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

[quit]

In another forum today, three of the top four candidates for mayor (not including Nickel since he doesn't attend) believe the city should not be playing developer role in Blatchford - with Oshry and Krushell calling progress to date a failure that is tying up a lot of city cash. Sohi is for status quo.

Redirect Notice

From the story - "Krushell, Oshry and Watson spoke in favour of a private sector approach in neighbourhoods like Blatchford where the city is currently involved in development projects.

“Those right now are vacant holes in neighbourhoods, in communities and it is time for us as a city to get out of the land ownership and land development business. It is time for us to sell … and allow people who know how to manage businesses like that can do their own business,” said Watson.

Oshry said there has been $200 million spent, there are 20 townhouses and 600 hectares generating zero per cent property tax right now at Blatchford and it adds up when you take other land the city owns into account."

600 hectares? Lol. Should probably have the figures correct before making public policy statements. Blatchford is a total of 536 acres, some of which have already been developed. 600 hectares = 1483 acres or almost triple the actual available land. I guess it makes it sound more extreme when you put it like that.

 

[David A]

In another forum today, three of the top four candidates for mayor (not including Nickel since he doesn't attend) believe the city should not be playing developer role in Blatchford - with Oshry and Krushell calling progress to date a failure that is tying up a lot of city cash. Sohi is for status quo.

Redirect Notice

From the story - "Krushell, Oshry and Watson spoke in favour of a private sector approach in neighbourhoods like Blatchford where the city is currently involved in development projects.

“Those right now are vacant holes in neighbourhoods, in communities and it is time for us as a city to get out of the land ownership and land development business. It is time for us to sell … and allow people who know how to manage businesses like that can do their own business,” said Watson.

Oshry said there has been $200 million spent, there are 20 townhouses and 600 hectares generating zero per cent property tax right now at Blatchford and it adds up when you take other land the city owns into account."

Hey, buildings are already popping up. Isn't a bit late to have this debate about who should be the developer? It is sort of like dwelling on whether I should have put on the grey or the blue shirt this morning. I think our politicians need to focus more on the future.

I don't think there is any easy answer on this - the time to develop this is based a on number of things including the economy, demand and the size of the parcel. Making things happen faster would probably also have to involve reduced pricing, which might have been good for some buyers, but would have negative impacts in a number of other ways, including the quality of what was developed.

 

[TAS]

But doesn't that point to the issue being developers and not the city? The City is prepared and ready for this to become a dense neighbourhood and has a ton of infrastructure prepared for that to happen, but developers are slow to buy in because it doesn't fit their typical models.

Developers are slow to buy in or do you mean homebuyers are slow to buy in? Wouldn't they be building more if more people are buying?

One of the best things about Blatchford so far is when the city sold off the historic hangar to a private developer to create 225 housing units for NAIT students. It was sold below market value but well worth it I think as the city did not have the capacity to restore that building and it was just sitting and falling apart.

 

[TAS]

600 hectares? Lol. Should probably have the figures correct before making public policy statements. Blatchford is a total of 536 acres, some of which has already been developed. 600 hectares = 1483 acres or almost triple the actual available land. I guess it makes it sound more extreme when you put it like that.

Given that it wasn't a direct quote, the media could have just has easily got that wrong and put in hectares(the media makes errors, believe me - I was in the business). Or when you are speaking at a forum on a number of issues and figures it is easy to slip up terms like that. Geesh. Had Oshry seen the news article before it was printed, he likely would have seen the error.

 

[EtoV]

Developers are slow to buy in or do you mean homebuyers are slow to buy in? Wouldn't they be building more if more people are buying?

One of the best things about Blatchford so far is when the city sold off the historic hangar to a private developer to create 225 housing units for NAIT students. It was sold below market value but well worth it I think as the city did not have the capacity to restore that building and it was just sitting and falling apart.

As CplKlinger pointed out, developers were hesitant initially. Maybe it was due to lack of interest, but a lot of it likely had to do with not believing there would be a market for this type of development in Edmonton. Uptake has been slow initially, it's hard to sell people on an idea alone in a market like Edmonton, but we are already seeing more buy in from developers now that there has been a proof of concept. It remains to be seen whether it is a buyers issue or a developer issue, especially when the plan moves to the higher density forms of housing.

​

 

[TAS]

I think our politicians need to focus more on the future.

I think that is why this issue is being brought up. What types of projects should the city be involved in? Is anything getting shortchanged because of city's investment in this project? Are we being stretched too thin? Should the city play the same role of developer with Northlands? Or should land be sold so we can get revenue sooner than later to support core services and homelessness etc. What is city's track record in managing projects?

It's a good discussion to have.

I would say beyond that, we all want Blatchford to be a great project and community.

