Reasons to Leave Edmonton - Part 3
If this is your first time here, I suggest you read the first part of this series Reason to Leave Edmonton - Part 1, and Part 2.
While I’m not normally one to suggest that people move away from Edmonton, the people who do often have good reasons for doing so. This week, I’ll be talking about some of these reasons, as well as ways to solve the issues in question without leaving the city.
So far, I’ve talked about Edmonton’s lengthy winters, and our supposed lack of a cultural scene. Today, I’ll be talking about urban sprawl.
Edmonton suffers from terrible urban sprawl
According to Wikipedia: “At 684 square kilometres (264 sq mi), the City of Edmonton covers an area larger than Chicago, Philadelphia, Toronto or Montreal.” Despite our relatively massive size, Edmonton has one of the lowest population densities of any city in North America.
Hmm…relatively few people inhabiting a very large urban space. That’s basically the definition of urban sprawl.
Edmonton’s urban sprawl has created a number of problems for the city. Perhaps the number one problem is that it has lead to a dependence on automobiles.
It’s nearly impossible to get around in this city without using some form of motorized transport (either your own vehicle, or public transit). Much of the city is pedestrian unfriendly. There are large areas without sidewalks, and there are very few dedicated bicycle lanes on Edmonton streets, making it difficult and often unsafe to be a bicycle commuter.
The wide-spread nature of the city also means that there is less a sense of community among Edmontonians than among people in more densely populated cities. Because people spend most of their travel time in cars, rather than on foot, Edmontonians don’t often mingle on the streets. There are some pedestrian friendly areas on the city—Whyte Avenue being the most obvious—but these are the exception, rather than the rule.
Build up, instead of out
The solution to Edmonton’s urban sprawl is actually already underway. Expanding vertically, instead of horizontally is the best way to deal with urban sprawl. Combine this within in-fill developments (i.e.: building high-density housing in central neighbourhoods, rather than continuing low-density projects on the city’s edges), and you’ve got a pretty good solution to urban sprawl, and many of the problems that come with it.
The recent condo explosion in downtown Edmonton is doing a lot to help avoid urban sprawl. While I’m not a huge fan of converting rental units into condos, I am quite pleased by all of the new condo complexes that are shooting up in the core.
High-density housing will mean more people living in close proximity to one another. If they’re downtown, they’ll be close to all amenities, and possibly their jobs, which will reduce their reliance on automobiles. This, in turn, will mean more pedestrians, more mingling with neighbours, and a greater sense of community.
I’d like to see continued in-fill housing developments. Condos, though, are not for everyone. Some people, by virtue of the lifestyle they’ve chosen, are far better off living in a house (or townhouse-style condo) than an apartment-style condo. However, there currently isn’t much space to build houses in the centre of the city. Ever expanding suburban neighbourhoods are, at the moment, the only option.
The solution to this problem, I think, is for the Municipal Airport finally be closed down, and to have the city turn the land into mixed-used housing, similar to what has been done in Denver, Colorado’s Stapleton community, and numerous other former municipal airports around the United States.
I think that a Stapleton-like community on the current site of the municipal airport, along with the condo developments that are being built downtown will help relieve a lot of the urban sprawl-related problems that Edmonton currently faces. What do you think?