Airboy
Senior Member
Spent time at my brother's place in Westpark village at UBC. I think that is what Blatchford could have been.
| NEWS | DATABASE | MAP | FORUM |  |  | SERVICES | UTPro | LOG IN | CITIES |
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Blatchford Development | ?m | ?s | City of Edmonton
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
occidentalcapital
Senior Member
Seems that old information was given to council... and old information reported in media, again....as posted here there are homes for sale in the 400s.
why is everyone so clueless as to what's happening in the city?- it isn't just this file.
why is everyone so clueless as to what's happening in the city?- it isn't just this file.
trevorhayden
Active Member
Has anyone considered that Blatchford isn't actually "not filling up", but is actually being developed more efficiently than car-centric suburbs? So land is being developed more slowly. The UDI's solution to allow single detached homes is completely asinine and exposes they are more about capitalist greed than providing good affordable housing.
EtoV
Active Member
Yes, I would rather half the land be developed, then allow for "speeding up" of the development by allowing single family homes. Using more land doesn't make the development more successful, in fact inefficient land use like that would completely undermine the goals of the development. Calgary has managed to figure out how to eliminate single family homes in their University District, we can figure out how to make it work at Blatchford.
IanO
Superstar
Councillor Cartmell chimes in.
MattPT
Active Member
This guy should, respectfully, piss off. He’s constantly repeating that the cost of land, District energy system, NetZero aspects, and lack of single-family homes are the reasons the neighbourhood is unaffordable/undesirable. If we get rid of the latter three items We’re just gonna build a centrally located shit suburb. As for the cost of land, if it’s exorbitant then it’s something that should be looked at. However, this is centrally located prime land, even more so when LRT and parks are fully built out. A premium on the land is justified. I honestly can’t even wrap my mind around how someone can be so obsessed with getting something done that they rather do it quickly and cheaply maintaining the status quo, and completely reject the original intention. This could literally be a sea of cookie cutter single-family homes that would sell out in a year. But what the fuck is the point of that. How about adjusting expectations, and focus on making it economically sustainable rather than profitable from here on out?
thommyjo
Senior Member
Buddy cares a lot about affordability for leading a SW ward with a lot of 2-6mil homes in it. Not sure why comparing townhome prices to terwillegar towne is relevant… 15-20 years old…cheaper build/quality, out of date finishes, way farther from all universities and downtown.Councillor Cartmell chimes in.
In that case, stop building 800k homes in keswick in your ward Tim. There are 300k detached homes in castledowns!!
itom987
Active Member
They say it will take 25 years to build a carbon neutral neighbourhood. What a load of crap!
25 years to finish an experiment in carbon neutral living. Other countries build entire cities in that time frame while we struggle to do a single neighbourhood! So much for setting an example and combating climate change.
Take these analogies:
You see an ant hill and step on it, the next day your footprint is completely gone. The ants aren't going to let a scar on the urban fabric of their anthill stay for 25 years.
There are two athletes practicing for a running competition, both get in an accident and have damaged tissue on their legs. One athlete immediately goes to the hospital to get surgery done on their legs and rest until the leg is healed before running again.
The other athlete decided to put a bandaid on their leg and continue running, letting the wounds fester. Guess who won the race?
The state of our bureaucracy is what is holding Edmonton back, AND YOU ALL KNOW IT. We need to treat the city like the living being actually is.
25 years to finish an experiment in carbon neutral living. Other countries build entire cities in that time frame while we struggle to do a single neighbourhood! So much for setting an example and combating climate change.
Take these analogies:
You see an ant hill and step on it, the next day your footprint is completely gone. The ants aren't going to let a scar on the urban fabric of their anthill stay for 25 years.
There are two athletes practicing for a running competition, both get in an accident and have damaged tissue on their legs. One athlete immediately goes to the hospital to get surgery done on their legs and rest until the leg is healed before running again.
The other athlete decided to put a bandaid on their leg and continue running, letting the wounds fester. Guess who won the race?
The state of our bureaucracy is what is holding Edmonton back, AND YOU ALL KNOW IT. We need to treat the city like the living being actually is.
Last edited:
archited
Senior Member
In this analogy, how did I get damaged tissue on my legs?
IanO
Superstar
Obviously by walking through an emotional pulp mill.
EtoV
Active Member
Care to explain what bureaucracy is holding this back? The land is all subdivided, serviced, and ready to go. It's the development industry that's still skeptical of denser living in Edmonton.
itom987
Active Member
Archited, think of any damage you want, just make sure the damage is the same for both athletes.
EtoV, No developer wants to develop Blatchford because the environmental restrictions force whatever building they build to be expensive.
No buyer are interested in paying more for something they can get for less elsewhere.
How are we supposed to show a successful neighbourhood that can be copied by cities throughout North America if it will take us 24 years to build? Given the pace of climate change, we might not have 24 years.
We have too many gaps in the urban fabric to create the critical mass needed to make all our bike lanes, transit, 15 minute communities and pedestrianized streets dreams worth it.
At this point in time the city ought to sell the land to developers at a reduced rate so they can build the environmentally friendly homes and sell them at a price that will compete with homes on the outskirts of the city.
EtoV, No developer wants to develop Blatchford because the environmental restrictions force whatever building they build to be expensive.
No buyer are interested in paying more for something they can get for less elsewhere.
How are we supposed to show a successful neighbourhood that can be copied by cities throughout North America if it will take us 24 years to build? Given the pace of climate change, we might not have 24 years.
We have too many gaps in the urban fabric to create the critical mass needed to make all our bike lanes, transit, 15 minute communities and pedestrianized streets dreams worth it.
At this point in time the city ought to sell the land to developers at a reduced rate so they can build the environmentally friendly homes and sell them at a price that will compete with homes on the outskirts of the city.
archited
Senior Member
Again, the City of Edmonton should stay out of the development game -- they are not equipped to succeed at it.
kcantor
Senior Member
does this mean you don’t have high hopes for exhibition lands or for rossdale or for the 400 plus acres in goodridge corners to be more successful than blatchford?
archited
Senior Member
Is that a rhetorical question, Ken?
