roe_ said:
I am not sure if this is the correct interpretation. My understanding is that many cities are now intentionally building transit into new areas prior to development. I believe this has a number of beneficial consequences, including lowering construction costs and quicker build-outs with immediate transit availability.

There a lots of examples online showing metro stations 10 years apart, going from an empty field to a forest of towers. To date, transit development in Edmonton has occurred in already-developed areas, which has tended to be expensive and slow. I don't know if a new approach will lead to better results, but I think it is worth experimenting to find out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, an interesting thing about this particular LRT segment is that it's the ONLY one in the last 40 years to complete ahead of schedule, and it completed a year early. There WAS work that had to be done before it could start (some utility work and a bunch of demolition), but once the corridor was prepped, it was amazing how quickly it went without a bunch of active competing things getting in its way like would have happened if there was construction going on around the stations themselves.

But the downside is that when it completes you have folks complaining BUT WHY IS THERE NOT ALREADY HIGH DENSITY BUILT AROUND IT.
 
I think the argument the other poster is making, which is fair imo, is not “why isn’t there already a ton of high density there?!?!?!” or “why did we build the LRT before the houses?!?!?!”

But rather, why is the vast majority of the development in the first 10 years being done so far from the LRT stations when this is meant to be a green; less car dependent, more transit oriented project.

I do, personally, find the design a bit confusing still as to the LRT alignment, lakes, and homes. Why are we using lakes to turn half of blatchford into a significantly less walkable/accessible to transit development?

It’s literally the same issue we have with our suburbs, where our placement of lakes, large arterial setbacks, and transit placements make car use the only logical choice. We literally shoot our transit in the foot with some of our decisions.

Keeping as much as blatchford within a 5-8min walk of the train stations would have been ideal. Vs 15+ minute walks means fewer will use regularly, if ever.
 
Last edited:
thommyjo said:
I think the argument the other poster is making, which is fair imo, is not “why isn’t there already a ton of high density there?!?!?!” or “why did we build the LRT before the houses?!?!?!”

But rather, why is the vast majority of the development in the first 10 years being done so far from the LRT stations when this is meant to be a green; less car dependent, more transit oriented project.

I do, personally, find the design a bit confusing still as to the LRT alignment, lakes, and homes. Why are we using lakes to turn half of blatchford into a significantly less walkable/accessible to transit development?

It’s literally the same issue we have with our suburbs, where our placement of lakes, large arterial setbacks, and transit placements make car use the only logical choice. We literally shoot our transit in the foot with some of our decisions.

Keeping as much as blatchford within a 5-8min walk of the train stations would have been ideal. Vs 15+ minute walks means fewer will use regularly, if ever.
Click to expand...
It's not "fair", no.

The first phase along Airport Road was situated where it was because it was low-hanging fruit with easy utility connections and easy access to the road grid for bringing in construction material and equipment and they weren't building LRT right on it. It's the only spot that really fit this bill. This has been addressed before.

And it turned out that transit access is fine now that the LRT is complete. It's actually a very easy walk to the LRT (quite possibly the easiest I've had in Edmonton because it's unique in not requiring me to cross a stroad or burn time waiting for traffic lights to not die) and it's nice having very easy access to an extant grocery store.

The lakes are literally needed to provide surge capacity for storm drainage to not overwhelm the downstream storm sewers in heavy rainfall events. And a quick glance at the map shows that no, it's not making Blatchford less walkable or accessible to transit.
 
Last edited:
The furthest house on the satellite view is about 1km (following roads/paths) from either station. I’m a fast walker but that still seems pretty reasonable. AND, it clearly makes more sense for townhomes with their own garage spaces to be further from the stations and then density increasing towards the stations. Similarly, 1km in the other direction from the stations and your 5 or 6 blocks into Westwood and spruce avenue.

Maybe i’m wrong here, but wasn’t there also some hesitation from builders at first because of district energy? It’s not so easy just to plop down a building anywhere on the site as it has to be tied in doesn’t it? Add in runway removal and remediation. I’m sure there is at least some method to the madness. It’s not the freaking mayor and councillors sitting down with a map and saying let’s build here. There is actual people with a hell of a lot more experience than most of us planning out a project the size of 2 or 3 neighbourhoods on a giant piece of contaminated land.
 
MattPT said:
The furthest house on the satellite view is about 1km (following roads/paths) from either station. I’m a fast walker but that still seems pretty reasonable. AND, it clearly makes more sense for townhomes with their own garage spaces to be further from the stations and then density increasing towards the stations. Similarly, 1km in the other direction from the stations and your 5 or 6 blocks into Westwood and spruce avenue.

Maybe i’m wrong here, but wasn’t there also some hesitation from builders at first because of district energy? It’s not so easy just to plop down a building anywhere on the site as it has to be tied in doesn’t it? Add in runway removal and remediation. I’m sure there is at least some method to the madness. It’s not the freaking mayor and councillors sitting down with a map and saying let’s build here. There is actual people with a hell of a lot more experience than most of us planning out a project the size of 2 or 3 neighbourhoods on a giant piece of contaminated land.
Click to expand...

The two biggest events from the perspective of people who live here since I moved in have been 1) the opening of the paved connection to the LRT because everyone was just cutting across the Bravo Boulevard construction ever since the new station opened anyways and 2) the connection of the internal bike grid to NAIT.

