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

Yes they're offering the best product from what I've seen in Blatchford. Sales haven't been a problem as a result.
 
What’s the breakdown of SFHs to townhomes, condos, etc in most cities? Or is there an ideal “target” based on incomes/costs, stages of life, family sizes, etc?

I feel like an interesting question for Edmonton, with how much land we still have to develop within our existing urban space, is if there’s demand for the amount of higher density stuff that’s possible. Cause our new suburbs are bringing a decent amount of townhouses, duplexes, and apartments now too. So for sites like blatchford, exhibition, Michener/UofA farms area, how many non detached homes are we hoping to build? Add in all the TODs, downtown/Oliver/whyte. Like that’s gotta be 100k apartment units.

Is there a case to be made for some of these huge infill developments to be basically the same density as newer suburbs and not aiming for way more? It sounds heretical almost to say haha. But I’d rather see 10k more apartments in downtown and Oliver than for blatchford and exhibitions to be 20% built and Oliver and downtown to stay basically how they are too.

Is the density of our new suburbs, plus the density targets of blatchford/exhibition/quarters actually hurting our existing high density areas by sucking up demand?

4k SFHs in blatchford Would still be 15k people living way more centrally, more likely to use transit/bike, reducing sprawl, etc. we don’t want to be short sited as growth will continue for decades, but I still wonder…
 
thommyjo said:
What’s the breakdown of SFHs to townhomes, condos, etc in most cities? Or is there an ideal “target” based on incomes/costs, stages of life, family sizes, etc?

I feel like an interesting question for Edmonton, with how much land we still have to develop within our existing urban space, is if there’s demand for the amount of higher density stuff that’s possible. Cause our new suburbs are bringing a decent amount of townhouses, duplexes, and apartments now too. So for sites like blatchford, exhibition, Michener/UofA farms area, how many non detached homes are we hoping to build? Add in all the TODs, downtown/Oliver/whyte. Like that’s gotta be 100k apartment units.

Is there a case to be made for some of these huge infill developments to be basically the same density as newer suburbs and not aiming for way more? It sounds heretical almost to say haha. But I’d rather see 10k more apartments in downtown and Oliver than for blatchford and exhibitions to be 20% built and Oliver and downtown to stay basically how they are too.

Is the density of our new suburbs, plus the density targets of blatchford/exhibition/quarters actually hurting our existing high density areas by sucking up demand?

4k SFHs in blatchford Would still be 15k people living way more centrally, more likely to use transit/bike, reducing sprawl, etc. we don’t want to be short sited as growth will continue for decades, but I still wonder…
Click to expand...
i agree with some of what you are saying but you are assuming people solely want to live centrally. someone purchasing in greenfield areas don't necessarily only live there because that's what they can afford. there is a value proposition that many people have for wanting to live in newer neighborhoods and further out.
 
Oilers99 said:
This is exactly what CLC did with Griesbach and now it is flying and they are working toward their last quarter section of land.

The thing that indicates Blatchford has been so poorly handled is that no major local homebuilder was a participant except for Landmark going in recently.
Click to expand...

And CLC originally started with two builders - Homes by Avi and Jayman Homes. But around 2007, fairly early on, several homebuyers were having issues with their Jaymen Homes (one issue was the garage pads had to be redone on several). I remember one owner had a sign on his front veranda saying don't buy a Jaymen Home. It was a crazy market in Edmonton at that time and some builders were having trouble getting trades workers. Prices were really rising, too.
Eventually CLC replaced Jaymen and then started to bring on other builders and things accelerated.

Greisbach is a positive infill example, good mix of options from rentals to owning from 250s to $1 million or more, SFH to townhomes, duplexes, mid-rise condos and garage suites. Lots of green space too, huge community garden, school, and the popular toboggan Hill with one of best views of city.
 
Oilers99 said:
i agree with some of what you are saying but you are assuming people solely want to live centrally. someone purchasing in greenfield areas don't necessarily only live there because that's what they can afford. there is a value proposition that many people have for wanting to live in newer neighborhoods and further out.
Click to expand...
Very much agree. But no one “wanted” to live near 41st ave SW until we built it. They were happy with summerside or twin brooks or riverbend if they wanted something more “on the edge”. No one wanted secord/rosenthal, gariepy and callingwood were it.

So before we go build heritage valley, which is meant to have medium and high density projects, maybe we finish building out areas like blatchford?

I don’t imagine the next 50k homes being built inside the existing city vs in greenfield would cause any sort of uproar over “choice”. And yeah, to your point on “new”, these massive infill sites give the option for “new”, but currently mostly only for higher density formats, which many still don’t want. The challenge of the interprovincial migration is that people coming here have a vision for “upgrading” the size of their homes. So that’ll likely continue to drive sprawl more than it fills the demand for blatchford, downtown, etc.

