A redeveloped Edmonton City Centre shopping mall could include a pair of 50-storey towers, affordable apartments, a mini-Chinatown, indoor patio, Italian grocery store or food hall and security guards at building entrances, according to the developer buying the downtown property.

I too want to keep an open mind here, but I'm also worried that this would easily enhance the very same problems that plague Edmonton downtown. Security checkpoints will basically enforce an open air prison environment which the core is trying to mitigate or avoid.

My humble take is that Edmonton was modelled after small towns and was never really appropriate past 5000-10000 people. You have a nice little court house, there's a small little park/square close by, a few churches and quaint neighbourhoods, and an area for commercial/retail. I think this has been more or less multiplied many times over into the current sprawl that we have. We're also left with a patchwork of communities that do not necessarily have much connection that can enhance local business.

Edmonton has been built essentially like a massive outdoor "strata" mall, with people flooding in from ever farther distances due to sprawl. Without any management of the services and businesses offered in Edmonton, there's no anchors to attract and retain people. And everyone tides back out to their respective corners at the end of the work day. What remains is the chaotic detritus of incentivizing everyone to watch out for themselves, get in and get out.

I'm not even suggesting that this is the solution, and yes I'd point out that strata is a reference to how Asia builds malls that are intended to become the central hubs to whole neighbourhoods. The strata model is a reference to malls in Malaysia in the 1980s. Over a long period of time, and a terrible learning curve, a number of strata malls failed. These malls were structured like condo units with a relative lack of strong property management. Tenants were able to dictate how their respective units were managed, and each unit holder was incentivized to keep pushing management fees low.

This is probably an oversimplification as there were some legal issues of accessing funds for repairs, tenants responding to repair issues by refusing to pay fees, and other problems that contributed to the deterioration. But, as a result, such strata malls failed to maintain anchor businesses, public areas fell into disrepair and neglect, and businesses would leave the mall as the conditions continued to deteriorate over time. Eventually, the community itself abandons the mall in favour of other pastures, and the structure becomes dilapidated and abandoned.

However, the strata model was eventually replaced with a centralized management model. A managed property that could control the theming of the mall was able to keep refreshing itself in order to keep visitors engaged. Anchor businesses - including restaurants, food courts, and such - entered profit sharing deals to incentivize an active interest in maintaining a shared responsibility for the entire hub or mall - along with its common areas. Some of these malls include residential towers mixed into its planning, along with surrounding towers, pedestrian ways, and public transit as part of its development.

In this way the mall is not just a place for high and low tide, but actively presents itself as a focus for people to congregate, meet, and have events. I'd suggest that this community oriented - profit sharing - incentive sounds reasonable. But, this is not the trend out here.

There are no hubs capable of bringing people together, and there are patches that give the impression of stagnation or abandonment. But this model doesn't permit much in terms of active management of properties, the crafting or planning of neighbourhoods, or how these different communities are supposed to stitch together.

For example, Edmontonians did have legitimate gripes about the the Rogers Place arena deal:

Schedule D is a one-page document that sets out the terms of the community benefits advisory committee, as well as how the Oilers will endeavour to be a good neighbour to adjoining communities by addressing concerns about parking and noise.

However, the language used in the document is vague. There are no targets set for how many local people will get jobs, no cost figures to train disadvantaged people. There are no commitments to build housing for people who are homeless or displaced by development around the facility.

Instead, the agreement simply states the Edmonton Arena Corporation "will use their best efforts to encourage job training and employment programs targeted at low-income and high needs residents of downtown Edmonton communities during the construction phase and operations when the arena is complete."

The agreement also contains an acknowledgement by the city that the Edmonton Oilers, through its foundation, has funded charitable initiatives throughout the community.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/edmonton-s-rogers-place-community-benefits-don-t-stack-up-to-projects-in-other-cities-critics-1.3738014

I'd suggest just building a new arena doesn't "revitalize" the surrounding area. Such development only creates open air "fenced" or "gated" areas where the vulnerable are pushed out for simply not belonging. Meanwhile, Oilers fans have to keep paying exorbitant prices for concessions because that's part of the deal with the City of Edmonton. You'd think the Oilers would be incentivized to even look like they want to make a simple gesture for fans to reduce prices - similar to Costco's food court.

Similar to the Malaysia experience, Edmonton will have to review the legal structures of how it enters deals for development in order to create real change in the downtown core. A few more security checkpoints is well intentioned - much like the last few decades.