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

[Coprolite]

The renderings and map on Streetside's project page make it look like these will be rowhouse style, with four units joined together.


I'm really surprised at that price point, considering their current Blatchford townhouses haven't been flying out the door as it is, and they're as low as $370k.

They are absolutely being built as row-houses, yes, and thus are within Blatchford's architectural standards and it's on a parcel that was always for freehold row-houses. They're not my cup of tea (nor is anything Streetside has made anywhere ever), and I'm not sure Streetside particularly gets this neighbourhood, but it does provide an option that's low on steps for seniors and those with mobility issues. So, I'm okay with it on a limited basis. These things are vastly outnumbered by townhouse-style row-houses in terms of current or pending construction given that Landmark, Crimson Cove and Encore are basically full steam ahead on townhouses with secondary suites. It certainly doesn't merit the overwrought handwringing and cries of, "It's turning into just another suburb" and other doomsaying, because we're actually coming in above the originally planned number of units for phase 1 (per Fall 2016's newsletter, "Stage one of the development will be located on the west side of the site and will consist of approximately 250 townhome and condo units.").

 

[Barnaby]

Isn't Blatchford's density per sq/km quite high already compared to most neighbourhoods? This is before you factor in future apartments.

I understand the opposition to bungalows, but I don't think they'll be common enough to threaten density. I agree that these homes offer decent options for downsizers. I also think it's malinvestment from a builder's perspective.

I'm also guessing that Pilot's density is higher than the other row housing in Blatchford.

The neighbourhood is on the right track. The area near the LRT stations should become the priorities though.

 

[Coprolite]

Isn't Blatchford's density per sq/km quite high already compared to most neighbourhoods? This is before you factor in future apartments.

I understand the opposition to bungalows, but I don't think they'll be common enough to threaten density. I agree that these homes offer decent options for downsizers. I also think it's malinvestment from a builder's perspective.

I'm also guessing that Pilot's density is higher than the other row housing in Blatchford.

The neighbourhood is on the right track. The area near the LRT stations should become the priorities though.

Straight out of the gate, it's building to a significantly higher density than some core neighbourhoods (eg McCauley, Riverdale), and most Mature Area neighbourhoods.

Yes, Pilot is significantly denser than the density of the freehold townhouse blocks. They have 90 units in here where the number of freehold townhouses completed to date seems to be a little over 100.

It's easy for folks to look, at what's here though and say, "BUT IT'S NOT THE DENSITY WE WANTED" because 1) it's not the area that was ever zoned for higher density, and 2) it's just logistically easier and quicker from the builder's perspective to plan and build a row house than a tower, so of course that's what'll actually get moving first.

 

[thommyjo]

Straight out of the gate, it's building to a significantly higher density than some core neighbourhoods (eg McCauley, Riverdale), and most Mature Area neighbourhoods.

Yes, Pilot is significantly denser than the density of the freehold townhouse blocks. They have 90 units in here where the number of freehold townhouses completed to date seems to be a little over 100.

It's easy for folks to look, at what's here though and say, "BUT IT'S NOT THE DENSITY WE WANTED" because 1) it's not the area that was ever zoned for higher density, and 2) it's just logistically easier and quicker from the builder's perspective to plan and build a row house than a tower, so of course that's what'll actually get moving first.

I’d argue it also speaks to the oversupply of cheap suburban apartments. In many ways, blatchford apartments somewhat give a worse location than most central condos and more pricey than more suburban locations. So the appeal is tough. And there’s still so many potential apartment units nearby that it hurts demand for blatchford imo.

It is a zero sum game to some degree. There’s only so many people looking for apartments every year and Blatchfords designed density was too ambitious for Edmonton to absorb (without the neighborhood becoming super attractive and convincing more suburban buyers/renters to consider central instead, which is hasn’t achieved yet).

We wanted blatchford to be like a mall redevelopment in Toronto or Vancouver… but in reality it’s just another parcel of residential land in a sprawling prairie city. With 20 other, pretty dense, neighborhoods being built all around the city. Plus a very successful culture of infill providing lots of new homes in more built out central areas to add competition as well

 

[Coprolite]

I’d argue it also speaks to the oversupply of cheap suburban apartments. In many ways, blatchford apartments somewhat give a worse location than most central condos and more pricey than more suburban locations. So the appeal is tough. And there’s still so many potential apartment units nearby that it hurts demand for blatchford imo.

Okay. Well, when we rented our basement suite, we had a surprising amount of interest in it and rented it within 48 hours. This seems to be a common experience among people who rent their secondary suites here.

 

[thommyjo]

Okay. Well, when we rented our basement suite, we had a surprising amount of interest in it and rented it within 48 hours. This seems to be a common experience among people who rent their secondary suites here.

There also hasn’t been anything more than townhomes built in 5+ years now….

We got over 40 applications in the last 2 days for our basement suite rental as well. So I think that might just be the rental market these days (which hopefully will drive some projects soon).

But there’s nothing high density in blatchford yet, so developers/investors obviously aren’t coming to the table quickly. Stadium, Wihkwentowin, and suburbs have seen thousands of new units in the last 5 years though.

 

[IanO]

The plan was never 30,000 residents. It was 30,000 people working, living and studying. And nothing about Blatchford is actually preventing the city from doing anything in The Quarters or Rossdale.

You are correct, but 12,500 (min) residential units were also quoted, which would likely use a 1.6 multiplier or so here, so call it even 20,000 people... but could easily be 25000 or more... maybe even 30k... which was quoted and used as the residential target many times over the years (perhaps mistakenly).