 

[Tommy2342]

Blatchford is likely going to end up as one of the most desirable neighbourhood due to its proximity to downtown, new construction, and environmental benefits. Both Oshry and Watson are fringe candidates who have no real chance of becoming mayor. It's really a coin toss between Sohi and Nickel at this point. Last time a municipal election occurred just after a federal election, municipal voter turnout was 17%. The equalization referendum on the ballot strikes a nerve with a lot of Albertans who feel shafted by the feds, so I would expect turnout to be probably double that this time, with half only there to vote to renegotiate transfer payments with the feds.

 

[strata]

I think more important than who gets in as mayor is the fact that the mayor is 1 vote of 13.

That person will not have a magic wand that allows them to do whatever they want with this, or any other City owned project.

 

[strata]

I think that is why this issue is being brought up. What types of projects should the city be involved in? Is anything getting shortchanged because of city's investment in this project? Are we being stretched too thin? Should the city play the same role of developer with Northlands? Or should land be sold so we can get revenue sooner than later to support core services and homelessness etc. What is city's track record in managing projects?

It's a good discussion to have.

I would say beyond that, we all want Blatchford to be a great project and community.

I would say that based on the direction to date on Exhibition Lands & Rossdale, there is a majority of council that believes that in hindsight the Blatchford project has not been executed in a way that is most favorable to the City, and they do not believe going down the same route for these future projects in the right choice.

On the other hand, I don't see the same push from this council to make a large pivot on Blatchford. The talk seems to be more forward looking.


Either way...as the regulator and approving body, there are mechanisms built in to ensure that the vision of Blatchford/Exhibition/Rossdale can be executed by the private sector if that were the choice of a future council.

 

[EdmTrekker]

"the vision of Blatchford/Exhibition/Rossdale can be executed by the private sector if that were the choice of a future council".

Let's hope it is so. But let's make sure its through of a transparent competitive process where the competing developers vision is shared publicly so citizens can be couch potatoes and see the concepts "promised" and give feedback before Council makes an award. I think Edmontonians will coalesce around the best vision for Northlands and Rossdale. As for Blatchford - the horse is out of the barn and we have what we have.

 

[archited]

^^^^ we already have the worst visions for Northlands and Rossdale and it is unlikely to change (maybe a new mayor will change course, assuming not Mike Nichol).

 

[EtoV]

I think more important than who gets in as mayor is the fact that the mayor is 1 vote of 13.

That person will not have a magic wand that allows them to do whatever they want with this, or any other City owned project.

They might not have a magic wand, but they do get to lead public discourse. If your mayor is spouting off about how downtown needs a travel advisory, generally against anything not suburban, and verbally attacking everyone who disagrees with him, that doesn't bode well for the City progressing.

 

[thommyjo]

I think the city's involvement in this first stage is needed to give confidence to the developers and initial buyers. They have to go overboard to win trust vs leaving New homeowners with dirt and missing sidewalks like most new suburbs have for the first few years.

But I agree that its frustrating to see such intentionality in blatchford when infastructire elsewhere serving thousands is neglected or put on a very slow timeline. We need jasper done in the next 2 years, no excuses. We need the west LRT in under 5 years, no excuses.

Come on city. Let's get it done.

 

[DutchBoy]

I'm thinking the city only has so many resources in terms of workers, administrators, project managers and then cash to work with. And then I see construction projects like Imagine Jasper Avenue that have been spread out over so many years because the city doesn't have the resources to do it in a shorter time frame. Or 105 Avenue project gets spread out again over multiple years and a major inconvenience to the residents and businesses in the area.
Meanwhile, Blatchford has a stormwater lake with paths around it, sidewalks and street lights with no homes around them, a playground, sidewalk furniture with benches everywhere - I've never seen so much infrastructure and landscaping built out for 20 homes. Yes, eventually more homes will be built, but why so much in advance when other built out areas where tax revenue is generated now are having their neighbourhood projects drawn out because only so much money and resources to go around.
I still haven't seen bike racks on Jasper Avenue and Blatchford is full of them - for 20 homes! I mean really? Who is biking to Blatchford and locking up their bikes? To see and do what?
Unfortunately Blatchford isn't very affordable for many either when factoring cost per sq. ft - which of course is a major reason more people aren't buying there.
There's also a feeling out there that the city needs to focus a little more on its core services and that it's involved in too many projects outside of that mandate.

I see a few reasons why this may be.

1. Like others said, Blatchford needed some big upfront investments into building infrastructure so that it doesn't look so desolate.
2. Jasper Ave is quite busy right now due to construction. I can imagine that they cut back on installing things like bike racks to reduce further construction load (though I don't find that particularly credible)
2a. More likely is that they're short on stock for bike racks, as is almost all bike equipment right now.
3. Often, projects are co-funded by the province or feds, which come with spending stipulations. City-only projects probably take a backseat to those others, where the agreement might be "spend $X by 20YY to receive a reimbursement, or the money is gone". I'm ignorant as to if or how that affects Blatchford, but city management gets complex quickly because of arrangements like this.

 

[Mattyeg]

This is very quickly becoming my favourite neighbourhood in Edmonton (and our temporary off leash park until more people start discovering it lol).