Maybe a logical compromise is more of a rosenthal/secord/griesbach type build out in areas like exhibition lands. I’d rather townhomes and duplexes and SFHs with garage suites and basement suites in central areas with transit, main streets, biking, shrinking schools, etc vs all those in car dependent greenfield sprawl.
 
I recently saw a YT realtor talk about one of the downsides of St.Albert being constantly increasing commute times.

It's a slow creep, but eventually sprawl becomes a mind numbing, and painful thing to all those that participate in it.

These same things happened in Vancouver, and now the geniuses are the ones that bought in the West End neighbourhood instead of getting a slightly bigger house in Burnaby or Richmond.

I don't see how there is any upside to living far out of the core if you're buying a 1:1 house.
 
^I think the difference is Edmonton is where employment nodes. Many of those commuting to St. Albert aren't necessarily going to Downtown Edmonton. They're going to Nisku or the Heartland or whereever. Regardless they have to commute. I'm not sure how in the future that can be mitigated by transit, maybe buses but everything is just so spread out and all over the place now it's hard to contemplate.
 
Greenspace said:
^I think the difference is Edmonton is where employment nodes. Many of those commuting to St. Albert aren't necessarily going to Downtown Edmonton. They're going to Nisku or the Heartland or whereever. Regardless they have to commute. I'm not sure how in the future that can be mitigated by transit, maybe buses but everything is just so spread out and all over the place now it's hard to contemplate.
Click to expand...
I think this is a good point. Employment in Edmonton relatively spread out. Most people I know living in the suburbs (myself included) aren't working centrally but are working in Acheson, the West End, Sherwood Park, etc. so they are actually living reasonably close to where they work vs. commuting to downtown. While promoting infill and increases central density is important I think it's also important to promote higher density in other places (which is certainly happening now) because not everyone is working in central Edmonton.
 
husky said:
I think this is a good point. Employment in Edmonton relatively spread out. Most people I know living in the suburbs (myself included) aren't working centrally but are working in Acheson, the West End, Sherwood Park, etc. so they are actually living reasonably close to where they work vs. commuting to downtown. While promoting infill and increases central density is important I think it's also important to promote higher density in other places (which is certainly happening now) because not everyone is working in central Edmonton.
Click to expand...
I think in a way, this is what I’m getting at though (but I guess reversed).

Because blatchford in central, we’re trying to make it very high density (relative to the rest of the city). But is there demand for all of blatchford to be apartments and condos when we still have space for tens of thousands of units of those in our downtown? Same with the quarters and exhibition and now Michener. They’re all designed to be quite dense because they’re decently central. But maybe we just need to target the usual “semi dense suburb” model we have, and let the true density build up in the core since there’s a lot less demand for downtown condo living here vs other places.
 
fjordgard said:

The City’s Exec Committee will be discussing this report on Blatchford at its October 13 meeting. Worth reading as it touches on a lot of what has been discussed here the last couple days.
Click to expand...
Very insightful. The “improve entrances” note is a good one. Blatchford is an island currently. Exciting off kingsway into it should feel like any new suburb imo with some nice big, clear, beautiful signage.
 
fjordgard said:

The City’s Exec Committee will be discussing this report on Blatchford at its October 13 meeting. Worth reading as it touches on a lot of what has been discussed here the last couple days.
Click to expand...

"Administration is now pre-selling land in stages that are yet to be serviced, including negotiating a deal for 66 townhouses in stage six of the community"

"Homebuilders have sold approximately half of the fee-simple townhouses to investors who rent out the primary unit and secondary suites and half of the homes have been sold to owner occupied purchaser"

Sounds like momentum is there for the townhouse portions, which will help the neighbourhood get the critical mass to support more of the actual amenities. Having a direct path connection to the LRT and by extension NAIT and onwards should also help in getting the first purpose built rental going.
 
stensby said:
"Homebuilders have sold approximately half of the fee-simple townhouses to investors who rent out the primary unit and secondary suites and half of the homes have been sold to owner occupied purchaser"
Click to expand...

Very interesting and contrary to my expectations. I figured Blatchford would have mostly been owner-occupiers that are willing to pay the Blatchford premium and that investors would be scared off by all the "frills" that would bring down the ROI.
 
From what I've seen driving through the neighborhood, besides the one strip of town homes across from the playground that seems to be sitting unfinished, everything else being built seems to mostly have sold signs out front.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top