Targets include:

-20% affordable
-Mixed use where possible
- 25 units/acre
-Design excellence

@25/acre (blended avg) you will need a lot of multi-fam... for bungalows give you 10-12 units/acre, townhouses 12-18.

Also of note:

'be climate neutral by 2020 and by 2030 run on 100% renewable energy, much of it produced locally'

https://www.edmonton.ca/public-files/assets/document?path=ECCA_Planning_Principles_for_RFP.pdf

and

Architecture Canada | RAIC Alberta implores City of Edmonton not to dilute the sustainability objective of Blatchford

As Canada’s leading voice dedicated to advancing excellence in the built environment, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) Alberta Chapter notes the importance placed on developing the former City Centre Airport lands (known as Blatchford) as a model of excellence in sustainable...

www.canadianarchitect.com

 

[thommyjo]

Very interested to see the transportation use for blatchford in the next census. My guess is that it’ll be worse than most nearby communities in terms of active modes.

This is westmount for reference.

https://public.tableau.com/app/prof...es_FederalCensus2021/PopulationbyAgeandGender

 

[Coprolite]

You are correct, but 12,500 (min) residential units were also quoted, which would likely use a 1.6 multiplier or so here, so call it even 20,000 people... but could easily be 25000 or more... maybe even 30k... which was quoted and used as the residential target many times over the years (perhaps mistakenly).

Targets include:

-20% affordable
-Mixed use where possible
- 25 units/acre
-Design excellence

@25/acre (blended avg) you will need a lot of multi-fam... for bungalows give you 10-12 units/acre, townhouses 12-18.

Also of note:

'be climate neutral by 2020 and by 2030 run on 100% renewable energy, much of it produced locally'

https://www.edmonton.ca/public-files/assets/document?path=ECCA_Planning_Principles_for_RFP.pdf

and

Architecture Canada | RAIC Alberta implores City of Edmonton not to dilute the sustainability objective of Blatchford

As Canada’s leading voice dedicated to advancing excellence in the built environment, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) Alberta Chapter notes the importance placed on developing the former City Centre Airport lands (known as Blatchford) as a model of excellence in sustainable...

www.canadianarchitect.com

Was there something in there about starting with multi-family or an initial density of 25/acre?

 

[IanO]

^It suggested more mixed use and density earlier on.

 

[Coprolite]

^It suggested more mixed use and density earlier on.

It doesn't seem to. It's not like multi-use, higher density builds take less time or the same amount of time to plan and build, or that this was a dense region of the project plan. No land has been taken away from areas allocated in the plan for multi-use, denser construction. And denser, multi-use projects are in the works exactly where they were supposed to go. So there doesn't really seem to be anything to merit doom and gloom.

 

[IanO]

It's not doom and gloom, it's just a reframing of what the intent and goals were and if that's the case, let's do just that, reframe, pump its tires and get it really going with some development around the LRT to build that puzzle from more than one side.

*I still recall working on the Snohetta + Manasc (now Reimagine) and another partner (if I recall) submission.

 

[Coprolite]

It's not doom and gloom, it's just a reframing of what the intent and goals were and if that's the case, let's do just that, reframe, pump its tires and get it really going with some development around the LRT to build that puzzle from more than one side.

*I still recall working on the Snohetta + Manasc (now Reimagine) and another partner (if I recall) submission.

It's the same plan though, no reframing needed. The area around the LRT is ready for projects, but I'm not counting on them to be instant because it takes a lot more planning and resources to get a 14 story building to the start point than a row house. Looking forward to the multi-use buildings on Alpha though (which is a common opinion around here because unlike the suburbs the people who live here look forward to more density).

 

[Coprolite]

Stadium, Wihkwentowin, and suburbs have seen thousands of new units in the last 5 years though.

Okay, that's not exactly an honest comparison, and everywhere it's been built has entailed its own infrastructure development requirements (or in the case of Stadium, Wihkwentowin etc required NEGLIBLE infrastructure development, no implementation of district energy and nowhere near as much demolition and soil decontamination work). There was no capacity to actually build that in Blatchford until now, nor would trying to jump straight to building the section where the LRT line was under construction have exactly worked.

Things have proceeded at the speed they've proceeded because of operational needs. The biggest barrier to the project is the idea that we can't let it cook and everything needs to happen right now and faster.

 

[thommyjo]

Okay, that's not exactly an honest comparison, and everywhere it's been built has entailed its own infrastructure development requirements (or in the case of Stadium, Wihkwentowin etc required NEGLIBLE infrastructure development, no implementation of district energy and nowhere near as much demolition and soil decontamination work). There was no capacity to actually build that in Blatchford until now, nor would trying to jump straight to building the section where the LRT line was under construction have exactly worked.

Things have proceeded at the speed they've proceeded because of operational needs. The biggest barrier to the project is the idea that we can't let it cook and everything needs to happen right now and faster.

I don’t know. I actually do think it’s a fair comparison. Infill high rises in Wihkwentowin arent “easy” to build, whereas a midrise in Blatchford, on the first roads ever built in the community, that have now existed for over 5 years, would be easy to build (in the sense of construction challenges of essentially a suburban build vs squeezing into an urban site).

Why has there been potential for a midrise for 5 years, yet none built yet. That’s a demand issue. Not a construction one.

And new suburbs are all building new infrastructure from scratch too. Edgemont 5 years ago vs today is very different. Blatchford, less so.