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

kcantor said:
soo...

there are 32 completed units in blatchford from day 1, regardless of which year you want to use as day 1.

cmhc reports 1,107 units started in the month of june of 2022 and 911units were completed in the month of june 2022.

there were 7,186 units started year to date by the end of june 2022 and 5,551completions year to date by the end of june 2022.

so yes, it's probably fair to say that the market has indeed spoken and blatchford has missed out.
Click to expand...
But if that were true and the market had already spoken, wouldn't there be a large surplus of unsold homes/lots in Blatchford? The fact is that the homes in that neighbourhood have been selling at a significant premium to other products. I certainly am not trying argue this development has been problem free, but if private developers were so confident in their product they wouldn't be trying to exert so much pressure through their proxies on Council to sell off the entire project to private entities.

Present development patterns on the edges of the city are unsustainable and ugly. I'd be more than happy to lead the charge on private development if more of those developers were doing interesting and thoughtful projects. Most (but not all) of what is coming on line now isn't good.
 
Perhaps the city should demand all future suburban neighbourhoods to have a district energy system with all the environmental controls that were imposed on Blatchford.

The snail's pace of this 'experiment' in Blatchford isn't helping us combat climate change.
 
^^^

why do you think this is restricted solely to the binary design choice you’ve presented?

and why do you think it’s even about design options and not about execution?
 
tkoe_ said:
But if that were true and the market had already spoken, wouldn't there be a large surplus of unsold homes/lots in Blatchford? The fact is that the homes in that neighbourhood have been selling at a significant premium to other products. I certainly am not trying argue this development has been problem free, but if private developers were so confident in their product they wouldn't be trying to exert so much pressure through their proxies on Council to sell off the entire project to private entities.

Present development patterns on the edges of the city are unsustainable and ugly. I'd be more than happy to lead the charge on private development if more of those developers were doing interesting and thoughtful projects. Most (but not all) of what is coming on line now isn't good.
Click to expand...

Isn't it also a case of Edmonton developers not being willing to change the type of product they are selling? Many of the suburban developers have a system that works for them when it comes to greenfield development. Why would they take a risk on a new type of development? Until fairly recently, 90%+ of development in Edmonton has been greenfield, there isn't really a culture of infill developers here like there is in Vancouver or Toronto (or even Calgary honestly). Suburban developers likely won't take a risk with infill development until they see that it can be successful and profitable, which is why we're mostly seeing smaller, new developers in Blatchford. And even once the viability of Blatchford has been proven, it will still be a challenge to get the big names to invest, as it's still much easier to by a a quarter section outside of Edmonton and do what you've always done, vs buy a few lots in Blatchford where there is a different, higher standard.

The developers who have taken the risk with Blatchford likely don't have the capital to be able to build a large amount of units, instead developing a single plot at a time to finance the next project, which is potentially another reason for the slow development.
 
^
you are using the word “developer” to describe land development, multi-family construction, and house building etc. as if they are being undertaken by the same entity.

in fact, each of these roles requires a very different business model and activities and is undertaken and completed by different entities. even within some of the larger firms integrated forms, these roles are undertaken by separate and reasonably autonomous operating divisions.

blatchford has only one developer and that’s the city of edmonton. the customers they need to attract can purchase anywhere and they will purchase where they think they will be must successful in attracting buyers for their product. If they’re unsuccessful doing that, they will bankrupt themselves. that’s how the market speaks.

if a disproportionate share of market activity is occurring elsewhere, that means one of two things. either there is no demand for the chosen product offering or the product is too expensive. it’s not rocket science.
 
kcantor said:
^
you are using the word “developer” to describe land development, multi-family construction, and house building etc. as if they are being undertaken by the same entity.

in fact, each of these roles requires a very different business model and activities and is undertaken and completed by different entities. even within some of the larger firms integrated forms, these roles are undertaken by separate and reasonably autonomous operating divisions.

blatchford has only one developer and that’s the city of edmonton. the customers they need to attract can purchase anywhere and they will purchase where they think they will be must successful in attracting buyers for their product. If they’re unsuccessful doing that, they will bankrupt themselves. that’s how the market speaks.

if a disproportionate share of market activity is occurring elsewhere, that means one of two things. either there is no demand for the chosen product offering or the product is too expensive. it’s not rocket science.
Click to expand...
It’s true that there is not a lot of demand for high quality, dense housing stock in Edmonton, and I hope that Blatchford can provide an example of what this can look like. Large scale builders appear to be quite risk averse in Edmonton, and continue to churn out relatively bland housing stock. I wouldn’t expect them to risk their business models and go all in on Blatchford until there are signs that the public is interested in buying into the community in larger numbers.

It makes sense that smaller builders are leading the way, and this prtially accounts for the pace of development. The city also shoulders some blame, as land servicing and permitting could be expedited until there is some momentum in the area. More importantly, as others have noted, there hasn’t been too much issue with absorption of units that are built, which suggests adequate demand at present.

I like the focus on density and the higher environmental standards in Blatchford, and I hope this doesn’t change. I think we will see growing interest in the community, and it would be great if Blatchford can help to elevate the profile of higher density living as this is something that is sorely needed in Edmonton and in many mid-sized cities in North America.
 
kcantor said:
if a disproportionate share of market activity is occurring elsewhere, that means one of two things. either there is no demand for the chosen product offering or the product is too expensive. it’s not rocket science.
Click to expand...
wanton ignorance.
 
