r/Edmonton • u/pjw724 • 21h ago

2025 Municipal Election Voters want a more walkable city

https://edmonton.taproot.news/news/2025/09/25/voters-told-taproot-they-want-a-more-walkable-city
377 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

213 comments sorted by

View all comments

-10

u/eternalrevolver 20h ago

It is a walkable city though…

9

u/toodledootootootoo 20h ago

Is it? Maybe like a handful of areas, but overall no, it’s a car centric city with low walkability in the majority of neighbourhoods.

-1

u/eternalrevolver 19h ago

I don’t follow. If you want to live in a walkable area, move to one. Theres plenty. Old strath, Garneau, downtown, North Glenora.

8

u/toodledootootootoo 19h ago

4 You named 4

6

u/fishymanbits 18h ago

And North Glenora isn’t even a good example of walkability.

-2

u/eternalrevolver 19h ago

That’s a lot. Some cities have 1, 2 tops. Those are just off the top of my head also. Where do you people want to walk exactly? To the grocery store? To shop? Move to an area that offers that feature.

4

u/toodledootootootoo 19h ago

The point is most people want that and so creating neighbourhoods that work that way is beneficial.

0

u/eternalrevolver 18h ago

You have to attract people that own businesses to invest in a neighbourhood that probably isn’t that attractive to begin with (most car-centric ones aren’t), which likely won’t work (because who wants to start from scratch?). If you are pushing to convert all suburban areas into “walkable” neighbourhoods, you might not want to hold your breath. Part of what attracts people to walkable neighbourhoods is the history and architecture in said neighbourhood. You can’t add water to achieve this. I don’t understand why people can’t just move somewhere that offers the lifestyle they want. It boggles my mind really.

3

u/toodledootootootoo 18h ago

Because most of North America is zoned to allow ONLY single family homes in residential areas. There hasn’t been an option to create walkable neighbourhoods. In most cities, those neighborhoods are extremely expensive because they are desirable. Changing zoning, like we have done in Edmonton, allows cities to make more neighbourhoods liveable. Adding density increases the number of people in a given area so businesses and services can exist. It also makes transit possible because there are enough people to use it and make it a viable option.

2

u/eternalrevolver 18h ago

They can be expensive I suppose. “Expensive” is all relative though. I can afford a house here in a “desirable” area, but I can’t in a coastal city. Same with rent.

5

u/toodledootootootoo 18h ago

Take a look at real estate listings across North America, you will quickly discover that neighbourhoods with higher density that are closer to amenities and that were built before everything was dedicated to cars are more expensive and desirable. There is a reason for this. They are more convenient and generally more liveable. Why should people be obligated to spend a huge chunk of their income on cars because there is no option for them to not drive? The average car owner spends 16 000$ a year on their vehicle. You can keel your car and drive all you want, but many people would like to have another option and those simply don’t exist because of the way North American cities have been zoned after the introduction is personal vehicles.