City Council takes a step in the wrong direction by supporting the Galleria Project

Well it just wouldn’t be a high-profile project without Council doing most of its deliberations in-camera (private) now would it? That’s exactly what Council did again tonight in considering the Galleria Project (items 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7). It’s a worrying trend.

Essentially what Council decided to do was move forward with building the pedway, at an amount of up to $30 million, and that it would purchase the necessary land and relocate the EPSB Maintenance Building at a cost of about $33 million, pending written confirmation from tenants of the project. This doesn’t mean the Galleria Project is a done deal, but it is a significant step in that direction. And I think it’s a step in the wrong direction, at least at this time.

Here’s the motion as passed this evening:

That the Capital Profile number 14-17-5037 in Attachment 2 of the April 15, 2014, of the Sustainable Development report CR_1065, be amended to a total cost of $30 million.
That subject to an agreement to share the total cost of construction for the Pedway, approved by Council, with land owners north of 103A Avenue benefitting from the construction of the Pedway Connection to the Royal Alberta Museum:
1. the amended Capital Profile number 14-17-5037 to fund the Pedway, be approved, and
2. a contract with Ledcor Construction in the amount of $4.4 million for the design for the construction of the Pedway, as outlined in the April 15, 2014, Sustainable Development report CR_1065, be approved, and the contract be in form and content acceptable to the City Manager.
That the Galleria Project – Downtown Academic and Cultural Centre be acknowledged as an innovative development opportunity in downtown Edmonton and subject to the City receiving written confirmation of financing and financial commitment for the Galleria Project from the Province of Alberta for the University of Alberta, a major office building tenant, other office building tenants, and retail tenants, that the purchase of land and relocation of the Edmonton Public School Board Maintenance Building and Capital Profile number 14-17-5031, as set out in Attachment 1 of the April 15, 2014, Sustainable Development report CR_1066, be approved.

Wasn’t this project supposed to be mostly paid for by donations? Yet here we are, with the City taking on much of the upfront risk.

Galleria Project

Council decided on all of this after receiving a report full of potential risks. Here are some excerpts from one of the reports that Council considered today on the Galleria Project (emphasis is mine):

“The Foundation initially requested financial support for the Galleria roof, but has withdrawn that request given the preliminary state of the project and the absence of a clear design or plan.”
“The University of Alberta has confirmed its intention to relocate the School of Music and Department of Art and Design to the site, bringing potentially 5,000 additional staff and students to downtown. This relocation is conditional upon direct, climate controlled connection to the LRT (i.e. an underground pedway connection to Churchill Station).”
“On February 18, 2014, as a result of revised cost estimates for the pedway construction and land purchase, the Foundation requested additional funding that reflected the increased cost estimates. In addition, because of the design and construction schedule for the Royal Alberta Museum, the City was asked to fund the pedway design and associated utility relocations immediately. This work cannot be deferred to a later date.”
“In order to purchase the School Board property, the City will be responsible for all costs to relocate the School Board Maintenance Building Operations to an alternate site.”
“In order to protect for the opportunity to connect both the Royal Alberta Museum, the Galleria, and other new development north of 103 A Avenue directly to Churchill LRT Station, the decision to proceed with the design of the pedway, the commencement of required utility relocations, and commitment to construct the shell under the Museum forecourt must be made now.“
“The request to the City to contribute towards the construction of a roof over the Galleria has been removed. The Foundation may return with a request for assistance at a later date once more information is available. It is considered premature to consider any additional funding for this component until the project further evolves.”
“The business case as developed by the Foundation identifies that the source of funding for the Trust, and in turn for the theatres, is from the revenues generated by the office space and retail leasing on the property. In the event that the revenues are not realized, then while there is no legal obligation for the City to assume the operation of the theatres, there is a risk that the City could be asked to provide financial assistance in order for the theatres to continue to operate.”
“It is difficult to define and quantify risks at this time as this project is still at the concept design stage. The Foundation has provided what information it has, but there is not sufficient information available to fully address many of the issues identified for clarification.”
“Critical assumptions have been made relative to office and retail lease rates, rate of office space absorption, retail market demand, financing costs, construction costs, fundraising commitments and availability of government grants. Should any of the assumptions made in the business case not be realized, there is a risk that the funding to build, operate and maintain the theatres will not be sufficient to achieve the goal of providing affordable space to the arts community.”
“While the Foundation is confident in their ability to secure an anchor tenant for the office tower as well as several additional tenants, no proposed tenants are under contract.”
“With several new office towers having recently been announced or underway in the downtown, vacancy rates are expected to rise, and given the existing vacancy within the EPCOR Tower, the ability to secure tenants in a short time frame is considered to be a significant risk.”
“Costs for the theatres are difficult to estimate as they are subject to considerable range depending upon the design; however the costs are at the low end of the range of recent theatre construction in Calgary and Toronto.”
“The Foundation or Cultural Trust will offset the anticipated net operating loss of the theatres with diverse and dedicated revenue streams from office and retail rental rates from the larger Galleria project. There is no contingent plan contemplated to continue the operations of the theatres if the projected revenues are not realized.”

Nevermind that the original business case called the four new theatres “financially self-sustaining”. Guess not. Or that it declared the project was “feasible” and “sustainable” or that it would “generate significant revenue.” Unless of course the assumptions are wrong. Or worst of all, that the City wouldn’t have to put in much money, because it was a unique “P4” model. Right.

Somehow, after discussing the project behind closed doors, Council was able to look past all of that risk and concern (not to mention the ultimatum about needing to decide today) to support the project. Furthermore, many of them made a point of expressing their support verbally, as if the proponents might see the motion not as a victory but as a loss.

Councillor Henderson called it “a remarkable opportunity for the city.” Councillor Esslinger called it “an exciting project.” Councillor Sohi said it was “a very innovative development opportunity.” Only Councillor Knack spoke partially against the motion, suggesting that it should be compared against other projects up for consideration as part of the next Capital Budget. Mayor Iveson too pointed out that more assurances are needed, but said “it’s entirely appropriate to further explore” the project. He said it’s a “very exciting concept.”

