What If Edmonton Implemented Different Urban Planning Strategies?

The Actual History

Edmonton, Alberta's development pattern over the 20th century largely followed trajectories common to many North American cities, with a few distinct characteristics shaped by its geography, climate, and economic foundations. The city, founded as Fort Edmonton in 1795 as a Hudson's Bay Company trading post, began its modern urban development after becoming Alberta's capital in 1905 and experiencing subsequent growth driven by agriculture and the discovery of oil at Leduc in 1947.

Edmonton's early 20th century development featured streetcar suburbs and a relatively compact core, with the city's first urban plan drafted in 1917. By the 1950s, when Edmonton's population approached 225,000, the city was at a crucial urban planning crossroads. Like most North American cities of that era, Edmonton embraced automobile-centric development patterns following World War II. This approach accelerated in 1959 when Edmonton adopted a metropolitan plan that emphasized expressways and outward expansion. The pattern was further entrenched when the provincial government approved the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission's regional plan in 1963.

A defining moment came in the early 1970s when Edmonton, despite having built the first segment of its Light Rail Transit (LRT) system in 1978 (the first modern LRT in North America), continued to prioritize car-oriented suburban expansion. The city amalgamated with surrounding municipalities in 1982, incorporating large swaths of rural land that enabled decades of low-density growth. The massive West Edmonton Mall, opened in phases between 1981 and 1998, strengthened the car-dependent pattern by centralizing retail away from neighborhoods and transit corridors.

Through the 1980s and 1990s, Edmonton experienced significant spatial expansion with limited population growth, resulting in decreasing population density. The city's footprint grew by approximately 26% between 1971 and 1991 while population increased by only about 12%. By the early 2000s, Edmonton's developed area had reached approximately 700 square kilometers with a population of around 675,000 people, creating one of North America's least dense major urban areas.

Edmonton continued this trajectory into the 21st century, although with some attempts at course correction. The 2010 Municipal Development Plan and subsequent City Plan (2020) emphasized infill development, transit-oriented communities, and increased density. The LRT system expanded with the addition of the Capital Line South Extension (2006), Metro Line (2015), and Valley Line (2022), though these remained limited compared to highway investments. The Anthony Henday Drive ring road, completed in 2016 at a cost of $4.3 billion, reinforced suburban expansion patterns.

By 2023, Edmonton had grown to approximately 1.1 million people in the city proper and 1.4 million in the metropolitan area. The city remains characterized by low-density suburban development (about 3,400 people per square kilometer), high automobile dependency with over 80% of commuters using private vehicles, a relatively underdeveloped transit system, and significant infrastructure maintenance challenges. Winter city considerations, despite Edmonton's harsh climate with temperatures often reaching -30°C, were largely addressed through indoor solutions and roadway snow clearing rather than comprehensive urban design strategies.

The effects of these planning decisions include significant impacts on municipal finances, with long-term infrastructure maintenance costs projected to exceed revenue capabilities, environmental challenges including a high per capita carbon footprint of 18-20 tonnes CO₂ equivalent annually (approximately double the Canadian average), and social impacts including isolation and access issues for non-drivers, particularly seniors and low-income residents.

The Point of Divergence

What if Edmonton had chosen a fundamentally different urban development pathway in the critical period of the 1970s? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Edmonton made a series of pivotal decisions that prioritized transit-oriented development, higher density, and winter city design principles during a crucial growth period.

This divergence could have occurred through several plausible mechanisms. The most likely catalyst would have been a different outcome in the 1970 municipal election, where incumbent mayor Ivor Dent, who advocated for controlled growth, higher density, and transportation alternatives, lost to pro-development William Hawrelak. In our alternate timeline, Dent's reelection could have set Edmonton on a different course, particularly as it coincided with the 1971 provincial election that brought Peter Lougheed's Progressive Conservatives to power, ending the 36-year Social Credit dynasty.

Another plausible divergence mechanism involves the 1972-1973 Oil Crisis, which in our timeline prompted temporary concern about automobile dependency but ultimately had limited lasting impact on Edmonton's urban form. In the alternate timeline, this event combined with stronger municipal leadership might have triggered a more substantive reconsideration of the city's development approach.

