chrisvazquez7 said:
When I bought my townhome in Blatchford, I was buying into a specific vision. If the city changes direction now, I will feel betrayed. I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one. This neighbourhood is supposed to be unique, developed in a way no other neighbourhood in Edmonton is. The pace of development is getting faster and I think is just fine for what we’re getting in the long run.
Click to expand...
For me, it's more that it's being bandied about as a quick fix by people who know less than nothing about the place, the actual state of the project, or brownfield development in general, or even greenfield development and refuse to learn.

I don't think inclusion of SFH somewhere would just absolutely break things. It was in the original plan and if it was done in a fashion similar to what's planned for Griesbach's NE Quarter (oh hey that project is still going on and will still be running for many more years how about that). But it would offer absolutely no actual advantages in the name of addressing problems which don't actually exist at this precise juncture, and decent freehold townhouses are spectacularly rare in the inner city at this point. And, as someone who lives here, letting the kinds of people who think they're absolutely needed right now meddle is a bit of an issue, especially when they think they've found a magic go fast/fix everything button that will actually make everything go slower. Indulging their weird entitlement to micromanage things here is going to come at a cost to anyone who has bought in.

Edit: by "original plan", I mean the pre-approval concept as it existed in May 2013, which might not be strictly original but was reasonably true to the original winning design proposal. Looking back at my notes, some changes had gone in, like the pneumatic trash collection was either gone or teetering on the brink. But it did indeed have a limited amount of SFH because the planners felt that since this is Edmonton that they absolutely had to include a certain amount of SFH.
 
Last edited:
I gotta ask the question, are we facing a slowdown in sales and development to warrant talk of SFHs being added? As someone who visits it every few weeks, the area is vastly different than what it was the same time last year, especially with those new rental townhomes popping up.
 
Kosy123 said:
I gotta ask the question, are we facing a slowdown in sales and development to warrant talk of SFHs being added? As someone who visits it every few weeks, the area is vastly different than what it was the same time last year, especially with those new rental townhomes popping up.
Click to expand...
Landmark has sold at least 50% of its next run of freehold townhouses prior to completion of foundations.

The projects which have seen sluggish sales are Carbon Busters (because they're incomplete and have no expected date of completion) and Streetside (which, having been inside one of their units recently, does not really surprise me, since they seem to be offering by far the least bang for the buck of anyone here; though in fairness they've also just been a lot less proactive about selling than NX was, let alone the freehold builders).
 
Last edited:
Kosy123 said:
I gotta ask the question, are we facing a slowdown in sales and development to warrant talk of SFHs being added? As someone who visits it every few weeks, the area is vastly different than what it was the same time last year, especially with those new rental townhomes popping up.
Click to expand...
This is the thing right here. Development is picking up speed, not slowing down. If you look at the development maps, I also wonder where you would put SFHs at this point. The only realistic place left would be in the far west along 121 street but with townhome sales staying strong, why put in a pocket of SFHs in that one corner? Sure, they could abandon the plan for four 4-6 storey lots out that way, but that's about all I see happening. You aren't going to put SFH along the LRT line. That would be a huge waste and would really take away from the planned density.

Let's hope the private report on funding for the Blatchford Utility that was before council this week leads to substantial funding for the Utility. Then let's hope at least one 4-6 storey project gets underway this summer.
 
Kosy123 said:
I gotta ask the question, are we facing a slowdown in sales and development to warrant talk of SFHs being added? As someone who visits it every few weeks, the area is vastly different than what it was the same time last year, especially with those new rental townhomes popping up.
Click to expand...
We're still only completing a few dozen homes a year, not crazy impressive. But yes, we are selling most of what's been build in a reasonable timeframe for townhomes.

We still have SIX land parcels for 4+ story builds that have seen 0 movement in 7 years. Maybe this year they start, but this has to be addressed and acknowledged as Blatchford's plans call for thousands of units of medium + high density, yet we haven't even built a single building yet, despite those 6 parcels being ready for years.

I don't love the idea of shifting plans to include SFHs in some areas. And yet, 1000 people living in SFHs nearby transit and biking and close to downtown is better than 0 people living in unbuilt apartment buildings. There has to be some realism about the big picture.

If the goal is to be green, reduce car dependency and sprawl, and to help more people live centrally, that goal can have flexibility in how it's built out. Again, THOUSANDS of units of townhomes, apartments, and condos have been added outside of the henday in the last 5 years, meanwhile blatchford has 0 condos/apartments (med/high density) and a bit over a hundred freehold/condo townhomes.

Is the goal to make our entire city more green, less congested, and less car focused? Or to have 1 neighbourhood we can parade around as being special while we let dozens of other new suburbs be built with crap transit, low walkability, long commutes, and in place of former agricultural/forest lands?
 
I'm sitting here with a big bowl of popcorn, musing about those wishing to create a municipal development corp in Edmonton. That ship has sailed. Bureaucrats aren't developers (hello Blatchford) or builders, and anybody in the private sector wanting to join an MDC in Edmonton probably underperforms in the private sector.