Councillor McKeen made the motion, and used his remarks in part to justify the use of an in-camera session. He essentially asked us to trust Council, to take their word for it that the proponents did their homework. I fully appreciate the sensitivity around confidential information that doesn’t belong to the City, but I fail to see why that means the entire discussion needs to be had in private.

Furthermore, Councillor McKeen said “I think we’re asking a lot of the proponent” and added “we have spent a lot of time on this.” Really? Given the glaring holes in the proposal and self-admission that it is still extremely preliminary, I don’t think Council is asking much of the folks behind the Gallera Project at all. And I certainly don’t think Council has spent “a lot” of time on this project, unless it all happened behind the scenes.

In general I think the land investment by the City is a good thing – I’d rather have the City own it than some speculator or foreign investor who will just leave an ugly and unsafe surface parking lot on it. I think it also makes sense for the City to be a key player in land assembly for big projects. But aside from that, I’m really at a loss for why this should proceed with City funding.

The word most commonly used by Council tonight to describe the project was “innovative”. They all seemed to find the proposed Cultural Trust especially appealing, despite the risk that it may never come to fruition if the anticipated revenues from the office space and retail leasing don’t pan out. Unfortunately no questions were asked about the success of such initiatives in other cities throughout North America. No questions were asked about the likelihood that such a scheme would work here in Edmonton.

Only one question came up about whether the project as proposed would actually meet the needs of the arts community. No one asked why other arts organizations aren’t lining up to support the project, however.

At no point in the brief public discussion tonight did any question come up about the potential impact this project could have on the arena, located directly across 101 Street. This despite the fact that both projects need significant retail leasing to happen in order to succeed, which means they’ll be competing against one another.

Galleria Project

And most importantly, no consideration appeared to be given as to whether or not this is the way we want to build our city. Is moving billion dollar projects around like lego pieces really the way to do it? Shouldn’t there be some concern about how they’ll all work together? Or maybe some sort of bigger vision or plan? At the very least, shouldn’t we understand whether or not we can afford the worst case scenario?

I’m all for building downtown and the positive vision that Council has for Edmonton. I fully appreciate the incredible work that Dianne and Irving Kipnes have done and will continue to do in Edmonton. But I’m finding it incredibly difficult to support the Galleria Project as it has currently been proposed.

Edmonton Vaporware: The Arena District

Though the video game industry probably comes to mind first when you hear the term vaporware, it is increasingly being used to describe announcements and predictions that never come to pass in other industries too. Like construction. The construction of, for instance, big “transformative” projects that will unfold over a number of years. Sound familiar?

As you know, Edmonton’s shiny new downtown arena is being funded in part through a Community Revitalization Levy (CRL). The idea is that “projects funded by the CRL spark new developments, and property values rise on existing developments.” From the beginning, the arena was sold to Edmontonians as a catalyst for additional downtown development. It was clear that additional development would be part of the success of any deal. Here’s what the Katz Group’s Bob Black told the Journal in February 2010:

“In order for citizens of the city to have a reasonable assurance that the community revitalization levy debt will be retired by the city, then you have to have that collateral development.”

Even earlier than that, in September 2009, the Downtown Business Association’s Jim Taylor was arguing for ensuring that surrounding development took place:

“Somebody has to say that they’re building a casino or a hotel there, and you don’t get any money from the CRL unless those projects are part of it. So that funding is only available if those projects are there. It’s not, ‘We’ll do a CRL and hope that those projects are there. It’s: ‘The CRL is not available, the money is not borrowed, unless those specific developments are there too.'”

Of course, he and many other business leaders softened their stance over the years and no such requirement was ever put in place. In fact, I’d say the volume about what would be built was turned up, though details and commitments were always lacking.

In January 2011, U of A provost Carl Amrhein talked about the creation of “a university village” for student housing as part of the district. Also that month, local realtor Terry Paranych said if the arena goes ahead, he’d “build two condo towers, one 40 storeys, one 50 storeys.”

In December 2012, the Katz Group and its partner WAM Development Group stopped talking about individual projects and promised something much grander:

“If a new arena is approved, the Katz Group and partner WAM Development Group hope to push ahead this spring with $2-billion worth of nearby development, including 28 and 32-storey office towers. Plans also include two 35-storey or taller condominium highrises, a 10-storey condo building, a 26-storey luxury hotel and other commercial space along with a proposed open-air Oilers Plaza.”

Another article discussed potential tenants:

“Main anchor tenants are expected to include a VIP theatre complex, a grocery store and the headquarters of a major telecommunications company, according to a 60-page overview of the district by the Katz Group and partner WAM Development Group.”

Yet despite all the hype, there have been no commitments. It’s all just talk. Just vaporware.

In March 2011, the Journal’s Gary Lamphier made this clear:

“Not a single other developer has been willing to publicly commit hard cash toward the project. Despite recent talk from the city’s chief financial officer about proposed hotels, a casino and other projects, she hasn’t identified a single one by name. I’ve talked to roughly a dozen developers, consultants and commercial real estate brokers over the past 15 months in an attempt to flush out anyone who is willing to stand up and be counted as a participant in the arena redevelopment. I haven’t found one.”

The arena deal was finally approved, but still there have been zero commitments. And so we find ourselves in January 2014, clinging to the hope that a new tower for City of Edmonton employees will finally kickstart the development:

“Jim Taylor, executive director of the Downtown Business Association, said putting up an office tower a block from the arena would likely stimulate other development.”

Avison Young’s Cory Wosnack is even more optimistic:

“If WAM and Katz Group are successful (with the office tower proposal) — and I believe there will be an announcement within days — then the hotel deal can be announced, the retail can be announced and the domino effects begin.”

Is anyone still buying this nonsense?