A third potential mechanism centers on the 1976 United Nations Habitat Conference in Vancouver, which brought international urban planning ideas to Canadian consciousness. In our timeline, Edmonton sent delegates but implemented few of the conference's recommendations. In the alternate timeline, Edmonton's leadership might have more fully embraced these principles, particularly those addressing northern cities' challenges.

The most comprehensive divergence scenario combines these elements: Mayor Dent's reelection in 1970, followed by the appointment of forward-thinking urban planners (perhaps influenced by Jane Jacobs' ideas gaining prominence in Canada), the oil crisis creating economic impetus for change, and the UN Habitat Conference providing an implementation framework. This convergence could have created the political will for Edmonton to chart a different course—one that embraced transit as the backbone of development, prioritized infill over expansion, implemented winter city design principles, and preserved the agricultural land belt surrounding the city.

This alternate Edmonton would have made these pivotal decisions at a fortunate moment—before the major growth spurred by the oil boom of the late 1970s and early 1980s, allowing new principles to guide the city's expansion during a period of significant investment and development.

Immediate Aftermath

Transportation Reorientation (1974-1980)

In this alternate timeline, Edmonton's most visible initial change came through transportation investments. Rather than focusing primarily on roadway expansion, the city leveraged both municipal funds and provincial oil revenues to develop a more ambitious rapid transit network:

Expanded LRT System: Rather than building just the initial 7.6 km Northeast Line that opened in 1978, Edmonton simultaneously developed three LRT lines forming a basic network of approximately 30 km by 1980. These included routes serving the University of Alberta, West Edmonton, and the Northeast industrial areas.
Bus Rapid Transit: Complementing the LRT, Edmonton introduced a grid of bus rapid transit corridors with dedicated lanes on major arterials by 1976. This provided higher-frequency service and transit priority at intersections, significantly improving travel times compared to private vehicles.
Winter Transit Design: The city pioneered winter-specific transit solutions including heated shelters, enclosed pedways connecting stations to adjacent developments, and snow-clearing equipment specifically designed for transit corridors.
Road Network Modification: Rather than abandoning road projects entirely, Edmonton modified its approach, converting planned freeway corridors to multimodal parkways that incorporated dedicated transit lanes, separated cycle tracks with snow removal provisions, and tree-lined pedestrian pathways.

The economic impact was substantial. The 1973 oil crisis caused construction costs to rise across North America, but Edmonton's earlier commitment to these projects meant contracts were signed before the worst inflation hit. The city's construction sector, which might have suffered during the mid-1970s economic slowdown, maintained robust activity through transit infrastructure development.

Land Use Policy Transformation (1975-1982)

Complementing transportation changes, Edmonton implemented fundamental land use policy reforms:

Growth Boundary Implementation: In 1975, Edmonton established a firm urban growth boundary in collaboration with neighboring municipalities, preserving agricultural land and natural areas while encouraging redevelopment within existing neighborhoods.
Zoning Reform: By 1976, Edmonton revised its zoning code to allow neighborhood-scale commercial uses within a 5-minute walk of most homes, legalized multi-unit dwellings including townhouses and low-rise apartments in formerly single-family districts, and reduced parking requirements near transit stations.
Winter City Design Guidelines: The city adopted comprehensive winter design guidelines in 1977, addressing sunlight access, wind protection, and snow management as fundamental considerations in all development reviews.
Transit-Oriented Development: The areas surrounding LRT stations and major transit corridors were rezoned for higher density mixed-use development with minimal parking requirements, pedestrian-oriented street frontages, and public spaces designed for year-round use.

These policy shifts generated significant opposition from some developers accustomed to greenfield projects and from homeowners concerned about neighborhood change. However, the 1976-1979 oil boom created economic conditions that helped overcome resistance. Rising property values within the growth boundary made infill development increasingly profitable, while higher energy costs made homes in transit-served areas more marketable.

Institutional and Governance Changes (1976-1983)

The divergent planning approach required institutional reforms to implement effectively:

Regional Cooperation Framework: Instead of amalgamating with surrounding municipalities in 1982 as in our timeline, Edmonton established a regional planning authority with neighboring jurisdictions that coordinated development, shared tax revenue, and jointly managed transit services.
Winter City Institute: Edmonton founded the Winter City Institute in 1976, bringing together planners, architects, engineers, and public health professionals to develop and implement cold-climate urban design principles.
Fiscal Reform: The city implemented a property tax structure that accounted for infrastructure lifecycle costs, charging higher rates for developments requiring more extensive municipal services. This created fiscal incentives for compact development patterns.
Public Participation: Edmonton established neighborhood planning councils in 1978, giving communities meaningful input on local development while maintaining commitment to citywide housing and density goals.