But it's easy to sit there and gesture vaguely in the direction of a map and pretend, "IT'S SO CAR CENTRIC," especially if you're not actually good at reading maps.
 
Coprolite said:
The two biggest events from the perspective of people who live here since I moved in have been 1) the opening of the paved connection to the LRT because everyone was just cutting across the Bravo Boulevard construction ever since the new station opened anyways and 2) the connection of the internal bike grid to NAIT.

But it's easy to sit there and gesture vaguely in the direction of a map and pretend, "IT'S SO CAR CENTRIC," especially if you're not actually good at reading maps.
Click to expand...
Hey man, the condescension isn't helpful. I'm cool if you disagree, but these comments are getting pretty rude.

And I'm not looking at maps, I've spent plenty of time walking, biking, and driving around blatchford. And I get that storm ponds are needed, and maybe those exact locations were the only option. But maybe they could have had a different placement too.

The reality is that the NW part of blatchford, which is many more blocks NW from the current developing area, is zoned for a lot of medium and high density that will be too far for most to use the LRT.

TOD is considered 400m to 800m from a station. Much of the current development is already 800m+ from the station. We're looking at 1.5-2km for most of NW Blatchford. That's a 20-30 minute walk....both to and from. That's not TOD.

I believe the census data in the next 2 collection years will prove this. Blatchford will have lower transit use than many surrounding communities, despite being a ground up development and design. That is a mistake IMO.

"And a quick glance at the map shows that no, it's not making Blatchford less walkable or accessible to transit." - I mean, it literally moves thousands of future homes 500-1500m further from train stops, but sure. Just cause the roads/paths connect, doesn't mean it's "walkable". If you can drive to southgate from blatchford faster than you can even walk to the train to begin your journey to blatchford, no "choice riders" will regularly want to use transit.
 
Last edited:
thommyjo said:
Hey man, the condescension isn't helpful. I'm cool if you disagree, but these comments are getting pretty rude.
Click to expand...
I'm cool if you disagree too, but I don't think that any of this Dunning-Kruger driven personal incredulity nonsense you're bringing is helpful and your constant insistence upon never learning anything isn't exactly polite either.

But at least you won't be moving in and that's something.
 
What 800m looks like in blatchford. Very good coverage. If they add in safe secure bike parking at the stations even better. Otherwise Kingsway ave has busses dropping you at the royal alex in a few stops. Also opens a lot of possibilities for infill/density in Westwood along 107st. And also, this alignment was chosen for where it will cross the rail yard and continue north along 113a ST.
IMG_1039.png
 
Last edited:
Coprolite said:
I'm cool if you disagree too, but I don't think that any of this Dunning-Kruger driven personal incredulity nonsense you're bringing is helpful and your constant insistence upon never learning anything isn't exactly polite either.

But at least you won't be moving in and that's something.
Click to expand...
I mean, it’s a forum where few of us are claiming to be experts, but we all like to engage in sharing ideas, opinions, critiques, etc.

You can disagree with my critiques of blatchford and claim dunning Kruger, there’s also endless of critique of blatchford by many of the leading voices in the development space. So idk who you want me to agree with. You, or lots of other people who are also experienced and trained in development and share the same sentiments I’m raising.

And please feel free to show alternative facts to my last post. I felt it was pretty fair and reasonable. A big chunk of blatchford and its density will be beyond what’s considered at all reasonable for transit use. That feels like a miss. Do you disagree? Is the current design the only possible option, or could other layouts have better outcomes for our goals?

We want 50% of trips in the city to be by transit, walking, biking. Blatchford has to accomplish that, if not even more, or else it’s a failure IMO in terms of alignment with our stated vision/goals.
 
MattPT said:
What 800m looks like in blatchford. Very good coverage. If they add in safe secure bike parking at the stations even better. Otherwise Kingsway ave has busses dropping you at the royal alex in a few stops. Also opens a lot of possibilities for infill/density in Westwood along 107st. And also, this alignment was chosen for where it will cross the rail yard and continue north along 113a ST.View attachment 655216
Click to expand...
Much of the left radii of the north station is the lake, and all the land left of it is the medium and high density for blatchford west. Which is exactly my point. The lake positioning hurts walkability.

Also, 800m straight line is often 1k walking on blocks that zig zag. So a 15 minute walk. Few people walk that far for transit if given any alternatives. Again, you can drive to Southgate mall faster than the time it’ll take to walk to the LRT and wait for a train. Not a recipe for success.
 
Last edited:
It’s interesting to see so few actual numbers used to address Blatchford’s comparison to greenfield development.

The City is planning for 11-12,000 units to be developed in Blatchford which is approximately 53 units per hectare. Included in that target is a high proportion of secondary suites larger multi family projects than have been delivered to date.

Keswick by comparison is just over 35 units per hectare prior to the addition of secondary units to the overall mix (they account for 3% of total units although illegal units may account for more)..

Both communities have trails and neighborhood parks and large storm water amenity areas. One thing that Keswick has that Blatchford does not Is existing primary and secondary schools. Blatchford has easier access to NAIT and Macewan and the UofA. Depending on where one works, commuting is probably a wash unless your workplace is working walking distance of an LRT station

Which community works the best for any particular family probably depends on the family and their needs and priorities. Both of them would seem to meet overall municipal goals and objectives.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top