policyenthusiast
Active Member
Likewise, if it wasn't for the high prices I would consider buying there. I also wonder where everyone parks their cars.
Blatchford Development | ?m | ?s | City of Edmonton
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Coprolite
Active Member
It'd be seriously overlooking the low-hanging fruit for other places such a station for the hypothetical rail services intended to be outlined in the September 2025 rail plan, like somewhere over by Coliseum where there is already a rail right of way from the old line to downtown, complete with overpasses and significantly higher frequency of LRT service from the get-go. It also would not have the complexity of trying to put connections to the CN line into this mess below where there isn't really room to do the kind of points and bridges to link to the CN line that were done further west to accommodate the original downtown connection.
Attachments
Coprolite
Active Member
We just park our car in our garage beside our bicycle herd. Our renters park their vehicle on street. It seems to work out.
Last edited:
Coprolite
Active Member
The other half and I were definitely not finding what we wanted for any cheaper anywhere in the city. And it is indeed turning out to be a nice enough place to live and it keeps getting better. But yeah, mid-winter drone footage of construction sites set to depressing music is not exactly a great genre for conveying that.
YEG imagineer
Active Member
Without the current Yellowhead upgrading I would agree with you. But with elevating the Yellowhead at the new interchange of 115 St there is an opportunity to put at grade rail from the CN line directly to Blatchford Gate. Coliseum would be a second choice. You would still need to build a new western turn line to come etc as well as putting in new lines all the way to Coliseum station. Whereas Blatchford is an open brownfield site. Easier to build and in terms of the perception of downtown seems closer by being directly north of it.
Coprolite
Active Member
The actual LRT ride from Coliseum is usually quicker, and the whole area is about to undergo redevelopment. There is already a spur line connecting from near the CN junction to SW of Coliseum to facilitate unloading of LRT vehicles delivered by train, and the land to add a turn west is wide open.
David A
Senior Member
And there is a LRT line and stations in the area, so if the rail station could be located and designed to connect with them, that would be a big improvement to the rail station seeming so isolated.
mcr
Active Member
This. It's not like any of the other new neighbourhoods being built are beautiful during their 7-10 year construction period either. Blatchford was slow out of the gate and has its policy/political wrinkles, sure, but had hurdles other neighbourhoods don't and is picking up steam now. Going to be a great place.
whattheheck
New Member
It's too bad the city is so ideologically driven, because single family laned homes would do well in Blatchford.
The garages could have suites above. There could be side entrances for basement suites for the homes. Think in the style of Westmount, off 124th street.
But - alas - that is forbidden from city councils narrow-minded viewpoint. It's so sad to see common sense go out the window on both sides of the political spectrum.
The garages could have suites above. There could be side entrances for basement suites for the homes. Think in the style of Westmount, off 124th street.
But - alas - that is forbidden from city councils narrow-minded viewpoint. It's so sad to see common sense go out the window on both sides of the political spectrum.
EtoV
Active Member
Yeah, they're super ideologically driven, by not wanting the status quo development that's done everywhere else in the city 
We have literally an entire city where that form of development is allowed, it would be a huge missed opportunity of this blank slate to simply do what is being done everywhere else. It's better for this to take more time than everyone would like, than to develop a neighborhood that looks exactly like every other suburb in the City.
We have literally an entire city where that form of development is allowed, it would be a huge missed opportunity of this blank slate to simply do what is being done everywhere else. It's better for this to take more time than everyone would like, than to develop a neighborhood that looks exactly like every other suburb in the City.
erudyk_29
Active Member
^ Precisely, building SFH's would literally defeat the entire purpose of the development.
Bro literally wants to water down the already watered down project even more so it goes faster.
Bro literally wants to water down the already watered down project even more so it goes faster.
whattheheck
New Member
Hey, don't 'bro' me and pretend your superior. It's so pretentious. And, again, it shows that ideology is in fact the driver here.
SFH's can still be a part of a green development. Did I indicate front drive garage homes? Nope. I stressed laned homes. One lot could easily have three units. What's wrong with that?
Is there anything wrong with how Westmount, for example, is built? A grid, with a mix of single family homes, duplexes, walk-up apartments - feeding into a walkable main street. Oh, the humanity!?
And what is wrong with having Blatchford build out sooner, rather than over a longer time. A longer build out means taxpayers are footing the bills longer.
The sanctimonious musings on construction threads like this are laughable, for how lacking in reality they are.
And if we're talking about breaking the mould, Blatchford is a disaster. Not because it's watered down, but because the city looked to complex, pricey solutions.
If you want to talk sustainability, then why did the city approve a development plan that doesn't take advantage of the southern sun exposure. With the exception of the runways, that land was a green field. The majority the streets should run east/ west, so the homes have north/ south orientations. That's how net-zero works best.