Mattyeg said:
wanton ignorance.
Click to expand...
???
i must admit i've been described as many things but never before wanton.
i must also admit being surprised to find out that having successfully worked in the industry for more than half a century that i'm apparently ignorant as to how it works (as if it works any differently than any other industry).
 
kcantor said:
???
i must admit i've been described as many things but never before wanton.
i must also admit being surprised to find out that having successfully worked in the industry for more than half a century that i'm apparently ignorant as to how it works (as if it works any differently than any other industry).
Click to expand...

As someone gets too dizzy spinning in circles patting their own back it’s easy to miss the point. There is ABSOLUTELY no point in me even attempting to explain when other posters have put it much better than I ever could and you’ve made it clear you are not open to any ideas that don’t provide you with bias confirmation. Example:

EtoV said:
Isn't it also a case of Edmonton developers not being willing to change the type of product they are selling? Many of the suburban developers have a system that works for them when it comes to greenfield development. Why would they take a risk on a new type of development? Until fairly recently, 90%+ of development in Edmonton has been greenfield, there isn't really a culture of infill developers here like there is in Vancouver or Toronto (or even Calgary honestly). Suburban developers likely won't take a risk with infill development until they see that it can be successful and profitable, which is why we're mostly seeing smaller, new developers in Blatchford. And even once the viability of Blatchford has been proven, it will still be a challenge to get the big names to invest, as it's still much easier to by a a quarter section outside of Edmonton and do what you've always done, vs buy a few lots in Blatchford where there is a different, higher standard.

The developers who have taken the risk with Blatchford likely don't have the capital to be able to build a large amount of units, instead developing a single plot at a time to finance the next project, which is potentially another reason for the slow development.
Click to expand...

kcantor said:
^
you are using the word “developer” to describe land development, multi-family construction, and house building etc. as if they are being undertaken by the same entity.

in fact, each of these roles requires a very different business model and activities and is undertaken and completed by different entities. even within some of the larger firms integrated forms, these roles are undertaken by separate and reasonably autonomous operating divisions.

blatchford has only one developer and that’s the city of edmonton. the customers they need to attract can purchase anywhere and they will purchase where they think they will be must successful in attracting buyers for their product. If they’re unsuccessful doing that, they will bankrupt themselves. that’s how the market speaks.

if a disproportionate share of market activity is occurring elsewhere, that means one of two things. either there is no demand for the chosen product offering or the product is too expensive. it’s not rocket science.
Click to expand...
Choosing to disregard and belittle someone because they’ve used the wrong lexicon is a pathetic attempt at deflection. Everything you say is factual while still possibly erroneous/irrelevant when applied to blatchford. It’s frustrating when someone who is right can’t acknowledge that someone else can also be right, but while anticipating a different desired outcome. But I’ll stop because truncated sporadic online communications are not going to lead to agreement lol

mods, I don’t think I’m being mean, but I fully support you deleting my post if I’ve gone too far and am derailing the thread to much…
 
Last edited:
Mattyeg said:
As someone gets too dizzy spinning in circles patting their own back it’s easy to miss the point. There is ABSOLUTELY no point in me even attempting to explain when other posters have put it much better than I ever could and you’ve made it clear you are not open to any ideas that don’t provide you with bias confirmation. Example:




Choosing to disregard and belittle someone because they’ve used the wrong lexicon is a pathetic attempt at deflection. Everything you say is factual while still possibly erroneous/irrelevant when applied to blatchford. It’s frustrating when someone who is right can’t acknowledge that someone else can also be right, but while anticipating a different desired outcome. But I’ll stop because truncated sporadic online communications are not going to lead to agreement lol

mods, I don’t thing I’m being mean, but I fully support you deleting my post if I’ve gone too far and am derailing the thread to much…
Click to expand...
Edmonton home builders’ motto has largely been “think inside the box”. Blatchford challenges the conventional views of both builders and home owners, and this type of change is often met with resistance. With time, I hope it succeeds in providing a different example of what community can look like.
 
^. ^^

why, as has already been asked, do you think this is restricted solely to the binary design choices you have elected to present as the only options in/for the market?

and why, when it comes to blatchford, do you think it’s just about these two design options and not about execution, particularly when you are talking about taxpayer’s picking up the developer’s tab?
 
Last edited:
kcantor said:
^
you are using the word “developer” to describe land development, multi-family construction, and house building etc. as if they are being undertaken by the same entity.

in fact, each of these roles requires a very different business model and activities and is undertaken and completed by different entities. even within some of the larger firms integrated forms, these roles are undertaken by separate and reasonably autonomous operating divisions.

blatchford has only one developer and that’s the city of edmonton. the customers they need to attract can purchase anywhere and they will purchase where they think they will be must successful in attracting buyers for their product. If they’re unsuccessful doing that, they will bankrupt themselves. that’s how the market speaks.

if a disproportionate share of market activity is occurring elsewhere, that means one of two things. either there is no demand for the chosen product offering or the product is too expensive. it’s not rocket science.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
One of the problems with this is the buzz and concepts initially came from bureaucrats, who are not the most connected to the free markets. I don't think in this case they were totally wrong, but they might not have had the timing quite right. On that note, I also don't think it should be called not a success because it is going more slowly than expected.

It is a unique site and a unique project, so obviously not every suburban developer would either be interested in it or feel they have the expertise here. That is not the free market voting against it, it is just good sense for a company to know what its capabilities and interests are. Likewise, if someone new and smaller wants to jump in because they are enthusiastic about the concept, great.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top