Rogers Place

Perhaps the worst part about the proposed tower is that municipally-owned or leased properties do not pay property tax. Which means that all or most of the tower would not contribute to a lift in taxes within the CRL boundary. That land could have been used for a revenue-generating property instead, one that would actually help to pay down the CRL debt.

What about the Ultima Tower, you say? It was going to go ahead with or without the arena. What about the proposed, 71-story Edmontonian tower? Like the Aurora project before it, The Edmontonian has been vaporware since at least 2007, so there’s no reason to expect anything different now.

We’re being played, and the sad thing is, we’ve seen this story before.

In the world of video games, some have managed to shed their vaporware status and go on to be quite successful. Maybe that should give us hope that the arena district in Edmonton can do the same. Maybe there really is a master plan and an order in which these projects will unfold. But I’m not holding my breath.

UPDATE 2: There was some confusion about the paragraph above on taxation, as you’ll see in the comments below. I received clarification from the City. If the City of Edmonton leases space inside a building owned by a private entity, the space leased by the City is exempt from taxation. The remainder would be assessed and taxed as any other property would be.

Edmonton’s Pedway: The Growth Years

This is the second part in a series of posts looking at the past, present, and future of Edmonton’s pedway network.

The pedway system we know today was largely built in the 1980s. According to the Edmonton Journal in 1990, projects with an estimated value of $679 million were completed between 1983 and 1989 downtown, including $20 million on Jasper Avenue, Rice Howard Way, and the pedway system.

One of the biggest projects was the extension of the LRT line, with construction on Bay and Corona stations beginning in 1980. Subterranean downtown Edmonton must have seemed like paradise in those days, because the LRT construction had an extremely large impact on downtown. Jasper Avenue was under construction for years, and that harmed businesses as much if not more than West Edmonton Mall (which first opened in 1981).

Downtown construction, photo by ETS

It wasn’t just the LRT being built though. Of the roughly 40 buildings downtown connected to the pedway, half were built between 1974 and 1984. More buildings were constructed in Edmonton during the 70s than any other decade. It’s no surprise then that the pedway grew significantly during the latter part of this period and in the years immediately following it (as pedway construction tended to lag building construction).

Following the completion of Edmonton Centre in 1974, a series of office towers followed. TD Tower opened in 1976, with the Sutton Place Hotel (Four Seasons Hotel) and 101 Street Tower (Oxford Tower) following in 1978. All three had connections to the pedway built. The Citadel Theatre and Sun Life Place also opened in 1978, and the Stanley Milner Library, constructed in 1967, was first added to the pedway network that year. Canadian Western Bank Place, HSBC Place, and the Standard Life Building all opened in 1980. ATCO Centre and Enbridge Place opened in 1981, followed by Bell Tower and Scotia Place in 1982. Manulife Place and the Shaw Conference Centre opened in 1983. Canada Place capped off a busy period of construction in 1986.

Pedway connections were often added years after a building was first completed. Scotia Place was connected via an above-ground bridge in 1990 when Commerce Place (Olympia & York) opened (though it already had an below-ground connection). The Royal Bank Building, built in 1965, didn’t get a pedway connection until April 1993, one month after an above-ground pedway was built connecting Manulife Place and Edmonton City Centre (Eaton’s Centre). Construction of these connections did not always go smoothly. The bridge connecting City Centre and Manulife was delayed for a variety of reasons, but one was that the hallway from City Centre did not line up with existing “knock-out” panels that Manulife Place had for future pedway construction. That meant blasting through a wall that was not designed to be opened. Still, the bridge came in at a relatively inexpensive $200,000 (the typical above-ground bridge could cost up to $500,000 at the time).

Existing & Approved pedway connections, ~1980

Downtown wasn’t the only place pedway-like connections were being built. A $64 million renovation of the Alberta Legislature grounds took place from 1978 to 1982, and one of the key features was an extensive underground pedway system. In the spring of 1985, the Business Building opened on the University of Alberta campus with an above-ground connection to Tory and HUB Mall. It would eventually be connected to the larger system in August 1992 when the University LRT Station opened featuring a below-ground connection to the Dental-Pharmacy Centre and above-ground bridge to HUB Mall.

Though connections continue to be added today, many Edmontonians considered the pedway “complete” in 1990 after two key projects. The first was the extension of the LRT to Grandin Station in 1989, finally linking the downtown pedway network with the Legislature pedway network. The second was much more controversial.

The pedway linking Edmonton Centre and Churchill LRT Station was often called “the final link” in the pedway network. When the City first put the project out for tender, no bid came in at the budgeted amount of $4.9 million. The lowest bid was 14% higher, bringing the cost to $6.2 million. The original design called for a glass wall and an amphitheatre under Churchill Square, in addition to the removal of 16 elm trees. Council requested that the design be tweaked and re-tendered. That delayed the project, but the plan worked. The pedway we know today was designed by MB Engineering Ltd. and constructed by Chandros Construction Ltd., right on the original $4.9 million budget.

Edmonton Centre contributed $600,000 of the budget, and insisted on the skylights and planter boxes. Jim Charuk, Edmonton VP of Oxford Development Group, said at the time that anything less would have become a “people sewer.” The pedway connection first opened for Christmas shoppers on December 14, 1990. It closed during January 1991 so that finishing touches could be put on the project. The pedway officially opened to the public on February 18, 1991.

With the addition of City Hall in 1992, the Winspear Centre in 1997, and the Art Gallery of Alberta in 2010, the downtown pedway network has continued to grow. But today’s network was largely built in the 80s, and it shows.

Construction hoarding in Edmonton’s downtown is a disaster

There’s a lot of construction taking place downtown, and that can mean closures, detours, and delays. For the most part, I’m willing to live with some short-term pain because I know it’ll bring long-term gain. But if you think construction downtown is bad now, brace yourself. It’s going to get much worse with the Valley LRT line, the arena, the new RAM, new condo and office towers, and much more. The City needs to do more to ensure it all goes as smoothly as possible.