North facades are intended for small windows, south facades have the larger windows to allow for passive solar warming of homes. Roof pitches are then aligned for maximum solar.
The homes could then be better equipped to be green, without the need for an expensive separate utility. But, na, the city (and the holier-than-thou types) focused on NO SINGLE FAMILY because that's how narrow minded and ideological they are.
I know what I'm talking about. Don't talk down to me, just because your looking for likes on an internet forum.
SFH's can still be a part of a green development. Did I indicate front drive garage homes? Nope. I stressed laned homes. One lot could easily have three units. What's wrong with that?
Is there anything wrong with how Westmount, for example, is built? A grid, with a mix of single family homes, duplexes, walk-up apartments - feeding into a walkable main street. Oh, the humanity!?
And what is wrong with having Blatchford build out sooner, rather than over a longer time. A longer build out means taxpayers are footing the bills longer.
The sanctimonious musings on construction threads like this are laughable, for how lacking in reality they are.
And if we're talking about breaking the mould, Blatchford is a disaster. Not because it's watered down, but because the city looked to complex, pricey solutions.
If you want to talk sustainability, then why did the city approve a development plan that doesn't take advantage of the southern sun exposure. With the exception of the runways, that land was a green field. The majority the streets should run east/ west, so the homes have north/ south orientations. That's how net-zero works best.
North facades are intended for small windows, south facades have the larger windows to allow for passive solar warming of homes. Roof pitches are then aligned for maximum solar.
The homes could then be better equipped to be green, without the need for an expensive separate utility. But, na, the city (and the holier-than-thou types) focused on NO SINGLE FAMILY because that's how narrow minded and ideological they are.
I know what I'm talking about. Don't talk down to me, just because your looking for likes on an internet forum.
Last edited:
erudyk_29
Active Member
I did not intend to "talk down" to you. That's just how I talk, I call people bro. I do apologize if that came off badly.
Building SFH's in Blatchford would be contrary to the entire purpose of the city plan, zoning bylaw, etc, to densify and lessen the wasteful land use patterns that they create. Much like @EtoV mentions, at that point, it would be no different in built form than many of the new neighborhoods going up outside the Henday, which generally have a mix of housing types, including predominantly skinny, single detached. The entire purpose of Blatchford is to be a different kind of neighborhood, it's an opportunity that most cities never get. Granted, thanks to its central location and LRT access and its bike infrastructure/ wide sidewalks it would be more urbanist than say Allard or Desrochers, but nonetheless it's a substantial compromise.
Blatchford's entire raison-d'etre is the antithesis of SFH's. I don't have an issue with a neighborhood like Westmount but Edmonton has a ton of neighborhoods like it, Bonnie Doon, Strathearn, McKernan, Belgravia, Ritchie etc. These neighborhoods are great, some of my favorite parts of the city, but why would we waste this opportunity to build something that could (and should) be something different entirely.
I certainly agree with your point about the south facing sun exposure, and also I would say the LRT alignment was poorly chosen, it would have been much smarter to align it along the western portion of the site to link up with the intercity rail station, and make getting over Walker Yard much less expensive. There are many criticisms you can lay at Blatchford, including the abandonment of the waste management and a number of the energy efficiency features, and while it certainly would be nice for it to come together a bit quicker, it's absurd to expect it to be a process that's even remotely as quick as a greenfield suburb, for so many reasons I and many others have already outlined in detail on this thread.
1. Higher land value means that the homes are almost certain to be more expensive (on initial purchase) than a similar counterpart in greenfield suburbia, which will lead to slower uptake
2. Grey / Brownfield come with significant challenges when compared to Greenfield, they not only have to build all the new infrastructure for the homes going in, but also remove all the old airport infrastructure, environmental remeditation, etc. It's never, ever going to be as quick as throwing up some plywood walls in a random field like they do in greenfield.
3. The surrounding area is not particularly attractive and is generally considered a less desirable part of the city.
4. It is isolated from services thanks to Kingsway, Blvd, Princess Elizabeth Ave and the light industrial area to the west.
5. Early sales were significantly hampered by COVID
6. There is a substantial portion of the Edmonton area population that sees the size of a house as the end all be all of everything and does not care about location really at all. Those people are not going to be buying in Blatchford.
7. It is a huge site, and it's going to take a while to fill in and feel like a full neighborhood, which will make it more attractive.
8. No close access to schools, a big issue for families
among many others
considering all those challenges, it's moving relatively quickly.
Introducing SFH's in order to speed up construction, would be a substantial compromise that would hurt the overall density, walkability and sustainability of the development. Especially when considering that, with all the challenges it faces, many of which are not within the city's control, it is not really moving that slowly. Also let's be honest, how much would introducing SFH's actually increase sales and thus speed up development. My guess is not much if at all, certainly not enough to make it worth fully abandoning the original vision of the project and building a more modern looking Bonnie Doon clone when there's so much more potential here.
