Blatchford Development | ?m | ?s | City of Edmonton

EtoV said:
Maybe it's just because I work in Vancouver where the distinction between land development and building development is less obvious, but this seems to be splitting hairs. You seem to be suggesting that because development arms of a company specialize in different areas, that the fact that edmonton is doing the land development in blatchford means that if the suburban developers aren't deciding to build in blatchford, it must mean they think there is no demand for the product because otherwise the home building arm would simply choose to start developing in blatchford. But this ignores the very obvious relationship these development arms have with each other, they're all still part of the same pipeline are they not? Maybe things here just worked way differently, but are the home builders for suburban developments really working with different land developers? If the home builders are working with an integrated arm, they are going to almost exclusively going to work with that arm. If they are a home builder only, they still will have very few preferred land developers that they will work with.


So yes, technically home builders could go and work in blatchford, but that doesn't mean they will. It's still a departure and a risk compared to whatever system they have built in the suburbs.

And I would disagree with the premise that if something doesn't work then it must be because the "free market" decided. The free market isn't always right, and it's less often free. Asking prospective buyers to choose cheaper housing with larger long term externalities over something more expensive with less externalities isn't a free market decision, because people are terrible at long term thinking and decision making. What it really ends up being is a indication of how many people are concerned about the impacts of development and its environmental footprint, and how well those people think this development will address those impacts (on top of the other more "free market" decisions such as living near the core and living in a theoretically walkable community). This development doesn't fit within the free market framework because the free market is terrible at long term decision-making, and doesn't account for externalities, especially environmental ones. For example, things like EVs and solar panels would not have gotten to the point they've gotten to now without government intervention because the decades of investment and losses would not have been worth the future profits (the free market doesn't care about the environmental impacts). Our world is much more complex to simply say, "oh it didn't work out right away, whelp the free market decided that we should stop trying to attempt more walkable and environmentally conscious development

Edit: to be clear I'm not saying blatchford is like some net zero utopia or anything, just that there is a lot that has gone into making this development greener than typical development in edmonton, even down to the hopefully mixed use nature of the development that will allow for less car use and alternative transportation methods.
Click to expand...
“And I would disagree with the premise that if something doesn't work then it must be because the "free market" decided. The free market isn't always right, and it's less often free.”

This is so true, and home buyers can feel forced to choose from a range of imperfect options. I’m happy to see Blatchford offer something different, as greater choice is beneficial for consumers.
 
EtoV said:
Maybe it's just because I work in Vancouver where the distinction between land development and building development is less obvious, but this seems to be splitting hairs. You seem to be suggesting that because development arms of a company specialize in different areas, that the fact that edmonton is doing the land development in blatchford means that if the suburban developers aren't deciding to build in blatchford, it must mean they think there is no demand for the product because otherwise the home building arm would simply choose to start developing in blatchford. But this ignores the very obvious relationship these development arms have with each other, they're all still part of the same pipeline are they not? Maybe things here just worked way differently, but are the home builders for suburban developments really working with different land developers? If the home builders are working with an integrated arm, they are going to almost exclusively going to work with that arm. If they are a home builder only, they still will have very few preferred land developers that they will work with.


So yes, technically home builders could go and work in blatchford, but that doesn't mean they will. It's still a departure and a risk compared to whatever system they have built in the suburbs.

And I would disagree with the premise that if something doesn't work then it must be because the "free market" decided. The free market isn't always right, and it's less often free. Asking prospective buyers to choose cheaper housing with larger long term externalities over something more expensive with less externalities isn't a free market decision, because people are terrible at long term thinking and decision making. What it really ends up being is a indication of how many people are concerned about the impacts of development and its environmental footprint, and how well those people think this development will address those impacts (on top of the other more "free market" decisions such as living near the core and living in a theoretically walkable community). This development doesn't fit within the free market framework because the free market is terrible at long term decision-making, and doesn't account for externalities, especially environmental ones. For example, things like EVs and solar panels would not have gotten to the point they've gotten to now without government intervention because the decades of investment and losses would not have been worth the future profits (the free market doesn't care about the environmental impacts). Our world is much more complex to simply say, "oh it didn't work out right away, whelp the free market decided that we should stop trying to attempt more walkable and environmentally conscious development

Edit: to be clear I'm not saying blatchford is like some net zero utopia or anything, just that there is a lot that has gone into making this development greener than typical development in edmonton, even down to the hopefully mixed use nature of the development that will allow for less car use and alternative transportation methods.
Click to expand...
the vancouver reference isn't splitting hairs. the vancouver reference simply confirms that home-builders and multifamily builders will deliver what the market will purchase within the mandates imposed on them. i'm not sure why you think it would be different in edmonton.