One big issue that we should be able to do something about is hoarding (the temporary fencing you see around construction sites). At the moment, construction hoarding downtown is a disaster.

Here’s what 101 Street looks like thanks to the demolition of the Kelly Ramsey building:

Here’s what it looks like on Rice Howard Way:

They’ve taken the sidewalk and one lane on either side. It has been like this for weeks now.

Over on 104 Street, here’s what the Fox Tower construction looks like:

As you can see they’ve taken not only the sidewalk but one lane of traffic too. Yet on the alley side, they don’t appear to have needed any extra space:

I would have praised the Ultima Tower construction, as they have kept the sidewalk open complete with a bus stop, but their temporary closure (from May 24 to June 29) is just as bad as the others:

You can’t actually see that the sidewalk is closed until you get near the site, so you know what happens right? People walk on the street, right in traffic:

Hardly safe! Hopefully they’ll be back to normal next week, with the sidewalk and bus stop open.

All of these examples share some common problems. First and foremost, pedestrian access has been disrupted, and in some cases, vehicular access too. Secondly, signage is either non-existent or very poor. All have been in place for weeks or even months, with no indication about whether or not they are temporary or permanent until the projects are done. And of course, all are quite unattractive.

The Downtown Edmonton Community League (DECL) has already raised concerns with the City regarding the Fox Tower construction. They were initially concerned about the loss of trees, but when it became clear that the sidewalk would be closed with no clear timetable for it to reopen, they brought those concerns to the table as well. Thus far the response has been lukewarm at best. I understand that Graham Construction has not indicated a willingness to change anything. Worse, the City’s response was that the development would bring hundreds of new residents to the street, as if that made up for the impact on the hundreds of residents who already live here. We must do better!

Aren’t there rules?

As great as the Capital City Downtown Plan is, it lacks any real guidelines for construction hoarding. Here’s what it says:

Ensure that construction hoarding in the Downtown features a minimum functional clearance of 2.15 metres continuous linear electrical illumination and public art if in place for over 1 year, to provide a safe, clean and professional appearance.

We missed an opportunity to really strengthen the requirements through that document. There’s also the Procedures for On-Street Construction Safety document, but it mentions hoarding just once, and only as a way to “ensure that there is no danger to pedestrians from above.” Finally, there’s a section of the City’s website devoted to Design & Construction Standards, but those documents do not mention hoarding either.

If you search long enough, you’ll eventually come across Bylaw 15894, the Safety Codes Permit Bylaw. Part 1, Section 13 requires that any hoarding placed on a highway (street, lane, road, alley, etc., including sidewalks and any other land between the property lines adjacent) requires a permit. Section 14 outlines the hoarding regulations. Section 15 basically states that there must be a walkway for pedestrians approved by the City Manager. Part 7 outlines hoarding permit fees.

So in theory, the construction projects mentioned above needed to obtain a hoarding permit from the City, and must pay ongoing fees for as long as the hoarding is in place. I say in theory because, if you read the regulations, it’s clear they are not being met. So who knows if the City actually polices this kind of thing. Maybe they just approve each application without too much consideration. And though the Alberta Building Code isn’t mentioned, presumably the construction site hoarding requirements from subsection 8.2.1 also apply. But the bottom line is the City can approve whatever they like.

What happens elsewhere?

Compare all of that to Calgary, which has produced the Practical Guide for Construction Sites. It has an entire section on construction hoarding, which includes this passage:

As pedestrian flow is vital to downtown and neighbourhood vibrancy and operations, The City of Calgary Roads hoarding policies, fees and fines are intended to improve pedestrian mobility, provide effective hoarding solutions and visually enhance construction sites in Calgary. Where required, hoarding provisions must be maintained at all times for the safe passage of pedestrians in and around construction sites. In an effort to add to Calgary’s visual appeal, The City is encouraging an Enhanced Screening Initiative for hoarding applications and offers incentives for this option.

The document goes on to outline requirements for fencing and sidewalk maintenance, citing appropriate sections of the Alberta Building Code. It very clearly states that developers must “keep sidewalks adjacent to construction sites clear of obstructions” and also that they must “maintain publicly accessible and safe sidewalks.” Straightforward and to the point. On top of that, they’re offering a discount on the fees! If developers take part in the Community Boardworx Project, intended to add visual interest and public art to construction sites, they’ll receive a 25% reduction in hoarding fees!

My experience in places like Toronto and Vancouver has always been pretty positive. Oh there’s lots of scaffolding, but at least pedestrian access was maintained. It’s not all rosy though. Here’s an article from January talking about construction site nightmares in Toronto:

The current building boom has created a checkerboard of downtown curb lane and sidewalk closures. Some three dozen construction sites, mostly condo towers, are ringed with hoarding that extends over the sidewalk and curb lane, many on major streets including Yonge and Adelaide.

Politicians there have made some great suggestions as a result. Requiring developers to file construction staging plans upfront, charging higher fees the longer the closure goes on, and putting construction trailers on top of hoarding (as they do in New York) are all possibilities. There’s a lot we could learn from other cities.

Let’s be good neighbours

Downtown, like every other neighbourhood, is shared. By residents, employees, students, and yes, construction sites. When construction sites pop up in the neighbourhood, I’d like to see greater thought given to how that site will be a “good neighbour”. We’ve all got to get along. Construction hoarding, as the interface and barrier between the site and users of the sidewalk and street, is very important. At the moment, most downtown construction sites are not being very neighbourly. I’d like to see that change, and I think it must change if we’re going to make it through the next few years of construction mayhem.

LRT Construction Downtown: Short-term pain, long-term gain!

I’m excited about the expansion of our LRT network and what it’ll mean for Edmonton. It’s going to take a while until the entire network is completed, but work is already underway. While I would definitely fall into the YIMBY camp on LRT construction, that doesn’t mean there aren’t annoyances along the way. I just keep reminding myself – short-term pain, long-term gain!