Building SFH's in Blatchford would be contrary to the entire purpose of the city plan, zoning bylaw, etc, to densify and lessen the wasteful land use patterns that they create. Much like @EtoV mentions, at that point, it would be no different in built form than many of the new neighborhoods going up outside the Henday, which generally have a mix of housing types, including predominantly skinny, single detached. The entire purpose of Blatchford is to be a different kind of neighborhood, it's an opportunity that most cities never get. Granted, thanks to its central location and LRT access and its bike infrastructure/ wide sidewalks it would be more urbanist than say Allard or Desrochers, but nonetheless it's a substantial compromise.
Blatchford's entire raison-d'etre is the antithesis of SFH's. I don't have an issue with a neighborhood like Westmount but Edmonton has a ton of neighborhoods like it, Bonnie Doon, Strathearn, McKernan, Belgravia, Ritchie etc. These neighborhoods are great, some of my favorite parts of the city, but why would we waste this opportunity to build something that could (and should) be something different entirely.
I certainly agree with your point about the south facing sun exposure, and also I would say the LRT alignment was poorly chosen, it would have been much smarter to align it along the western portion of the site to link up with the intercity rail station, and make getting over Walker Yard much less expensive. There are many criticisms you can lay at Blatchford, including the abandonment of the waste management and a number of the energy efficiency features, and while it certainly would be nice for it to come together a bit quicker, it's absurd to expect it to be a process that's even remotely as quick as a greenfield suburb, for so many reasons I and many others have already outlined in detail on this thread.
1. Higher land value means that the homes are almost certain to be more expensive (on initial purchase) than a similar counterpart in greenfield suburbia, which will lead to slower uptake
2. Grey / Brownfield come with significant challenges when compared to Greenfield, they not only have to build all the new infrastructure for the homes going in, but also remove all the old airport infrastructure, environmental remeditation, etc. It's never, ever going to be as quick as throwing up some plywood walls in a random field like they do in greenfield.
3. The surrounding area is not particularly attractive and is generally considered a less desirable part of the city.
4. It is isolated from services thanks to Kingsway, Blvd, Princess Elizabeth Ave and the light industrial area to the west.
5. Early sales were significantly hampered by COVID
6. There is a substantial portion of the Edmonton area population that sees the size of a house as the end all be all of everything and does not care about location really at all. Those people are not going to be buying in Blatchford.
7. It is a huge site, and it's going to take a while to fill in and feel like a full neighborhood, which will make it more attractive.
8. No close access to schools, a big issue for families
among many others
considering all those challenges, it's moving relatively quickly.
Introducing SFH's in order to speed up construction, would be a substantial compromise that would hurt the overall density, walkability and sustainability of the development. Especially when considering that, with all the challenges it faces, many of which are not within the city's control, it is not really moving that slowly. Also let's be honest, how much would introducing SFH's actually increase sales and thus speed up development. My guess is not much if at all, certainly not enough to make it worth fully abandoning the original vision of the project and building a more modern looking Bonnie Doon clone when there's so much more potential here.
Coprolite
Active Member
Density is ideological now?
Coprolite
Active Member
Plus, at this point SFH's are a fix for a problem that does not in any way exist. There is absolutely no difficulty selling the freehold townhouses (except Carbon Busters who is a very special case due to their non completion and their houses being designed like something someone slapped together in The Sims). They sell when they are available for sale (in the case of Encore's builds for 2024, they appear to have overwhelmingly sold in mid construction, and in some cases sold before even being framed). We bought here in part because a house like this is the perfect size/format for us and there was literally nothing like this available anywhere in the city with any kind of transit access to anything. The limiting factor is not that people don't want the houses here; it's how fast land can actually be prepared to build them. Would SFH's sell here too? Sure, probably. But that would just accomplish selling fewer houses in the end because you can't fit as many SFH's into the space that's ready to build without losing living space.
Having lived here since August, I'm finding the whole service isolation thing to be a bit overblown. Kingsway is unpleasant, but once you're across it, you're across it. I can access the LRT to downtown with zero traffic lights. I can access a grocery store with one. Today I walked to the Brewery District with temperatures no higher than -20C to get food for my ridiculous cat and restock my coffee beans and it overwhelmingly was not a bad walk. Biking, it's extremely easy for me to access downtown, Manchester Square, 124 street, the Brewery District, Alberta Avenue, Little Italy and most importantly Ralph's Fried Chicken. But I'm looking forward to this summer's bike/MUP infrastructure build out nonetheless.
The waste management thing could be better, admittedly. The black bin/green bin pickup system is an extremely suburban solution and when you have three units on a lot you run short of space to actually put all of the bins and recycling out. I can see why the whole pneumatic tube thing wasn't done because of cost and making site preparation even more complex, but a pickup system more like what is used in Amsterdam would absolutely be more appropriate to the density of this neighbourhood.