Most of us don’t remember a time when the Edmonton City Centre Airport (ECCA) wasn’t being argued about. The decades-long debate comes in waves, with the most recent version bobbing to the surface about a year ago.

Since then, the city has undertaken a lengthy public involvement project that wrapped up mid-June. The final report was presented to council on June 24, accompanied by three days of public hearings. Along with the public consultation report, council will consider the now-released ECCA Lands Impact Assessment Results and any new recommendations arising from the hearings in mid-July. It’s a step forward, but who knows when the fate of the airport will be sealed? 

For much of our city’s younger population — at least, those who haven’t yet reached the over-the-hill mark — the opportunity that exists in a redeveloped airport is limitless. The term “sustainability” pops up in nearly every discussion, from arts and culture to the more commonly recognized environmental and economic sustainability. The argument for redevelopment stands firmly on the desire for an end to leap frog suburban sprawl and an increase in urban infill developments. For those who prefer the walkability and convenience of inner-city living, the ECCA land is a hidden gem, bursting with potential for generations to come.

This younger set is interested in the long term. It doesn’t matter what happens in the next two, five, or 10 years. What matters to them is the shape of the city in 30 or 40. “Development is going to take time; it’ll be done in phases,” says Jordan Schroder, a local urban design buff who has been rallying the troops for the pro-shutdown fight for over a year. “The business groups who are against the closure aren’t looking beyond a few years. They forget that there are generations to come who can make much better use of the lands.”

So what is it about the airport lands that differ from, say, the other sizeable packets of land in the city’s downtown core? Isn’t there ample room for infill there? That’s the argument from the anti-closure groups. For them, shutting down the airport makes no sense if the justification is infill development. 

But it’s not just about infill, says Schroder. The 217 hectares of airport land is in the middle of a prime transportation hub. With multiple railway lines and the Yellowhead bordering the space, not to mention the LRT expansion, the airport lands represent an opportunity for high-density, mixed-use development with almost instant access to coaches, trains, transit, and freeways. According to the most recent land assessment report, the space can hold 24,300 residents, create 5,130 jobs and reduce annual property taxes by 2.4 per cent. 

It’s also not going to happen overnight. If redevelopment goes ahead, the airport won’t shut down until at least 2015, with construction to continue over 25 years. And the environmental clean-up aspect hasn’t been finalized, which could affect the timelines significantly. 

Kary Williams is a 31-year-old financial advisor in training. He’s also the volunteer co-chair for the city’s NextGen initiative, which focuses on getting Edmonton youth tuned in to civic affairs. “We push hard for youth to get involved in the debate,” he says. “It’s one of the most important decisions facing our city in terms of urban development and economic impact.” Williams lives in a downtown condo with his wife. His decision to reside in the core was one based on convenience and sustainability. “I love the fact that I can walk to any facility I need,” he says. “We live downtown because its more affordable, well-designed, and ties us into our community.” He sees the ECCA debate as an opportunity to spark a new way of thinking, but recognizes that the process is a long and difficult one. “I feel for council,” he says. “This isn’t an easy decision, but at the end of the day, they have to do what’s best for the average citizen.

So what is best for the average citizen? Mayor Stephen Mandel has been vocal about viewing the debate from a position of urban growth, as have several city councillors. The point, for them, is not just whether or not the airport should be shut down but how to plan for future growth within a sustainable footprint.

After all, the city grew by 30,000 people this year and is expected to grow by more than a million within the next 40. That’s a lot of people, a lot of housing, and a lot of infrastructure to plan for. “We continue to sprawl,” says Williams. “It’s not sustainable from both a taxable point of view and an environmental point of view. If we develop inside the city, we already have infrastructure there.” 
“Redevelopment is complicated and challenging,” says Schroder. “We won’t simply open the floodgates to development.” Although Schroder is very much in support of redevelopment, he also insists that those on the other side need to be a part of the process. “They can’t be marginalized. They have legitimate concerns, but at the end of the day, we all have to work together.” 

Change is never easy. There is a great deal of nostalgia attached to the City Centre Airport too. But for the pro-shutdown group, what’s in store for the city in the next 40 or 50 years is a more pressing issue than keeping the low-traffic airport alive. The ECCA Lands Impact Assessment Results agree: by shutting down and redeveloping the airport lands, the city could gain 18,600 residential units, 23 hectares of commercial, transportation, and office space, and 24 hectares for NAIT expansion, not to mention $23.5 million in annual property taxes.

Although council will hear recommendations on July 10, it’s not likely a final decision will be made anytime soon. And with emotions taking the forefront in the debate, any decision will certainly elicit strong reactions from either camp. “There’s been so much noise from both sides,” says Schroder. “But council will make the right choice in the end. Who will benefit from redevelopment are kids and youth. But really, the impact will be felt by those not even born yet.”