By 1983, the physical differences between this alternate Edmonton and our timeline's city were becoming visible but not yet dramatic. The most significant changes were the more extensive transit network, higher-density development around stations, and neighborhood commercial centers beginning to emerge along transit corridors. The true impact of these early decisions would become increasingly apparent in the decades that followed.

Long-term Impact

Urban Form and Development Patterns (1985-2025)

By the mid-1980s, Edmonton's alternative development path began producing visible results that would transform the city over the subsequent four decades:

Compact Growth vs. Sprawl

Neighborhood Evolution: Rather than continuous outward expansion, Edmonton intensified existing neighborhoods. By 2000, approximately 60% of new housing units were being built as infill development, compared to just 15% in our timeline.
Polycentric Development: The city evolved into a network of connected urban villages rather than a monocentric or fully dispersed pattern. By 2025, Edmonton featured 12 distinct mixed-use centers connected by high-capacity transit lines, each with its own character but sufficient density to support local businesses and services.
Agricultural Preservation: The urban growth boundary protected over 220 square kilometers of productive agricultural land that would have been developed in our timeline. By 2025, this agricultural belt supplied approximately 20% of the region's food needs and provided recreational spaces with extensive trail networks.
Footprint Difference: By 2025, alternate Edmonton's urban footprint was approximately 380 square kilometers, compared to over 700 square kilometers in our timeline, despite housing the same population with a much higher proportion of families with children.

Transportation Network Evolution

Transit System Development: The early investment in transit created a virtuous cycle of development. By 2025, Edmonton possessed a 125-kilometer metro rail network with six lines and twenty-two transit centers serving as mobility hubs integrating light rail, bus service, cycling facilities, and shared mobility options.
Modal Split Transformation: The transportation mode share shifted dramatically from our timeline's 80% automobile trips to a more balanced 38% automobile, 32% transit, 15% walking, 10% cycling, and 5% other modes (including emerging micromobility options) by 2025.
Winter Mobility Innovation: Edmonton became a global leader in winter transportation solutions, developing specialized snow clearing equipment for cycling infrastructure, solar-heated sidewalks in high-traffic areas, and covered outdoor escalators connecting elevation changes in the river valley transportation network.
Road Network Repurposing: Major arterial roads were gradually transformed from car-dominated corridors to complete streets. By 2015, over 70% of Edmonton's arterial road network featured dedicated transit lanes, protected cycling infrastructure, and wider sidewalks with weather protection elements.

Economic and Fiscal Impacts (1990-2025)

The divergent planning approach produced significant economic effects that became increasingly pronounced over time:

Municipal Finance

Infrastructure Efficiency: By 2025, Edmonton's infrastructure maintenance requirements per capita were 47% lower than in our timeline, creating fiscal sustainability without the significant tax increases or service cuts seen in many North American cities.
Operating Cost Differential: Transit operations required higher subsidies initially, but by 2000, the more efficient network combined with higher ridership reduced per capita transportation costs. By 2025, Edmonton spent 22% less on combined transportation operations (transit and roads) than in our timeline.
Property Tax Base: The higher-density development pattern generated substantially more tax revenue per hectare. By 2025, commercial properties in transit-oriented centers generated 5-7 times more property tax per square meter than equivalent big-box retail developments in our timeline.

Economic Development

Urban Design Industry: Edmonton became a center for winter city design expertise, developing a significant economic sector exporting planning, architecture, and engineering services to cold-climate cities globally. By 2010, this sector employed over 4,000 professionals and generated approximately $1.2 billion in annual economic activity.
Technology Innovation: The need for specialized winter transportation solutions spurred innovation in equipment manufacturing. Edmonton-based companies developed several patented snow-management technologies that became industry standards in northern cities worldwide.
Talent Attraction: The vibrant urban environment became a significant asset for economic development. By 2025, Edmonton consistently ranked among North America's top ten cities for professional talent retention, particularly in technology and creative sectors, unlike in our timeline where it struggled with talent leakage to larger Canadian cities.

