[kcantor]

^
I think what we’re going to see in terms of cost to Blatchford homeowners is the anticipated result of the City keeping ownership - and therefore the revenue - from the DEC. The incentive will always be to maximize the revenue back to the City to the financial detriment of the homeowners who paid for it all.

What should have happened is that ownership of the DEC should have been vested in a Blatchford Homeowners’ Association and any revenue over time should have been distributed back to the homeowners. While both the capital and the ongoing costs would have stayed the same, the revenue dividend would then be treated as income for those homeowners. As an additional income stream recognized by lenders, it would allow for easier qualification for initial mortgages and in the future would make it easier for residents to agree in place.

 

[Offworld]

'Nearly 50% of Blatchford’s developable land has either been constructed, is under construction or is in the planning and development stage – and nearly 100% of the developed land in the first stages is either sold, has a sale agreement in place or has active homebuilder interest. '

LinkedIn Login, Sign in | LinkedIn

Login to LinkedIn to keep in touch with people you know, share ideas, and build your career.

www.linkedin.com

And 99% of what's been built so far makes my eyes puke.

 

[thommyjo]

'Nearly 50% of Blatchford’s developable land has either been constructed, is under construction or is in the planning and development stage – and nearly 100% of the developed land in the first stages is either sold, has a sale agreement in place or has active homebuilder interest. '

LinkedIn Login, Sign in | LinkedIn

Login to LinkedIn to keep in touch with people you know, share ideas, and build your career.

www.linkedin.com

Getting tired of that last line. They’ve been saying that for over a year haha.

Don’t pad the stats fam. Just get stuff built and sold asap.

Looking forward to 200 more homes being possible along the new roads they just finished!

 

[kcantor]

'Nearly 50% of Blatchford’s developable land has either been constructed, is under construction or is in the planning and development stage – and nearly 100% of the developed land in the first stages is either sold, has a sale agreement in place or has active homebuilder interest. '

LinkedIn Login, Sign in | LinkedIn

Login to LinkedIn to keep in touch with people you know, share ideas, and build your career.

www.linkedin.com

For that to mean anything at all, why don’t you post similar statistics for Windermere, Keswick, Granville, Rosenthal, Marquis, Laurel, Starling, Trumpeter, Chappelle, Callaghan, Allard, Hawks Ridge, Orchards at Ellerslie, Edgemont, and Cy Becker etc. over the same time frame including actual number of homes and residents.

 

[CplKlinger]

For that to mean anything at all, why don’t you post similar statistics for Windermere, Keswick, Granville, Rosenthal, Marquis, Laurel, Starling, Trumpeter, Chappelle, Callaghan, Allard, Hawks Ridge, Orchards at Ellerslie, Edgemont, and Cy Becker etc. over the same time frame including actual number of homes and residents.

From a 2023 report done by a third-party appraiser:

I'll note a few changes since that time:
-Townhouse lots are selling very fast, and the Blatchford team is actually struggling a bit to keep up with the demand. One builder alone is planning to purchase half of the lots in the stage currently being developed.
-There's obviously a connection to the LRT now.
-The first mixed use apartment is under construction.
-NAIT's residence has been delayed, I don't know for how long.

 

[Coprolite]

For that to mean anything at all, why don’t you post similar statistics for Windermere, Keswick, Granville, Rosenthal, Marquis, Laurel, Starling, Trumpeter, Chappelle, Callaghan, Allard, Hawks Ridge, Orchards at Ellerslie, Edgemont, and Cy Becker etc. over the same time frame including actual number of homes and residents.

You should know why this is a disingenuous comparison.

 

[kcantor]

You should know why this is a disingenuous comparison.

No more disingenuous than those calling for no more greenfield development until Blatchford and Exhibition Lands and other infill options have been filled up…

 

[CplKlinger]

Coming to Council on Sept 16: A request from admin to sell the Metis Capital Housing Corporation some land along Airport Road for a very sharp looking mixed-use development to house Metis families in need of support. This would be an amazing way to fill that spot.

 

[constance_chlore]

Coming to Council on Sept 16: A request from admin to sell the Metis Capital Housing Corporation some land along Airport Road for a very sharp looking mixed-use development to house Metis families in need of support. This would be an amazing way to fill that spot.
View attachment 678943
View attachment 678942
View attachment 678944
View attachment 678941
View attachment 678935View attachment 678934View attachment 678933View attachment 678937View attachment 678938View attachment 678939View attachment 678940
View attachment 678945

Hey, that's not bad at all! Why is supportive housing so much better than other multi-family here?!

 

[constance_chlore]

And 99% of what's been built so far makes my eyes puke.

Baffling take—with an obvious exception or two, the average Blatchford house is at least as good (probably better) than the average new build elsewhere in Edmonton, and the streetscaping is much better.

 

[Out of Towner]

Baffling take—with an obvious exception or two, the average Blatchford house is at least as good (probably better) than the average new build elsewhere in Edmonton, and the streetscaping is much better.

The building structure isn't anything special but the marquee covering part of the sidewalk is very good for the streetscaping (provided they don't turn around and say it needs to be cut out because it doesn't justify the buildings additional cost to insure)

 

[MattPT]

From a 2023 report done by a third-party appraiser:
View attachment 678893
I'll note a few changes since that time:
-Townhouse lots are selling very fast, and the Blatchford team is actually struggling a bit to keep up with the demand. One builder alone is planning to purchase half of the lots in the stage currently being developed.
-There's obviously a connection to the LRT now.
-The first mixed use apartment is under construction.
-NAIT's residence has been delayed, I don't know for how long.

How dare you use reason and facts! That’s not welcome while discussing blatchford.

 

[Coprolite]

Baffling take—with an obvious exception or two, the average Blatchford house is at least as good (probably better) than the average new build elsewhere in Edmonton, and the streetscaping is much better.

Well, there's no such thing as a universal aesthetic, and given that I've yet to meet anyone who is put off by Blatchford's aesthetic who was someone who I really wanted as a neighbour, I'm content to let that be an "agree to disagree" thing.

 

[kcantor]

From a 2023 report done by a third-party appraiser:
View attachment 678893
I'll note a few changes since that time:
-Townhouse lots are selling very fast, and the Blatchford team is actually struggling a bit to keep up with the demand. One builder alone is planning to purchase half of the lots in the stage currently being developed.
-There's obviously a connection to the LRT now.
-The first mixed use apartment is under construction.
-NAIT's residence has been delayed, I don't know for how long.

Also from the study you quoted and linked to:

You need to note my comment was related to Blatchford vs greenfield which is what it is so often presented here as a “preferred option” to.

Griesbach - like Blatchford - is also large scale infill, not greenfield, which is why Gettel focused on it.

And then there is the city auditors report which was done two years after Gettel’s study:

https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/23518_Blatchford_Development_Performance_Management_Audit.pdf?cb=1712629900

 

[CplKlinger]

You need to note my comment was related to Blatchford vs greenfield which is what it is so often presented here as a “preferred option” to.

Griesbach - like Blatchford - is also large scale infill, not greenfield, which is why Gettel focused on it.

I noticed that, but Gettel didn't just focus on Griesbach; the report explicitly states that it is a better comparison because it's also a massive master planned infill project. Just like it involves repurposing a former army base, Blatchford involves repurposing a former airport; neither of-which can be accomplished as quickly or as cheaply as greenfield development. I'm not trying to argue with you, I just have never been a fan of supporters or critics of Blatchford comparing it to greenfield development.

As for the City Auditor report, it clearly states that their scope is limited to measuring the Blatchford Redevelopment Office's performance management process, not its actual performance. The auditor reported in August that all of their recommendations have been implemented.