The North LRT to NAIT is a 3.3 km extension from Churchill Station to NAIT with a total estimated cost of $755 million. Construction began in 2011 and over the last couple of years there has been a lot of activity along 105 Avenue and 105 Street in particular. The new line runs right through Sharon’s route to work, so she has experienced first-hand the inconveniences caused by the construction. The City has been proactive about meeting with affected stakeholders, and they even have an interactive map online, but that doesn’t completely make up for the ongoing issues.

Closures might mean a slightly different route for motorists or a few extra minutes of travel time, but the impact on pedestrians is often much larger. Closed sidewalks can mean large detours into unfamiliar and poorly marked territory. When it’s cold out, a few extra minutes in a vehicle isn’t such a big deal but for a pedestrian it can be (and that makes jaywalking an attractive option). You’re also much more likely to find signs for vehicles than you are for pedestrians. Other issues include construction noise and, thanks to our up-and-down weather, treacherous and messy conditions.

The new extension is slated to open in April 2014. Short-term pain, long-term gain!

The Central Station LRT Rehabilitation is a renewal rather than an extension. It will repair issues with the roof and ensure the station is functional for years to come. The City is also taking the opportunity to make streetscape improvements to Jasper Avenue between 100 and 102 Street. I work in the Empire Building at Jasper Avenue and 101 Street, which is basically ground zero for the project (and there’s also the First & Jasper construction right across the avenue).

The construction team has been good at keeping everyone in the area up-to-date, with notices in the mail and electronic updates delivered through our property manager. That doesn’t mean the daily maze is any less annoying, however. I try to go through the back of the building to avoid the mess altogether, but every few days I need to use the front entrance for some reason, and determining how to navigate through the ever-changing array of fences gets old fast. There’s always construction noise to deal with too, though thankfully there have only been a few occasions when it has been disruptive.

I know that travelling down 101 Street for vehicles sucks because traffic moves so much slower through the construction, but at worst you’re looking at a few minutes of delay. Compare that to the impact on pedestrians. Walking from the Empire Building to Scotia Place used to take a few seconds, we’re talking probably 30 steps or so. Now because of the fencing and detours, it takes probably ten times that! That’s a significant impact (though a little extra walking never hurt anyone).

The project isn’t expected to be complete until October 2013. Short-term pain, long-term gain!

It’s the season of detours downtown!

Summer means lots of construction here in Edmonton, so we shouldn’t be surprised by detours and road closures. More than $122.9 million is being invested in special projects, road paving, and other growth infrastructure projects this year! While walking around downtown today, I took some photos of a number of the projects underway.

On the east side of the 105 Street hill there’s a new sidewalk! It’s much wider, which is great for pedestrians. Looks like they are still doing some work on the west side.

Between Jasper Avenue and 102 Avenue there is pavement renewal work being done on 106 Street:

There’s a lot of activity near the Legislature grounds, as the Federal Building and Centennial Plaza construction continues.

Work also continues on Capital Boulevard (108 Street). If you look closely here, you can see the street widen near the construction signs.

There’s also rehabilitation work happening on the north end of Capital Boulevard:

The most visible construction downtown is definitely the Central Station LRT Rehabilitation and Jasper Avenue Streetscaping. Basically avoid Jasper Avenue from 100 Street to 102 Street if at all possible.

They have now started removing the surface near 102 Street:

This section near 100 Street looks like it’ll be next. It has been pretty interesting to see how they do this work over the last couple weeks. It looks like the use a giant saw to slice the road (the thin straight lines in the photo below) then they’ll use the larger machinery to dig it up.

I didn’t make it up there today, but there is of course the North LRT to NAIT construction taking place along 105 Avenue and 105 Street (among other places). Here’s a great panorama from Hugh Lee:

One of the projects you’ll encounter as you enter downtown is the Grierson Hill Bridge & MacDonald Drive Pedestrian Underpass Rehabilitation. The City has been updating that page with photos.

For an overview of all current major road projects in the city, click here. Or, check out the more detailed construction schedule at Construction On Your Streets.

What kind of festival does Metropolis want to be?

After eight weekends in Churchill Square, Metropolis has come to an end. Featuring four large shrink-wrapped structures, the new festival took a different approach to staging a winter event. Unfortunately, I don’t think it was successful. Sharon has already done a very thorough job of discussing some of the highs and lows of the festival as we experienced it over the past two months, so please make sure you read her post. She concluded:

“It’ll be interesting to see what organizers decide to do next, and what Metropolis might look like should the festival return again. Although I am glad Events Edmonton took a risk, I hope they are able to learn from this initial run and improve in the future.”

I’ll be a little stronger and say that I would be disappointed to see Metropolis return next year only slightly improved. If it is going to continue, I feel a major overhaul is needed. Originally envisioned as a showcase of cold weather construction techniques but sold as a festival to help Edmontonians embrace winter, Metropolis did neither.

The structures were nicely lit on New Years Eve, but were plain and white most of the rest of the time.

I think it’s clear the “build it and they will come” approach that Metropolis took was a failure. I know it’s a lot of work to get something like Metropolis off the ground, so it’s no surprise that the idea was scaled back numerous times (from nine structures down to six and eventually down to just four). Programming an event over a single weekend takes a lot of effort, let alone over eight weekends, even when you leave the programming to others as Events Edmonton did. As a result, there was little to draw people to the festival, and the attendance reflected that. As recently as December, Events Edmonton was estimating attendance of about 13,500 people per day or 300,000 total for the festival. I would be absolutely shocked if they achieved anything even remotely close to that. As Sharon noted in her post, we walked through Metropolis most weekends while it was on and it never seemed busy.

