constance_chlore said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CplKlinger said:
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.
Click to expand...
Also from the study you quoted and linked to:
IMG_4548.jpeg

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:

 
kcantor said:
Also from the study you quoted and linked to:
View attachment 679321
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:

Click to expand...
Page 9 of the study cites City Council's goal of reducing green house gas (GHG) emissions for Blatchford residents relative to the "average Edmontonian." It's unfortunate that City Council abandoned its principle of reducing GHG emissions where possible when it came to the fire pits at Warehouse Park. Another case of "do as I say" but not "do as I do." Time for some changes to the city's leadership.
 
kcantor said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Out of Towner said:
It's unfortunate that City Council abandoned its principle of reducing GHG emissions where possible when it came to the fire pits at Warehouse Park.
Click to expand...
Bro, are you allergic to s’mores or something? 😭 I’ve never seen someone complain so much about a fire pit. It’s a drop in the bucket versus transportation and utility emissions
 
Last edited:
yeggator said:
Bro, are you allergic to s’mores or something 😭 I’ve never seen someone complain so much about a fire pit. It’s a drop in the bucket versus transportation and utility emissions
Click to expand...
It's not about how much or low little GHG is emitted by the fire pit at Warehouse Park because the bar of tolerable acceptance can be set anywhere. The City would like the folks at Blatchford to respect its GHG standard but the City isn't respecting its own standard at Warehouse Park. Doesn't look good when the City ignores its own standards does it? City Council should respect and mind its standards when it sets them for others.
 
Last edited:
If one source causes 10,000 times the emissions of another source, it's fair to describe the latter as being negligible in comparison. I don't know the actual numbers for Blatchford's energy policies vs. the fire pits (and I'm not a fan of the fire pits anyway), but like, unless you have at least a back-of-the-envelope calculation there is no reason to harp on it this much.

It's at least reasonable to think that the Blatchford carbon neutrality policies will have a fairly large effect, both directly and indirectly in forcing builders to gain more experience with less carbon-intensive home-building. The fire pits, I have no clue—but do you?
 
Constance. The City's overreaching climate goal initiative was used at Blatchford. It was used for the bike path expenditure. But it wasn't used at Warehouse Park. So if there are exceptions made to the climate goal initiative (regardless of the size of the emission) then the reason for making the exception should be made know.
 
Out of Towner said:
Same guy who defended the City for spending $100M on commuter bike paths half way to Leduc and Stoney Plain because of the contribution they make in reducing GHG doesn't care about the City's public policy standards anymore? (were you one of them) Kind of selective on the principals. Hilarious!
Click to expand...
More nonsense!

You’ll soon have enough to build a straw house with your arguments!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top