in regard to your saying "the free market... doesn't account for externalities, especially environmental ones" as a defense of blatchford, isn't doing that at blatchford at taxpayer expense while creating more expensive and less competitive product simply creating a greater disincentive to a market that performs as you describe?

if it's the externalities you want the free market to pay for, especially environmental ones (and i'm not saying you're wrong in having that expectation), wouldn't we be better to equitably impose them across the entire market instead of expecting the consumer to voluntarily pay more knowing they are not good at long-term thinking and decision making when they can otherwise avoid the cost of doing so?
 
kcantor said:
the vancouver reference isn't splitting hairs. the vancouver reference simply confirms that home-builders and multifamily builders will deliver what the market will purchase within the mandates imposed on them. i'm not sure why you think it would be different in edmonton.

in regard to your saying "the free market... doesn't account for externalities, especially environmental ones" as a defense of blatchford, isn't doing that at blatchford at taxpayer expense while creating more expensive and less competitive product simply creating a greater disincentive to a market that performs as you describe?

if it's the externalities you want the free market to pay for, especially environmental ones (and i'm not saying you're wrong in having that expectation), wouldn't we be better to equitably impose them across the entire market instead of expecting the consumer to voluntarily pay more knowing they are not good at long-term thinking and decision making when they can otherwise avoid the cost of doing so?
Click to expand...
1. It's splitting hairs because in Vancouver, as in Edmonton, even if there's technically separate arms that work on land development vs. home building, they are still highly interconnected. Even if Coventry homes for example could go develop in Blatchford, they likely never would, unless the financials were significantly better than their current process. Being on par wouldn't cut it.

2. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here to be completely honest, sorry. The taxpayer is paying some money into blatchford yes, but in reality taxpayers will also be paying for the future costs of the externalities of suburban development. Just because it doesn't have to be paid now doesn't mean those cost don't exist. It is less competitive and more expensive because it is trying to account for some of those externalities in the cost of the homes, so it's not on an even playing field with developments who kick the can down the road more.

3. It would be more equitable to do that, and I would love to see it. Let me know when you find a politician with the political will to implement this!
 
"After a very rainy June, construction on site has benefited from sunny skies throughout July and into August. Our crews have been hard at work in the first two stages of the community and are on track to start work on the next stage of development in the coming weeks.

Work also continues on the Metro Line NW extension. Crews are making significant progress on the line from NAIT to Blatchford.

In August, crews are:

  • Continuing work on the trackway, pouring concrete and installing rails from Blatchford Gate Station working south.
  • Pouring the sidewalks, cycle tracks and crossings that will provide connections to the community once the LRT is complete.
  • Continuing interior and exterior work on the Blatchford and NAIT utility complexes, including the interior painting at the NAIT utility complex and roof installation at the Blatchford utility complex.
  • Installing the station shelters at both NAIT/Blatchford Market Station and Blatchford Gate Station. The station platforms are now completed with precast concrete panels in place."

blatchfordedmonton.ca

Celebrating Summer in Blatchford | Blatchford | City of Edmonton

Live Music in Littlewood Park! We’re so happy that live music shows are happening again in our city and we want to join in on the fun! Join us on the evening of August 18 as we bring two great artists to Blatchford for a free concert. Bring friends, a blanket, a festival chair (26”... Read More
blatchfordedmonton.ca blatchfordedmonton.ca
 
scooterz said:
Good quote from that article: “They’re not wrong to ask for the commercial,” says Kodian, “but who is going to lease it? How do you bring the retail in without the rooftops, and how do you bring the rooftops without the coffee shops?” This is part of the chicken and egg challenge that Blatchford faces. One big potential appeal for the community is the future amenities that should be present, but it could be some time before these are developed. I'm eager to see what kind of options that administration returns in their review of Blatchford. While selling land to developers at a lower price is one approach, it's not the only one and I have no faith that those savings would be passed onto consumers.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the rub so far with Blatchford though? Everything built in Blatchford so far is only built for one demographic - one that can afford to buy the top of the line quoted in the article.

Developer Kim Gibbons, executive vice-president of Encore Master Builders, is proud of the company’s product. “It sells itself,” says Gibbons. “It really is top-of-the-line.”
Click to expand...
Is Blatchford going to continue to be an exclusive place to live? How do you bridge the gap to affordability? I think it can be done, but it is harder for smaller builders to do so with the architectural controls and energy requirements that exist. The latter really limits who you can sub out to. If you can reduce your building costs, eventually those savings will be passed onto consumers, but it is really hard for the existing developers to do so.