Maybe it was the warm weather or maybe it was the lack of marketing (remember the atrocious website they launched with?). Maybe it was that Events Edmonton put too much faith in the community stepping forward to do something with the structures. Maybe it was poor communication or maybe it was broken promises to partners. Realistically, it was probably the combination of these and other factors that ultimately prevented Metropolis from achieving success. That said, I think there are two fundamental issues facing the festival:

Metropolis was born out of the idea that we should celebrate the cold weather construction techniques that have made Edmonton and other northern cities possible, yet the festival did very little of that.
Metropolis took place in January and February and was therefore considered a “winter” festival, but embracing winter is about much more than picking the right dates on the calendar.

Cold Weather Construction

A little over a year ago, I sat down with Giuseppe Albi to talk about Metropolis. At the time he was still trying to build support for the new festival, so his pitch was well-rehearsed by the time we met for coffee. He talked about the idea itself, but also were it came from. Events Edmonton had been considering ways to mitigate the extreme cold that we often get on New Years Eve, and hit on the idea of some sort of temporary heated dome. That didn’t happen of course, but it provided the seed for Metropolis.

Giuseppe told me about his interest in architecture, something he has loved ever since high school. He remembered cutting articles out of the newspaper when they wrote about a new building going up. One in particular that he talked about was the Professional Building, the first building in Canada built using cold weather construction technology. As he told Elise Stolte in December:

“We pioneered working in cold climates, and 1961 was crucial. That basically ushered in an era of cold-climate construction technology. For 50 years now, we’ve used it all over and we’ve built most of Western Canada and the North with that technology.”

We talked about many other aspects of the festival that day, but what I took away from the conversation was Giuseppe’s passion for showcasing our history of cold weather construction techniques. It really struck me as an important aspect of how Edmonton came to be – imagine how little we’d be able to construct if we needed it to be warm all the time! Apparently we are one of the few cities with a scaffolding training program too. Finding a way to extend the construction season to make the most of our climate is a great story, and I one that I think is worth showcasing.

To be fair, Giuseppe did at least bring some awareness to this story. Metropolis was on the program at the Cold Climate Construction Conference that took place here in Edmonton last May, for example. I certainly have a heightened awareness about cold weather construction, and am interested to learn more.

The real opportunity was at the festival itself however, and that opportunity was missed entirely. Sure the structures themselves were built using scaffolding, but I don’t know much more about them than that. There was no information on site, no presentations about cold weather construction. In the program (which originally cost $5 but was given away by the end of the festival) there are a few features on construction companies, but very little in the way of education.

I wish Metropolis had been more focused on cold weather construction. It would have resulted in a less pedestrian event, and would probably have been of interest to a smaller number of Edmontonians, but I think the chances of success would have been much greater.

Embracing Winter

A few hours after that conversation with Giuseppe, I met with Pamela Anthony, the Artistic Director of Winter Light. I had been very critical of Winter Light and the significant funding it received from the City, but I felt it was finally starting to develop something unique. Last year’s Illuminations featuring Circus Orange was simply amazing. It was freezing cold outside, but the Square was packed with people enjoying themselves. “You need motivation to go somewhere when its cold,” Pamela told me. “It’s exciting how hungry people were for that.”

We of course talked about Metropolis. Aside from a lack of communication (neither Metropolis nor Winter Light reached out to one another) Pamela sounded happy that someone else was also putting energy into building the winter festival scene. She wasn’t particularly enthusiastic about the plan for Metropolis itself, however. “It shouldn’t be about denying winter or sheltering people from winter,” she said. “It’s not a commitment to the winter experience.”

I have thought a lot about that conversation over the last year, and I’m convinced now that Pamela was absolutely right. Just because a festival takes place in January doesn’t mean it’s a “winter” festival. There is nothing about Metropolis that celebrated winter. Bringing people indoors is most certainly not a commitment to the winter experience. Especially when the food and programing offered is the same as anywhere else.

To some extent, I think Metropolis was able to take advantage of the momentum behind “downtown revitalization” to gain support. It was said that Metropolis would bring some focus to downtown during the winter months, and that was certainly the message Giuseppe brought to the Downtown Vibrancy Task Force in October. I remember hearing then and many times after, that “when it is colder than minus 15, people don’t want to be outside”. Kind of like the argument made for the pedways that connect the downtown core. Thing is, we have lots of proof that people will happily spend time outside!

People! Outside! In the cold! At Illuminations 2011.

I have already mentioned last year’s Illuminations. The square was full of people enjoying winter that night, even though the temperature was minus 20 with a wind chill of minus 26. How about Deep Freeze? Both last year and this year, Deep Freeze demonstrated that people enjoy doing things outdoors. How about the Mill Creek Adventure Walk? I was blown away by how many people participated this year, it was incredible. And then there’s the annual favorite, Ice on Whyte. Thousands of people attend that outdoor event every year!

Want more proof? Look at the most popular ideas on the WinterCity Strategy’s IdeaScale site. Skating trails, snow hills, safer sidewalks, an outdoor pool, street hockey, an outdoor ice bar festival, an outdoor Christmas market, winter camping, etc. None of those ideas are for things that take place indoors. I think the WinterCity Strategy page is spot on:

This strategy is about changing how many of us feel about winter – from enduring to embracing it. It’s about how we can create a city where people want to be outside on sunny winter days because there are inviting, vibrant public spaces with activities and comfortable places to gather. It’s about using light to create warmth and luminescence during long winter days and using snow as a resource, for things like wind barriers and ongoing public sculpture activities.

Does that sound like Metropolis to you? It sure doesn’t to me.

What kind of festival does Metropolis want to be?

I think Events Edmonton needs to decide if Metropolis is going to be a festival about cold weather construction, or if it is going to be a festival for the masses that truly embraces winter.

I would love to see an event focused on cold weather construction – our history, where are we now, and what’s coming in the future. That would be truly interesting. Reading through Giuseppe’s “Vision for Metropolis” in the program guide, I am once again reminded of his love for this topic. “Winter construction fascinates me,” he wrote. A festival that focused on that fascination would indeed be worth staging.

