of the new use. Even if this value is shared by its public owners and willing developers there is a far more equitable sharing of publicly derived value generated by city infrastructure, resulting housing demand markets, and Councils Plan value. The click of Councils mouse in upzoning is worth a lot. UN habitat III highlights urban land value capture as one of the most important tools to achieve the New Urban Agenda that was adopted by member nations. Thank you for seriously wrestling with these issues. https://habitat3.org
As someone has stated, “I still value your opinion. We don’t have to agree, but we can “respectfully” disagree.” Well stated and appropriate. The most important decisions one makes are usually the most difficult which this one was. At the same time, that’s why we seek and need political leadership – state your position, defend it, and live with the final decision of council as a whole.
Additionally, making a reference to Harlem with it’s many challenges and opportunities and being part of a super sized city many times greater than Edmonton is questionable. Harlem and Edmonton should not be compared in any form from a land use perspective – one simple reason – value ($). Now if the real issue is social over economic and environmental, than make that case. Yet for how many years and years and years has the “land in question” stood stagnant? How many more years would go by if this investment decision was not offered and embraced…might I submit, “many, many, many.”
Rick Preston