When it comes time to sell, when there is variation in the end product, the market will dictate what sells at a given price. When we bought the duplex we are in, we definitely looked at a lot of places and found that there was a difference in quality within the same price point. I don't know, I think the City needs to find a way to attract some of the larger builders - that may mean relaxing some of the architectural guidelines, but perhaps it will encourage lower pricing and a lower cost of entry. I have friends that looked at Blatchford and opted to either buy elsewhere or build the equivalent elsewhere because it was cheaper to do so - geothermal heat pump systems can be done outside of Blatchford in simpler settings for example. These people could afford to live in Blatchford, but they are choosing not to when other options exist in the City. On my block alone in Bonnie Doon, there are four infills under construction, one of which is a duplex with a garage suites, and the rest multi-family in the form of fourplexes or row housing. We may be on a down swing, but infill is still happening and affluent people have options - Blatchford isn't at the top of many lists, except for people that are choosing to wait for the amenities to arrive in the distant future.
 
westcoastjos said:
Isn't that the rub so far with Blatchford though? Everything built in Blatchford so far is only built for one demographic - one that can afford to buy the top of the line quoted in the article.


Is Blatchford going to continue to be an exclusive place to live? How do you bridge the gap to affordability? I think it can be done, but it is harder for smaller builders to do so with the architectural controls and energy requirements that exist. The latter really limits who you can sub out to. If you can reduce your building costs, eventually those savings will be passed onto consumers, but it is really hard for the existing developers to do so.

When it comes time to sell, when there is variation in the end product, the market will dictate what sells at a given price. When we bought the duplex we are in, we definitely looked at a lot of places and found that there was a difference in quality within the same price point. I don't know, I think the City needs to find a way to attract some of the larger builders - that may mean relaxing some of the architectural guidelines, but perhaps it will encourage lower pricing and a lower cost of entry. I have friends that looked at Blatchford and opted to either buy elsewhere or build the equivalent elsewhere because it was cheaper to do so - geothermal heat pump systems can be done outside of Blatchford in simpler settings for example. These people could afford to live in Blatchford, but they are choosing not to when other options exist in the City. On my block alone in Bonnie Doon, there are four infills under construction, one of which is a duplex with a garage suites, and the rest multi-family in the form of fourplexes or row housing. We may be on a down swing, but infill is still happening and affluent people have options - Blatchford isn't at the top of many lists, except for people that are choosing to wait for the amenities to arrive in the distant future.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the goal of opening up Blatchford to a broader range of price points. The way this is expected to occur is through the mid-rise developments and stacked town homes, a number of which are slated for construction. Before relaxing any architectural guidelines I would like to see if these have any traction, and if there is a need for support from the city I could see it being directed to these units as their price points should fall into a more affordable price range than what is currently available. In terms of attracting larger builders, as well as more general Edmontonians, I think Blatchford still needs a few more blocks of development to create an impression of a full community. Once that occurs it should be clear whether there is any broader interest in the community, housing stock, and price points, and if not could be worth exploring alternatives.
 
Some New Development signs.
PXL_20220916_184342461.jpg
 
BASE said:
This will provide and affordable option. I could see these being priced ad the low to mid 400s whereas many of the existing units with 3 beds have been 600+
Click to expand...
But that is my point: we also have way to few (if any) affordable 3 bdrm units in the central neighbourhoods. This scares off families from buying central properties and pushes them away to the sprawling suburbs. Blatchford has such a potential to be the game changer on this that it seems like a wasted opportunity when we only see 1 and 2 bdrm units being launched in the area.
 
stensby said:
Grabbed details from https://stratosphereproperties.ca/about
90 units (81 2bd, 9 1bd) - looks like Plot P/Q on the land sales map.

View attachment 427893
View attachment 427894
Click to expand...

i really don't know what to say... :(

taking away the tacked on asymetrical boxes, i'm pretty sure i saw a previous version of this in soviet housing blocks in prague.

for the life of me i can't reconcile this image with the inspirational "Blatchford hails from a rich history of aviation, rooted in the Golden Jet Age. With streamline design and touches of mid-century modern." tag line on their site.

just as i can't reconcile it with the "inspired by history" hero photo image on their site:

unsplash-image-QdAAasrZhdk.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top