I would also love to see a downtown event focused on winter. But on embracing winter, not enduring it. With lots of activities and opportunities for Edmontonians to see that winter doesn’t have to suck. Pulling that kind of festival off means being outside, however. I don’t get the impression that Events Edmonton is willing to commit to the outdoors.

If Metropolis returns next year, I hope it does so with a renewed sense of purpose and a clear mission.

Lighting up Edmonton’s new EPCOR Tower

At 6:30am this morning, EPCOR President & CEO Don Lowry officially “flipped the switch” to light the sign atop the new EPCOR Tower, the latest milestone in the construction of EPCOR’s new corporate headquarters.

The sign is unique in Edmonton, as it is the first to feature programmable RGB lighting in lettering. Every 15 seconds or so, the color of the sign changes from left to right. Currently it cycles between blue, green, orange, and yellow. Each letter is nine feet high, which sounds large but looks relatively small compared to some other downtown signs. Of course there are actually two signs, one on the north side and one on the south side, both on the 29th floor. Here’s a video that shows the sign changing color:

Last night the purple lights at the top of the building were pulsing, but my understanding is that won’t happen normally. For more on this morning’s ceremony, check out Brittney’s excellent recap.

It was a little over three and a half years ago that EPCOR entered into a 20-year lease with Qualico:

EPCOR plans to occupy approximately 265,000 square feet on the top floors of the new 28-storey office tower, with options to scale its space requirements up or down during the term of the lease. The 20-year Lease secures enough space to meet EPCOR’s current and long-term needs.

The new building carries EPCOR’s name, but it belongs to Qualico. It is the first piece of the Station Lands project, designed by Kasian Architecture Interior Design and Planning Ltd., with construction management services provided by Ledcor Construction. It was originally known as “Station Lands Tower A”. Thanks to the spires on top it is officially the tallest building in Edmonton, edging out Manulife Place (which was completed in 1983) by just 3.4 meters (though Manulife has eleven more floors). The last office building to be constructed downtown was Commerce Place, completed in 1990. You can learn much more about EPCOR Tower in this thread.

In my opinion, one of the neatest things about the new building is that it is the first downtown office tower in Edmonton to be built during the age of ubiquitous cameras. Nearly everyone walks around with a camera now, whether it is a cell phone camera, a point-and-shoot digital camera, or a fancy DSLR. That means the construction of the new EPCOR Tower has been documented by Edmontonians themselves. Like the Icon towers before it, you don’t have to look further than Flickr to see the evolution of the EPCOR Tower.

This is an early shot of the construction, taken by cdnklc on September 9, 2008:

This photo by Dave was taken on February 5, 2009 and shows some of the early construction work:

This photo by Darren on November 2, 2009 shows the tower starting to rise:

By April 2010, the building was being covered in glass:

This photo was taken by me on August 26, 2010 not long after the building was topped out:

This shot from Spi11 taken on October 4, 2010 shows the building in context with the rest of downtown (also check out this aerial photo):

I took this photo on April 29, 2011, the day they put the signage up on the building:

And then of course, we have today (you can see the sign changing color):

EPCOR will begin moving from its current offices at EPCOR Centre in about a month. They’ll occupy floors 20 through 28, while Capital Power will take floors 9 through 12. They’re not the first to move in, however. That honor went to the federal Department of Justice, which recently moved from TD Tower. EPCOR’s lease at EPCOR Centre expires at the end of the year.

What will happen to the old EPCOR Centre? That building, designed by Kenneth C. Saunders Architect Ltd. and completed in 1975, was originally known as Capital Square. It will now become the anchor piece of First&Jasper, GE Real Estate’s new downtown project, expected to be completed by early 2013. Naming rights are still available. You can read more about the project here.

I think the new EPCOR Tower is a fine way to mark EPCOR’s 120th anniversary as a company!

You can see the rest of my photos from this morning’s event here.

Photo Tour: Arctic Shores is coming to life at the Edmonton Valley Zoo

The Edmonton Valley Zoo is in the midst of a major transformation. One of the most talked about new features is known as Arctic Shores, set to open sometime in 2012. This week (before it snowed) I had the opportunity to tour the construction site, and was impressed by the progress!

Arctic Shores will improve the quality of life for the zoo’s seals and sea lion with a new indoor/outdoor pool. You really have to see the before and after to get a sense of how dramatic that change will be, however. Here’s what the facility currently looks like:

There are three sea lion/seal pools on the left.

The zoo’s South American Sea Lion.

The zoo’s two Harbour seals.

A new home is on the way!

The animals are well cared for, they just don’t have the most attractive or exciting space to live in. It looks and feels somewhat utilitarian, and doesn’t really allow visitors to get very close to the animals. But that’s all about to change!

Here’s a rendering that illustrates what the new facility will look like:

This is a model that was on display last May, courtesy of Sharon.

And here’s another view, displayed on the fence around the construction area at the zoo.

And here’s what the construction status looked like as of this week. This is the road leading up to the Arctic Shores facility, inside the fenced off construction site. The zoo has around 75 acres of land, only 40% of which has been developed. The land that Arctic Shores is now on used to be home to camels and West Caucasian turs. They have been moved to a new home, which highlights one of the challenges of major construction at the zoo. It sounds like the construction team had some interesting encounters with the turs early on!

The new facility is being built with sustainability in mind. It will have a green roof to minimize storm water runoff, and will also feature dark-sky-compliant exterior lighting.

A big focus is water conservation. The building shown below is where filtration will happen, with the goal of achieving net zero water usage. There’s a mechanical filtration system that uses perlite (commonly seen in potting soil). That’s significant because it is safer for staff, and can simply be composted when it needs to be replaced. There’s also a biological filtration system, in the form of a saltwater marsh just behind the building.

That filtration all happens via the 29 pipes buried underground. The pipes range in diameter from 4 inches to 16 inches, and altogether will ensure that all 870,000 litres of water goes through the cycle every 90 minutes. If all goes according to plan, the filtration system will mean that the pools are filled just once. In the current habitat, the water is refilled every week.