Maybe if the capital C City had the level of professionalism and businesslike manner necessary to make an MDC a going concern respectable in the market, it would work. But Edmonton? I don't know if there's enough popcorn in the world to watch that unfurl.
 
Offworld said:
if the capital C City had the level of professionalism and businesslike manner
Click to expand...
Amen to that! And it extends to the way the City holds competitions -- e.g. Warehouse Park. The City of Edmonton excels at many things but Development as a means to excite possibilities is certainly not one of them.
 
thommyjo said:
We're still only completing a few dozen homes a year, not crazy impressive. But yes, we are selling most of what's been build in a reasonable timeframe for townhomes.

We still have SIX land parcels for 4+ story builds that have seen 0 movement in 7 years. Maybe this year they start, but this has to be addressed and acknowledged as Blatchford's plans call for thousands of units of medium + high density, yet we haven't even built a single building yet, despite those 6 parcels being ready for years.

I don't love the idea of shifting plans to include SFHs in some areas. And yet, 1000 people living in SFHs nearby transit and biking and close to downtown is better than 0 people living in unbuilt apartment buildings. There has to be some realism about the big picture.

If the goal is to be green, reduce car dependency and sprawl, and to help more people live centrally, that goal can have flexibility in how it's built out. Again, THOUSANDS of units of townhomes, apartments, and condos have been added outside of the henday in the last 5 years, meanwhile blatchford has 0 condos/apartments (med/high density) and a bit over a hundred freehold/condo townhomes.

Is the goal to make our entire city more green, less congested, and less car focused? Or to have 1 neighbourhood we can parade around as being special while we let dozens of other new suburbs be built with crap transit, low walkability, long commutes, and in place of former agricultural/forest lands?
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that there needs to be flexibility, but the idea of abandoning the plans along the LRT line in favour of SFHs there is far too drastic. I was biking through the southern half of Westwood yesterday which is almost all small apartment buildings. That is what developed just based on NAIT being nearby before there was any LRT access. Surely we can realistically aim for that part of Blatchford to be denser than that area.

As for the empty 4-6 story plots, most of those have now sold and those sales (from what I understand) mostly took place in the last 12 months, so there is no changing plans there. Two of them are designated for affordable housing which it would be lovely to get funding for.

I don't pretend that Blatchford is perfect and there are legitimate criticisms of the past. But lets not throw out plans when things are starting to happen now.
 
Let me summarize the last few pages of this thread:

We have to build!

We are building!

Ok, but we have to build!

Ya but, we are building!

No, but it’s important to build!

K, but we’re doing that!


There you go, saved you some time so now you don’t have to read through…
 
fjordgard said:
I don't disagree that there needs to be flexibility, but the idea of abandoning the plans along the LRT line in favour of SFHs there is far too drastic. I was biking through the southern half of Westwood yesterday which is almost all small apartment buildings. That is what developed just based on NAIT being nearby before there was any LRT access. Surely we can realistically aim for that part of Blatchford to be denser than that area.

As for the empty 4-6 story plots, most of those have now sold and those sales (from what I understand) mostly took place in the last 12 months, so there is no changing plans there. Two of them are designated for affordable housing which it would be lovely to get funding for.

I don't pretend that Blatchford is perfect and there are legitimate criticisms of the past. But lets not throw out plans when things are starting to happen now.
Click to expand...
Crimson tried to sell condos in 2022 for one of the medium density lots. So there’s definitely been some efforts for a few years. Fingers crossed we see those move in the next 2 years.

Definitely don’t want to see the eastern section changed closest to NAIT/LRT. But the NW portion is worth considering demand vs plans. Multiple highrise and medium density parcels. Then the southern market portion is meant to be mixed use, commercial and residential. So even more apartments and condos.

My curiosity is if we shift the focus of density towards that market area and eastern LRT alignment, then allow the NW to have a developer come in to buy a huge section all together and develop it at a higher rate than the city is currently. Multiple developers going at it at once could help us get more housing quicker. And that larger NW section could be where some larger homes or SFHs could make the most sense as they’re furthest from LRT/downtown/market commercial area and kingsway.
 
Offworld said:
I'm sitting here with a big bowl of popcorn, musing about those wishing to create a municipal development corp in Edmonton. That ship has sailed. Bureaucrats aren't developers (hello Blatchford) or builders, and anybody in the private sector wanting to join an MDC in Edmonton probably underperforms in the private sector.

Maybe if the capital C City had the level of professionalism and businesslike manner necessary to make an MDC a going concern respectable in the market, it would work. But Edmonton? I don't know if there's enough popcorn in the world to watch that unfurl.
Click to expand...

I have often thought the same thing, but yes that boat needed to be a thing well over a decade ago to play a role in this particular campaign ("naval strategy is built strategy" is seeming particularly apt to this metaphor).

But also boy howdy do private sector developers not have a universal competence edge over the city. If I had a nickel for every time I had unfuck some spatial data disaster for a developer to keep them from breaking the law because they're having trouble adjusting to the 21st Century, I would be a lot poorer than I am because in practice I usually get several thousand dollars for that and am probably undercharging them. Municipal projects are a delight by comparison, at least on my end of things.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top