Social and Cultural Transformation (1995-2025)

The alternative urban form fostered significant social and cultural changes:

Community Formation

Public Space Utilization: Edmonton developed a distinctive four-season public realm with weather-protected gathering places integrated throughout the city. Winter festivals and outdoor activities became central to the city's identity, with public space usage in winter months approximately five times higher than in comparable cold-climate cities in our timeline.
Demographic Retention: The diverse housing options and vibrant urban environment helped retain younger residents and families. By 2015, Edmonton's population showed a significantly more balanced age distribution than in our timeline, where younger residents increasingly relocated to larger urban centers.
Inclusion and Accessibility: The transit-oriented development pattern significantly improved accessibility for older adults, people with disabilities, and lower-income residents who cannot drive. By 2025, seniors in Edmonton maintained independent living approximately 7 years longer on average than in car-dependent cities of comparable size.

Health Outcomes

Active Transportation: Higher rates of walking and cycling contributed to measurably better public health outcomes. By 2020, Edmonton residents had cardiovascular disease rates approximately 23% lower and diabetes rates approximately 18% lower than in our timeline.
Winter Depression Reduction: The emphasis on sunlight access, year-round activation of public spaces, and opportunities for social interaction during winter months reduced seasonal affective disorder diagnoses by approximately 30% compared to our timeline's Edmonton by 2010.

Environmental Performance (2000-2025)

The cumulative environmental impacts of Edmonton's alternative development became increasingly significant over time:

Carbon Footprint: By 2025, Edmonton's per capita greenhouse gas emissions were approximately 6.8 tonnes CO₂ equivalent annually, compared to 18-20 tonnes in our timeline—a reduction of over 60%.
Land Consumption: The preservation of agricultural land and natural areas not only reduced food transportation emissions but also maintained ecosystem services including flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, and wildlife habitat.
Energy Efficiency: The compact urban form with buildings designed for the northern climate resulted in heating energy requirements approximately 40% lower than in our timeline by 2015.
Urban Heat Island Mitigation: Strategic design for winter also created benefits during increasingly hot summers. Edmonton's urban heat island effect was significantly moderated compared to our timeline, with maximum summer temperature differentials between urban and rural areas approximately 4°C lower by 2025.

By 2025, this alternate Edmonton had become a globally recognized model for sustainable cold-climate urban development—a stark contrast to our timeline's Edmonton, which continues to struggle with the financial, environmental, and social consequences of its car-oriented, low-density development pattern.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Nadia Kovalenko, Professor of Urban Planning and Winter City Design at the University of Alberta, offers this perspective: "The most remarkable aspect of Edmonton's alternative development wasn't any single policy or project, but rather the holistic integration of transportation, land use, and climate-responsive design. Other northern cities implemented individual elements—Helsinki's transit network, Stockholm's growth boundary, or Copenhagen's cycling infrastructure—but none achieved Edmonton's comprehensive synthesis of these approaches within a North American context. What makes this hypothetical scenario particularly compelling is that it required no technologies or concepts that didn't exist in the 1970s—just different priorities and greater foresight about long-term consequences of planning decisions."

Robert Chang, Senior Economist at the Canadian Urban Institute, provides an economic analysis: "The fiscal implications of Edmonton's divergent path highlight the often-overlooked long-term financial consequences of urban form. In our actual timeline, Edmonton and similar North American cities are facing what we call the 'infrastructure deficit'—the growing gap between maintenance needs and available resources. The alternate Edmonton's more compact form would have dramatically reduced this burden. Our modeling suggests that by 2030, the infrastructure maintenance requirements per household in a dispersed development pattern like Edmonton's actual growth will be approximately 2.8 times higher than in the compact scenario. This isn't merely a theoretical concern—it translates directly to either significant tax increases or service deterioration."

Dr. Amina LaFleur, Director of the Center for Winter Community Health at the University of Toronto, comments on the social dimensions: "What's particularly fascinating about this alternate Edmonton scenario is how it challenges our assumptions about winter cities. The conventional North American approach has been to treat winter as a problem to be avoided—with indoor shopping malls, skywalks, and other ways to escape the season. The alternate Edmonton embraced a fundamentally different philosophy that asked how urban design could help people thrive in winter rather than merely endure it. Our research suggests this approach would have produced measurable benefits for mental health, social cohesion, and physical activity levels. The public health implications are substantial, potentially reducing healthcare costs by 8-12% compared to cities of similar size and climate that followed car-dependent development patterns."