This is the view from atop the back edge of the new outdoor pool. It’s pretty incredible to see the pathways and everything brought to life! The concrete you see here will be sealed and covered with a 2 inch layer of finishing concrete that looks like rock. Hopefully there are no leaks – the only way to tell is to fill it all up with water and then watch closely!

The outdoor pool is connected to the indoor pool via the pathway you can see on the right below.

Below you can see the viewing platform, where visitors will have a chance to get a closer look at the animals. There’s a big, curved piece of acrylic that will be added to the platform. And if you look closely, you’ll note the middle of the platform has a bunch of plywood on it. That will be turned into a viewing window as well!

In the background here you can see one of the large piles of earth. In all, the construction team estimates they removed roughly 1900 end dumps (the large, 30-40 foot long dump truck trailers). The good news is that all of that earth stayed at the zoo, and will be used for refilling around the construction and other landscaping projects.

In addition to the new sea lion/seal home, Arctic Shores will feature a pingo and a whale bone play structure. An arctic fox and ground squirrels will also call Arctic Shores home.

The shot below is the space that will become the kitchen, where staff prepare food for the sea lion and seals. Everything will be stainless steel, with lots of work space and a viewing window into the indoor pool.

In the background below, you can see the curved structure covered in black, green, and yellow tarps. That’s the acrylic piece that will encircle the viewing platform. It turns out that there are just two companies in the world that could make that component of the project, one in the United States and one in Japan. Due in part to scheduling requirements, the contract went to the company in Japan. The acrylic arrived in Edmonton late Monday night, lucky to have survived the earthquake and tsunami. You can read more about it here.

The final photo here is where the new zoo entrance will be. It will also serve as the entrance to The Wander, a new central trail system that will be built after Arctic Shores. Construction won’t begin on that for a while, but the zoo did get a head start this week. A total of 85 trees and shrubs will have been removed by today, in order to comply with the Migratory Birds Convention Act. All of them will be replaced.

As you can see, the construction of Arctic Shores has come a long way since last June. I’m really excited about the changes taking place the Valley Zoo, and will be writing more about the zoo’s ongoing transformation over the next few weeks. Thanks to Denise and Mary Lou for the tour!

You can see more photos here.

Recap: Walterdale Bridge & West Rossdale Open House

Last Thursday the City of Edmonton held an open house to discuss and gather feedback on two projects that will have a big impact on our river valley. The Walterdale Bridge, which has served Edmonton for nearly 100 years, is reaching the end of its usable life and needs to be replaced. The bridge connects the south side to Rossdale, the western part of which has been “rediscovered” and for which a new urban design plan has been created.

Held at the TransAlta Arts Barns, I thought the open house was fairly well-attended. I stayed for the first half, and by the time I left, around 120 people had signed in. Unfortunately the Walterdale Bridge presentation went long, so I didn’t learn much about West Rossdale other than what was shared on the information display boards. You can learn more about the West Rossdale Urban Design Plan here.

The Walterdale Bridge Strategic Planning Concept Study of 2008 concluded that the bridge is now too old to be rehabilitated, and must be replaced. These images of the current Walterdale Bridge come from Bing Maps:

It may be old, but I think the current Walterdale Bridge is distinct and recognizable.

The concept design for the replacement bridge calls for a “functional signature bridge”. Key design considerations include:

Access/traffic accommodation from 82 Avenue to 97 Avenue.
Grades at south approach.
Detours and closure impacts, utility staging.
Aesthetics – signature bridge.
Traditional Burial Grounds and Fort Edmonton Cemetery Commemoration Site, historical resources.
North Saskatchewan River Valley plans.
Environmental policies and procedures.
Integration with West Rossdale Urban Design Plan, EPCOR Rossdale repurposing, ~~EXPO 2017 bid~~, and other area plans.
Pedestrian and cyclist accommodation.

To date, the City has conducted meetings/interviews with 14 key stakeholder groups, including twice with Aboriginal Elders with a pipe ceremony. As you might expect, a wide range of issues have been raised in those stakeholder meetings, but this comment nicely sums it up:

The challenge for this project is to achieve a balance between providing improved access for private vehicles to downtown Edmonton and protecting/preserving the character, safety and integrity of the communities that the roadways approaching the bridge replacement will be impacting.

There were four options presented at the open house, though they weren’t mutually exclusive (PDF, 3.9 MB). Attendees were encouraged to leave feedback using sticky notes, and if they liked the south side of one option but the north side of another, the City representatives wanted to hear that. There are four bridge types being considered: girder, arch, extradosed, and cable-stayed (PDF, 320 KB).

All four alignment options get rid of the hairpin at Saskatchewan Drive and Queen Elizabeth Park Road. The first three options shift the bridge to the east slightly, whereas option four would see the replacement built significantly further east than the current bridge. Of the four options, the first seems to have the smallest impact.

I’m encouraged by the lip service paid to pedestrians and cyclists during the open house, and I hope that translates into tangible benefits for those two important types of travelers once the replacement is built. It was also encouraging to hear that 1% of the total cost of the bridge will be allocated to public art.

In the presentation, a “signature” bridge was described as one that Edmontonians feel proud of. While that’s a fair definition, I really wonder why we’d build something we’re not proud of. It seems to me that what is meant by “signature” is something different, perhaps something more along the lines of the new Art Gallery of Alberta. I think a signature bridge is one that gets Edmontonians and others talking about it.

The next steps for the Walterdale Bridge project are as follows:

An interim plan, with three options, will go to the Transportation & Public Works Committee in January 2011.
Additional public information sessions will take place in February/March 2011.
A final recommendation will go to City Council in April 2011.

Even without EXPO 2017, we need to replace the Walterdale Bridge, so I’m not sure what impact, if any, that loss will have on the project. The Walterdale Bridge is an important, busy bridge here in Edmonton. If you have feedback on how the replacement bridge should look or function, let the team know.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: